[ Page 921 ]

CONTENTS

Night Sitting Routine proceedings Committee of supply: Department of Agriculture estimates Mr. McClelland — 921

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 922

Mr. McClelland — 923

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 923

Mrs. Jordan — 923

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 929

Mrs. Jordan — 930

Mr. McGeer — 930

Mrs. Jordan — 932

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 934

Mr. Schroeder — 935

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 935

Mr. McClelland — 938

Mr. Richter — 938

Mr. Chabot — 938

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 939

Mr. Richter — 939

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 940

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 940

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 941

Mr. Richter — 941

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 941

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 941

Mrs. Jordan — 941

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 941

Mrs. Jordan — 942

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 942

Mr. Richter — 942

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 942

The House met at 8 p.m.

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. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, if someone will take notes for the Minister, I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask. Thank you. He's here.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll get it in a minute. Will you take it for me, Ernie?

I have a couple of questions this evening, Mr. Chairman. First, in regard to egg producers, I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) if he has ordered a rollback in quota prices for egg producers or any other type of producers in the province. Mr. Chairman, if that rollback has been ordered, how much is it, and if it has been ordered, how much does the Government plan to compensate, if any, to the producer for the loss of his quota values?

The next item, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of some urgency, I believe. It has to do with the Pacific National Exhibition. I understand that the Pacific National Exhibition Board of Directors has resigned en masse today and has voted to turn the assets over to the City of Vancouver. Mr. Chairman, The implications of this for the agricultural community in British Columbia are staggering — simply staggering, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I can understand the frustrations that this board must have felt after getting a hatchet job from this Government, and particularly from a Minister of this Government. But I'd like the Minister of Agriculture to check into the legal implications of this move. I'd like him to do that immediately. I'd like the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure, as long as Mr. Strachan takes notes for you.

I'd like the Minister of Agriculture to check into not only the legal implications of this move, but I'd like him to ensure that regional representatives from all over British Columbia are privy to input to the Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister of Agriculture to give us a guarantee that he will protect the agriculture community's considerable investment in the Pacific National Exhibition. Not only investment, but certainly their interest and their concern. We need that protection from the "East End gang," who are insistent on taking over the Pacific National Exhibition.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have the Minister of Agriculture give us that assurance that he will look into these matters. Since this Pacific National Exhibition is an organization which is essentially founded by the provincial government, does it have the right to turn over its assets to the City of Vancouver? I'd like the Minister's comments on that.

The second question I'd like to ask, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the control of municipalities in this province. I want to ask if the control of municipalities has been turned over to the Department of Agriculture in British Columbia, because there seem to be many indications that it has. I refer to a letter under the Minister of Agriculture's signature sent to all of the municipalities and regional districts in the province on February 16, with regard to the so-called land freeze. Mr. Chairman, this letter was sent out and addressed to the approving officers of the municipalities and the regional districts in British Columbia, the secretary-treasurers of all of these organizations. What it did, really, was make things even more confusing than they ever were before.

Certainly the Minister of Agriculture has stepped into an area in which he really had no responsibility before, and I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if he'll tell us if he's taking over that responsibility, because he certainly appears to be in this letter. Somebody said the other day in this House that the municipalities have been made the children of the province. Well, if this is the case, the municipalities have been made slaves of the province, Mr. Chairman.

I refer to this letter in a couple of instances. First of all it tells the approving officers what they may or may not do under this land freeze — the order-in council, Mr. Chairman, which was issued on December 21, and I do not refer to any bills here — in that it says, "There is no appeal to any Minister of the Crown, and all prospective appellants should be so advised."

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a habit that's getting to be prevalent with this Government, in that they don't allow any appeal to anything. But I carry that a little further in that the Minister of Agriculture has intervened in a number of cases personally, and yet he's said in this order under his signature — I really wonder why it didn't come from the Municipal Affairs Minister (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) that there is no appeal. Yet he stepped in himself in a number of

[ Page 922 ]

instances that I am personally aware of, and he has indicated that there are others that I am not personally aware of….

Interjection by an Hon. Member. 

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I wonder what he's really saying, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like him to clarify what he's really saying, because it looks to me as if he might be saying that the Department of Municipal Affairs should butt out of this problem and that he should be the one that tells the municipalities what they can and cannot do.

Mr. Chairman, it's also clear in here that the habit of passing the buck is becoming more prevalent in this province. The Department of Agriculture, with orders like this, is building phony smoke screens, Mr. Chairman, to attempt to shift the blame away from this Government to the elected and appointed officials at lower levels of government. I refer again to this letter, in that it says:

"Where without these orders-in-council a subdivision would not have been approved, the approving officer's explanation for rejecting or not approving a subdivision should include every I reason for taking that action, and not give undue stress to the orders-in-council."

Well, if that isn't passing the buck, I don't know what is. What they're really saying in this province from the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, is that, "We'll blame on the local governments all of the actions that are forthcoming from this order-in council of December 21." We expect you to make mistakes, Mr. Minister, but don't pass those mistakes on to somebody else. Live up to your own mistakes and admit them. Don't expect the poor municipal councils to have to bear the brunt of these mistakes.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Department of Agriculture to quit messing around with the municipalities. Leave it to the Department of Municipal Affairs where it belongs, because they'll do a whole lot better job of handling their affairs, and as a matter of fact the local people themselves, Mr. Chairman, will do a whole lot better job of handling their affairs than this provincial government ever can.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude and ask the Minister if he'd comment on this letter and the reasons for him sending this letter rather than the Department of Municipal Affairs, because I really believe that there has been a cloud of doubt placed over every council and regional district in British Columbia. You've taken not only their authority away, but you've taken their credibility away. I wonder what you're going to do about it. The cloud, Mr. Chairman, has to be dispelled forthwith, and this Minister of Agriculture can do it in this House. Thank you.

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

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): With regard to the egg board quota, you'll recall, those of you that were here before, that an inquiry into the operations of the Egg Marketing Board was instituted by the previous government. The committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Garrish, did a report. One of the things that they addressed themselves to in this report was the value placed upon egg quotas and the fact that these were there at all, when under the original scheme there was to be no value placed on them, the values started to escalate and were getting up to $350 and even $400.

Now, the report made the observation that this was undesirable, and I agreed that it was undesirable. I had discussions with the author of the report, Mr. Garrish. Then I had discussions with the egg board itself and issued some policy guidelines to the egg board based on the Garrish report, including a guideline suggesting, not ordering, Mr. Chairman, suggesting that an attempt be made to control the price of these quotas and hopefully to roll them back. No specific figures were included in the writings to the best of my knowledge, but the instructions were to stop the price from going any higher and hopefully over a period to roll them back.

The quotas issued in total in the province, if you like, but in particular in the Fraser Valley, were too high for the good of the poultry industry in that some producers had bought them at these prices of, say $350.

The government gave a commitment that if quotas did come on the market, not associated with production units so that these quotas could be purchased without upsetting individual producers or upsetting an opportunity for a producer to sell his production unit to someone else, the Government would provide the funds to purchase these quotas and take them out of, for the time being, the egg producing industry.

The PNE Board — I had not heard that the entire board had resigned. To the best of my knowledge every Member of the cabinet is a member of that board and to the best of my knowledge none of my fellow Members in the cabinet have resigned from the board, so I haven't heard that the whole board has resigned. I think if a small group of them have resigned, they haven't consulted me. I was not invited to the meeting at which this possibility was discussed.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. You will get a chance to get up again. I can't quite hear you.

[ Page 923 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's perhaps your advice, I think the previous government did not do too well in following your advice or maybe I shouldn't blame you. Maybe it wasn't your advice that they followed on many occasions when the government managed to get into so much trouble in dealing with the affairs that were under your jurisdiction.

The letter that went out to all these municipal….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: For the moment. I expect you'll have another question. I have answered your question so far.

The letter that went out to the municipalities, to the approving officers — to the best of my knowledge, not one single approving officer seems to have had as much difficulty understanding the letter as the Member opposite has, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time that I have heard that anyone has had any difficulty working with that letter which was an attempt to provide guidelines.

Why it went out under my signature, rather than under that of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hartley), I suggest you might ask that question again when his estimates come up, if you like. In discussions with him, we came to the conclusion that since most of the questions would be concerning agricultural land, it made more sense for them to be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture rather than the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

As far as appeals — you said that the letter said, "Do not make appeals to cabinet Ministers " — that's right, but it went on to say that the appeals should come to the environment and land use committee. So it does lay out the way of appealing. That doesn't mean, Mr. Chairman, that there shouldn't be inquiries of the person who signed that letter.

Individual situations have been looked into by the Department of Agriculture. And where it was felt that these could be dealt with without going the route of the formal appeal before the environment and land use committee; where it was felt that without bending the spirit of the orders-in-council we could accomplish things on behalf of individuals, without putting them to the time — in some cases it would be worse than time — but without putting them to this trouble, they could be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture then they have been dealt with. Not by appealing but by simply asking the department to look into them and sort them out — and as you say, some have been sorted out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley for a supplementary question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. I really would like to have a better answer than that on the problem of the Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Chairman, it is a shocking lack of respect for the agricultural community from the Minister of Agriculture when he is not concerned about the implications of the Pacific National Exhibition problem.

All I really want from the Minister is an indication that he is interested in protecting the agricultural communities' interest and investment in the Pacific National Exhibition. Don't tell me to see a lawyer. I'm asking the Minister of Agriculture — will you look after that problem? Will you ensure that the agricultural communities' interest in the Pacific National Exhibition is protected?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I did miss that point. I did not mark it down, I missed that. The discussions that we have had in cabinet to this point with respect to naming a PNE Board, when that comes up, there is general agreement in cabinet that we must be very aware of the necessity of protecting the agricultural interest when it comes to representation on the board — that we be concerned about commodity groups and the various areas of the province, with particular attention to agriculture that I'm talking about now. That is my main interest as far as PNE is concerned.

So we have discussed that very briefly, not the individuals concerned. I am aware of that and my cabinet colleagues also recognize the importance of recognizing agriculture when it comes to naming the board.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of questions to ask the Minister. In all our discussions relating to the various debates in the House, and today, I still am not clear in the Minister's definition of a farmer. This is very important at this crucial time in British Columbia, when the whole matter of agriculture is under review. I wonder if he could outline what "farmer" will mean in terms of legal content and opportunity to participate in various farm programmes which we hope the Government will be developing.

I would like to go back to this business of labour. When we had the short discussion on the Minister's salary, I was trying to make clear that the major issue in this whole matter is the salary of the farmer and his income and fair compensation.

Without going back to that, I would like to bring to the Minister's attention this problem which is a

[ Page 924 ]

very basic problem particularly in the fruit industry in the Okanagan — the grape industry and the berry industry down in the lower mainland. And that is labour, and an available labour pool from which they can draw.

Just as an example, last year in the fruit growing industry, they certainly had students who filled the labour pool from June until August, but there was not a regular transient labour force of all ages coming through. We think that this is due to the fact that there are higher welfare payments and that there are greater unemployment benefits.

As I pointed out before, the average farm income is around $1.64 an hour, so the farmer is not likely to be able to pay more for his labour, nor is it proving to be an interest on the part of anyone to work on a farm for less than the minimum wage, if that. This is a common problem also in the field crop area in hay — where you need young people where they can work and be outdoors. They just will not work for $2 and $2.50 an hour. They want union type wages.

Back to last year, by the mid part of August, this transient or youth labour force had gone home again to prepare for school. They were left with a very low labour supply, and while they recognized that their communication to the farmers and to the labour market was much better last year, it was a smaller crop. It appears that if they had a major crop, which we would like to have, there just won't be the labour to bring it in and to harvest it.

I was going to suggest to the Minister that you look into, with the industry, the feasibility of setting up a people's programme for the summer. I wouldn't necessarily just say youth, but whereby through Government efforts there would be a labour pool gathered, perhaps even from other provinces.

I can't think of anything better if there is a youth interest in returning to the land, of having young people or even older people from Quebec come out here for the summer. They would have to give a commitment that they would stay for a certain period of time and be given a day or two training on how to handle the crops that they are bringing in — because as the Minister knows, you can have a great crop on the tree and you can take a major crop loss between the tree and the box if it isn't picked properly.

Set this up and give them a guaranteed wage of $2.25 an hour. If the farmer's income is $1.64 an hour, then he should put up that portion and the Government put up the other portion and earmark 25 cents of that $2.25 an hour for cost of living. As the Minister knows, housing of transient workers is a problem, but it is just uneconomical to build reasonable housing for such a short period of time on the part of the farmer. You could well enter into an agreement with local tent and trailer parks or even local motels which are off the main thoroughfare.

I would ask the Minister if he would undertake to investigate such a programme. I think it would be a solid use of taxpayers, money. It is an opportunity for people from other provinces, our own province, to work in an area that is productive for the farmer and for the people of British Columbia. I think if they were trained, and if they did understand what they were doing, they would be more inclined to stay.

I would also suggest one of the problems with transient labour is the tendency to work for five days and take off with your pay cheque to the local pub and not get back until Wednesday or Thursday, if at all, if the farmer doesn't owe them any money. Maybe it might be a good idea to set up a pool under the Growers' Association whereby the wage earner might agree to take half his wage on the weekend and leave the rest in the pool. This would assure him of a return when he is finished, and it also might assure the farmer of the return of his labour on Monday morning, The Minister knows that one of the crucial elements in agriculture is to get your crop in at the right time as far as weather and maturity is concerned.

I would also ask the Minister why — in light of the fact that the Government completely revamped the minimum wage law in British Columbia, and in light of the fact that you knew that this problem was coming up whereby farmers were going to be locked in and the major problem in all this land business is the lack of financial incentive for them to stay there, and that they were going to reject this — you didn't make provisions for a minimum wage in agriculture, and include workers.

I recognize that you will have to subsidize this. But if you know what you're doing, and I hope you do, you know that this labour problem is major and the return to the farmer is major.

You can't bring in this type of blanket legislation without "umbrella" plans to support it. If you do, you do what you did and you get a rebellion on your hands. Essentially a good principle goes down the drain because of the manner in which it's handled.

I'd like to talk for just a minute about the milk industry, in the Okanagan particularly, I feel that this is an industry that essentially has functioned very well. There certainly have been problems but probably in the agricultural world they have been minimal.

The industry is changing and disparities seem to be growing. I believe that the milk board has done a very good job with a few exceptions, and I'm sure that every dairy producer in British Columbia supports the milk board in principle.

They're beginning to feel in the interior that their returns are going down in relation to the coast. This appears evident in the figures — and I would just quote them for the Minister — which will prove that they haven't kept pace with those received by the

[ Page 925 ]

producers in the Vancouver area: In 1964, Vancouver producers received $4.60 cwt.; in the Okanagan they got $4.93 cwt., which was a plus of 33 cents on their part. By 1971, the Vancouver area had gone up to $6.01 and in the Okanagan they were down to $5.80. That is a minus of 21 cents.

Now in 1972, a 10 month period, the Vancouver area return is $6.43; in the Okanagan it's $6.15 — that is a decline of 28 cents.

They feel that the returns to the coastal area producers are higher because of their ever-diminishing cushion of surplus to class I milk while the interior has remained relatively stable. I would ask the Minister what his view is on this and whether he intends to consider a floor price or a pooling arrangement whereby all producers in the province would receive the same amount of money for their class I milk.

I recognize that there are problems. But I think we have to question a number of aspects which have grown over the years. We also have to question the policy of the aggressive selling that is entering into the class I market by one vendor from one area invading the markets of a vendor from another area. This takes money away from the producer when in essence the milk board is supposed to be offering the producers a fair return for their products right across the province.

The problem of price wars — I wonder if the Minister has a policy in mind about this. As you may not be aware, the problem is that you get a major supplier subsidizing the packaged product, taking it into an area, starting a price war and in fact eroding the local market of the local producers and the local cooperative association which is packaging the milk.

I would ask that you review this policy with an idea of coming up with perhaps a more stable approach to this.

On this matter of eroding each other's markets. Again in light of the major policy change which the Government is bringing in, locking the farmer into his area, I think that you should investigate the thought of a policy whereby an outside bidder, whether it's a producer representative or a corporate representative, can bid for the major contracts, such as the local hospital, but give that hospital the right to have perhaps a 5 per cent leeway in the bid in order to give the business to the local producer and the local manufacturer. It just doesn't seem realistic to have producer operations in the lower mainland shipping milk to hospitals in the interior and the interior producers shipping to hospitals down in the lower mainland.

I would ask, when you are reviewing this policy, that you take into consideration the fact that interior producers and the cooperative distributors have a weather problem; they have a large distribution area right through to the Kootenays, regardless of who they are, and this weather problem is fairly consistent during the winter. They should be allowed an extra cost factor in light of this.

As to the board itself, with the increase in producers in the interior and this is showing a shift from the lower mainland I think it's time that the interior producers had a representative on the board; not to champion the particular interior cause, but to offer a better balance and a better overview to the board.

This person needn't necessarily live in the interior. But it should be a person who is acceptable to the interior and the northern producers.

On the subject of the milk board, in the light of the current situation, the interior producers feel that it is time that they had a full-time milk board chairman — and this is not criticism of him — but they are uneasy about meeting him in a business office or a home or somewhere else. If they come down on milk board business, they want to meet the milk board or chairman in the office on their own home ground.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Hon. Member, I believe the Minister had indicated that he would like to have matters such as this considered under the appropriate votes.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm going on to cheese, so it's O.K. This is a general principle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, he can indicate whether he wishes to have this done when he answers.

MRS. JORDAN: The next point that comes to mind in thinking about the milk industry, as the Minister knows, we have a growing cheese industry in the interior. They are specializing in a wine-cured cheese which will use the grapes that we're going to grow. This is a very attractive cheese. It's competitive in price on the market. I find people in Victoria are asking for it. But it just isn't economical to produce it in a major force because of the fact that it's really excess milk that they're using and the return for this is considerably less than the class I milk.

As I understand it, Mr. Minister, a study has been done and there is an opportunity for a cheese industry in British Columbia. I believe that one of the major stores is quite willing to have a B.C. cheese section and to work almost exclusively with British Columbia cheeses.

In light again of the fact that your major problem is to produce a return to the producer, and to expand his abilities into the market, I would suggest that you take under consideration expanded quotas, certainly on an economic basis, for the purpose of producing cheese, and that the stimulation in this be a floor price for the excess milk — or the milk that might

[ Page 926 ]

well not be excess but will be designed for cheese manufacturing.

We're going to have to accept subsidization of agriculture in one form or another in light of the current situation. This is a product that has a potential. It offers greater opportunity for more people to get into the dairy business. It offers an opportunity for more people to get into the dairy business. It offers an opportunity for those in the dairy business to expand and to be sure of a return. This floor price should take into consideration their capital costs in expanding their units, their buildings and their equipment.

If you establish this floor price, I think that you would find there are many people who would go into the business and also, as I mentioned before, a lot who would expand their businesses. I would ask the Minister's comments on this thought.

I'd like to talk for a little bit about the grape industry and to ask the Minister for the figures on the average return to the grape grower in 1972, what the current acreage is and, in light of his statements that he feels there is a future….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: The current acreage in grapes.

…in light of your statements that you feel there is a future for the grape growing industry in British Columbia, what you prophecy or what you base this protection on. How many acres do you anticipate in the Okanagan would make a viable grape industry?

The Minister stated that he was willing, on behalf of the Government, to encourage a grower-owned winery. While I think this is probably a very interesting project I wonder what studies have been done? Have you done studies to ascertain how many wineries we can support in British Columbia; how many wineries we can support in the Okanagan; what acreage would be required to support the current wineries and the one that you would anticipate under this programme?

I can't help but wonder, in light of things that are happening, if this isn't a reflection of the "wither and-die-away-to-outside-business" policy that has been reflected by this Government. Have you really done some homework on this or are you projecting taxpayers' money into a grower-owned situation which may not be viable and which is going to destroy the economic viability of other wineries which are owned by British Columbians — with the exception of Calona — and which were established by taxpayer's money through the federal LIP grant?

Mission Wines in Kelowna got a one-third capital grant. The other winery got a one-third capital grant. Up until now, as far as I know, they are owned by British Columbians. They were built with Canadian taxpayers' dollars and it would seem highly irresponsible to expect them to wither and die away in order to establish another winery.

In projecting this, what is your market? What projected market have you got for the wine? We're producing a lot of wine in British Columbia and unless we're going to become a bunch of winos there must be a limit.

As you know, in the Maritimes they are doing a lot of research on grape growing for the purpose of establishing wineries. They're using the vines that came out of the Summerland research station. They're going to be a competitive factor in the Canadian winery business.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm just trying to see. It's in the Maritimes.

Have you studied and have you discussed with them what they are…. Have you studied the Canadian market potential for wineries? Do you intend to export wine? If so, to what countries and on what foundation do you base this anticipated export business?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There's a little too much….

MRS. JORDAN: Have you looked into the possibility….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Madam Member. I am sorry, but there's too much background noise and I don't think you can be heard. Would the Hon. Members please give the courtesy to the speaker so that she can be heard clearly?

MRS. JORDAN: I guess they're only interested in the finished product of the grape, Mr. Chairman, rather than the raw product. But you could threaten them and tell them that if they don't quieten down I'll read them another poem.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll drink to that.

MRS. JORDAN: I was going to ask again if you had given consideration to buying out one of the current wineries rather than establishing a new one. I would put that forth, depending on what your answer is.

Have you considered any legislation which would insist that British Columbia wineries utilize the full British Columbia grape crop or a percentage of it in order to assure this industry for which you're trying to stimulate a market? What percentage of the grapes now go into wines and what percentage go into other products such as grape jam, frozen grapes — if there is such a thing — in British Columbia? Do you anti-

[ Page 927 ]

cipate, or have you done any studies to anticipate an expansion of this as the utilization of the finished group?

I wonder if the Minister would like to answer those questions now.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, what is a farmer? Now I take that question seriously and I just want to tell you the way I interpret it. I interpret it to mean just how will the legislation that we introduce to help the agricultural industry, to help the farmers, how will it affect people? Will we look at them very closely to see whether they're full-time farmers and that sort of thing? Can I answer it in that light first?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. All right. Let's contrast it if you like with the farm credit corporation, where the requirement is that a person be engaged in full time farming. Now that will not be the direction of the B.C. Department of Agriculture — either in present or developing programmes. Our emphasis will be to improve the viability of the agricultural industry but the people engaged therein need not necessarily be engaged full-time in it. We would hope that by helping people who are engaged part-time they will be able to improve their production unit to the extent that they will be able to engage in that enterprise on a full time basis.

So the legislation will not ask them, "What are you doing the rest of the time? How much time do you intend to spend on the farm?" The Farmer's Landclearing Assistance Act, for example, will not insist on the people involved being full-time farmers. As long as they're putting in some of their time on the farm, and we will certainly insist on them working on the farm producing something, because we don't want to put this kind of assistance into people who are simply sitting on farmland and hoping that someday they will be able to sell it to another farmer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, that's fine. Yes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Sure. This is all in line with the legislation that we can't talk about at this point, which is to encourage the maintenance, encourage the establishment of family farms. That would all lead to that. If a person wants to build up a farm and get it to the point where he can sell it to somebody else who is going to actively farm it, that's fine. As long as it's in view with improving the viability of that agricultural unit. That will be the direction.

The income of the farmer — we've talked about that. We all recognize that something must be done. We're going to work on it and some of the things you've mentioned will come up in that context. Beyond that I really can't say any more than I have already, Mr. Chairman. It is the Government's determination to improve the net income of the farmer. Now time will see whether or not we can actually deliver on that, but it certainly is our determination.

The farm labour problem — harvesting — it's not something that is peculiar to B.C. It's peculiar to the whole of Canada and to other jurisdictions as well. To the best of my information at this point at least, asking people to come in from Quebec would not help because really they have similar problems there and any workers that are available in certain seasons of the year from Quebec are quickly snapped up in Ontario.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I think the cultural programmes will really have to be part of something else rather than farm labour. We bring them out for a relatively short time; we bring them all across the country and then we find that they don't work out too well on the farm. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think it's going to make a particular contribution. It might culturally, but not make any real contribution to solving the problem of farm labour at harvest time.

Now that doesn't mean that more won't be done. You are aware of the cooperation between the federal and provincial departments on this matter of farm labour. You are aware I suppose, probably more aware than I am, of the film that was put out last year to show the….Well, there was a film produced last summer that was shown in those communities where it was felt there might be labour to draw on, to show them how delightful it would be to spend their summers working on a farm contributing to the harvest. How successful it was I don't know.

But it was a selling campaign to try to get young people to go to the farms and take part in the harvest. Now it was just one of the activities. There are different things they are trying from time to time, Mr. Chairman, some with and some without success. But there is this cooperative programme between the federal and provincial governments to try to do something about the availability of farm labour at the times it is so crucially needed.

The minimum wage in agriculture. I am not sure whether you were thinking about the employees or the farmer himself when you….

AN HON. MEMBER: Both.

[ Page 928 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Both. For the employees, I discussed this earlier and said that there was some disagreement within the federation itself as to whether they wanted the regulation that says the minimum wage legislation does not apply to agriculture; whether or not they wanted that taken out. The current thinking is that they're a bit reluctant to have it removed.

As far as a minimum wage for the farmer is concerned, no one can guarantee a farmer a minimum wage unless that farmer wants to be employed by someone, even by the government if you like. Governments can do something about the gross income; at least the unit income. Governments can subsidize, if you like, pay bonus prices of one kind or another. They can do something to adjust the gross unit selling price of what the farmer is producing. Governments can try to do something about the costs entering into that production.

But then two farmers with exactly the same costs and exactly the same selling price are going to have quite different net incomes. When it comes to the net income, unless that farmer wants to go on someone's payroll, we can't really do anything about giving him, an individual, a minimum wage. Because in guaranteeing a minimum wage for one particular farmer under given circumstances, you're saying to someone else, "You're not going to get a minimum wage. You're not going to get enough to survive." And another chap who was more efficient would get much more — not more than some professional people perhaps — but would do very well.

Now we will work on those two things — on something to control the costs and something to control the gross unit price of his product, but we can't really ensure that he gets a minimum wage unless he wants to go on someone's payroll.

The milk industry. You're ahead of me there. I couldn't have given you the figures that you gave me to show that the price in the Okanagan has been going down, relative to the price in the Fraser Valley. The problem in the Okanagan of course — one of the problems, at least — is that it is more seasonal than it is on the coast. I think one reason that the trend has been going in the direction that you have described is that the tourist industry has been increasing so that there is a great demand for fluid milk in the summertime when the population increases so much and then the rest of the year it falls off badly. That's not giving you the answer. It's trying to say that this is part of the reason as to what happened while I was on a Member on the Opposition side of the House. I don't think that Foremost should ever have had a licence to open the dairy they did. I believe this contributed to some of the problems in the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What the reasons were I don't know. Certainly the question of giving them a licence was fully discussed in the House, but I don't imagine the reasons were. There may have been reasons at the time.

This did contribute to the problem, but of course that's not good enough. Where do we go from here? Your idea of a pool price for the whole of the province, the milk board is looking at this pretty closely right now and it's discussing it not only in relation to what's happening in the interior but also in relation to what's happening on Vancouver Island. I would rather not talk about the board make-up at this time. Let's deal with that under vote 8.

On the question of quotas for surplus milk, you spoke particularly about the cheese production, and it is an excellent product. Both of the factories in the interior make a very good cheese, not just the wine-cured one you mentioned.

You may be aware that the federal government is offering a programme which would bring about one million dollars into British Columbia to those farmers who are producing surplus milk — the shared market concept. But it's up to the milk producers in British Columbia whether they want to go in. It's a national shared market scheme.

As we calculate it now, the benefit to the producers in British Columbia would be about one million dollars. We don't know whether the producers will go for this; it's up to them. Those who are producing essentially for the fluid milk market now will gain little; the largest producers may even lose a little. The majority of the producers would gain and the net gain would be in the neighbourhood of one million dollars.

It is my hope as the Minister of Agriculture that the producers will accept this. But what will happen will be up to the producers.

As far as the grapes are concerned, the acreage currently in grape production is approximately 3,000 acres. There is approximately another 3,000 acres that would be quite suitable for the expansion of the grape-growing industry, and this is without going onto the land that is in Indian reserve. There are some grapes being produced now on a relatively small portion of an Indian reserve; quite a capability for expansion if the Indians want to do it. Again, it's up to them.

However, there are 3,000 acres that could be converted to grape production very easily. There are six wineries in the province currently, and you say that part of them are owned by B.C. people.

MRS. JORDAN: No, I was speaking of the Okanagan one.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Even in the Okanagan, to the best of my knowledge, only one out of the six

[ Page 929 ]

wineries is owned by a B.C. person, if we can still call him that, and that's Ginter. The rest have all been taken over by outside interests.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry? Well which one? Like Castobello was the last one to have been taken over by Labatts, and that happened unfortunately after I came into office but I came in too late to stop it. We tried, but they had an option and it went. Castobello was the last one to go. Ginter, as I say, is the only one that's left.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: One on the coast. Calona, the one down here that was owned by Imperial Tobacco has since been moved over to somebody else. They're all gone except Ginter; I don't know if he's still B.C. or not. I don't know where he is. In any case, there is just the one that's left in B.C.

The possibility of buying one out…remember that this is a grape growers' thing. The people who are growing the grapes are interested in getting their own winery. They've had problems with the winery association and they're interested in developing their own, and the government has given them every encouragement. However, it is up to them to take the initiative. If they want to do it, O.K. They were interested in buying out the Castobello one but it was a bit too late. As far as studies of the idea of building another winery go, they are very close now, I think, to starting a survey.

Liquor Control Board policy is that a B.C. winery must have 60 per cent B.C. grapes in its crush, but the current production in B.C. Is only enough to give them about 35 per cent B.C. crush last year. Of course, production is going up, but it's just not conceivable that the six wineries, without some new acreage coming into production, would ever be able to bring this up to 60 per cent.

Some of this acreage in orchard land is not doing very well; some other in abandoned land will be converted to grape production. We feel that the price of grapes now and the prospects for future price increases warrant producers going into the grape growing industry.

With respect to other products, such as the ones you've mentioned — at the moment, with the shortage of grapes that there is, there isn't much pressure on industry or on the producers, if you like, to persuade industry to get into other products because there just isn't the supply to be marketed. It's all being taken up fully by the wineries, and until we get an increase in the grape supply, there is not going to be much pressure on anybody to develop new products.

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

MRS. JORDAN: With supplementary questions, Mr. Minister. I assume that some of this potential grape-growing is land I assume that some of this potential grape-growing land is within current irrigation districts but is classed as dry land and therefore is not eligible for water. As you know, we do have a lot more potential than 3,000 acres in the Okanagan for grape growing, but water is the problem.

I didn't introduce these figures before but I'm sure you're aware that ARDA programmes in the province, of which the farmers pay one-third, the provincial government pays a third and the federal government pays a third, amounts to $34,608,310. The farmer's share of that is $11,554,010 and this is a debt that each farmer has and is marked on his title.

In light of your interest in developing a larger grape industry in British Columbia — and I fully support it — if you're going to use this land or bring it into production, you're going to have to review the whole ARDA programme so that, one, if you bring the cost down for water to new land coming into production, this would reflect itself on the obligation of those that are already involved in an ARDA irrigation programme; and, two, if get water, if there is any dry land within an irrigation district which can't now get water, is there any way that you'd be willing to undertake get water, if there any way that you'd be willing to undertake an avenue of exploration so that land could come under water?

I'd suggest one avenue. As you know, nearly every irrigation district predicated its agricultural irrigation system on so much domestic usage because the domestic system pays more and uses less water per acre. In light of the freeze, I assume that there's not going to be subdivision of lands within the irrigation districts and perhaps you may have some magical way of equalizing the cost and making that dry land in the irrigation districts — and in one instance within a new city — productive.

They're going to be serviced, I presume. There's going to be service lines running by acres and acres of land which is now classed as dry land and this may be an avenue which you can use to increase production and also relieve some of the cost on the current supporters of the ARDA programme.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if they're supplemental, I might as well clean them up if possible.

Yes, we're giving continuing attention to ARDA and not just from the points of view that you mentioned. Unfortunately, ARDA has often been used as a way of subdividing land for residential

[ Page 930 ]

construction as well. It's first developed for agriculture and then after it has been developed for agriculture, it's too easy to buy out of the ARDA programme and then subdivide the land. Of course, there will not be much of that happening if Bill No. 42 is passed by the Legislature.

Most of the land that we're talking about, the 3,000 acres, is presently in orchard production. When I say "most", I don't have the exact figures; but my understanding is that most of the 3,000 acres that I am saying could readily be converted to grape production is presently in orchard where irrigation is available, or abandoned orchards where the irrigation is available and just isn't being used right now.

There is other land that some farmers are currently irrigating themselves direct from the Okanagan River and there is a possibility of extending this so that other farmers will be able to put in their own pumping systems and irrigate land that is along the river suitable for grape production, So when I say "3,000 acres", this is not implying any particular expansion of irrigation systems generally. If we go beyond that, beyond the 3,000, then we would be looking for substantial increases in irrigation. Yes; first this, then move ahead.

MRS. JORDAN: You mentioned that lands were subdivided utilizing the ARDA system, and I agree with you. I don't agree that all the lands that were subdivided were necessarily good agricultural lands. I'm certainly sure that you and the Deputy Minister know of land that was best subdivided and this was one way to get water.

But in light of what you say, your 3,000 acres are within water systems now. I think I am correct in stating there are still many areas that could be brought into production if there was water. It was always a pet peeve of mine that that whole ARDA programme didn't recognize the need to use some domestic systems to supplement the agricultural systems.

We should have then, and I hope you will now, negotiate with the federal government in order to extend these irrigation systems into the upper levels. Let's be very realistic about it; let's say that it will be partly for residential purposes. If the federal government says it can't, then you've got to do it under the table. That's what they did before.

Let's know, before we go, which land is going to be used for subdivision purposes as view property and that those domestic hook-ups will provide some of the revenue or some of the support for the agricultural systems. This way we're following two principles: increasing grape production, which we hope will be a viable industry; and, two, the people that are coming to the Okanagan have got to live somewhere and there's no way that we in the Okanagan want to get into high density living in the present subdivided land.

This is a matter of major concern which I will bring up later. Would the Minister consider this and take a good hard look at it as partially solving this problem in the Okanagan?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The answer is yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was getting to feel like a bathroom blind. I certainly won't have to do my knee bends when I get home this evening. It's been a long wait for the great agricultural constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey to get into this debate.

I feel very badly for all the farmers in that riding. Of course we don't cover the broad range of agricultural activities that have been discussed today — grape growing and wolves — but I do recall, Mr. Chairman, a subject of wolves being raised by the Member who last sat for Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) when he said, "Where have all the wolves gone?"

Someone shouted, "Into real estate," (Laughter).

I don't know whether it was referring to the past Member for Nanaimo or the present Member for Nanaimo (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Vancouver East.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps the Member for Vancouver East, another great agricultural community in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like quite briefly to raise three points with the Minister of Agriculture and ask his opinion.

The first of these is whether the Minister of Agriculture would give consideration to studying or helping to found a school of veterinary medicine in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, Members should know that there are only three schools in Canada and only two which are English-speaking: Guelph, which has 60 students, now going up. to 100; and Saskatoon, which has 60 students.

Probably, Mr. Chairman, every Member in the House at some time or other has received correspondence from aspiring youngsters who have wished to take up the calling of veterinary medicine and have been prevented from doing so because residents of British Columbia today are virtually excluded from training in veterinary medicine.

I do know, Mr. Chairman, that the Province of British Columbia helps to sponsor just a very few places in the veterinary school at Saskatoon. But the numbers that can be graduated — that is the places that can be reserved for British Columbia residents — are only a very small fraction of the number of new

[ Page 931 ]

veterinary doctors that are registered in the Province of British Columbia.

The situation with regard to veterinarians is exactly comparable, Mr. Chairman, to the situation with respect to doctors, dentists and lawyers that Members of the Government have so eloquently discussed in speeches when they were in Opposition. Namely that there are hundreds of applications from capable, deserving British Columbia residents who have the endowment and the interest to take up the profession but are excluded from it almost absolutely because the Government has been too mean and penurious to establish the appropriate educational institutions that would give them the opportunity to serve their community in such a career.

We have it for doctors, we have it for dentists, we have it for lawyers and we have it for veterinary doctors. No principle could be more condemnatory to a government than to deny aspiring youngsters in the province an opportunity for a career where the need is quite clearly established because of the failure to establish the appropriate institution.

It's very obvious, Mr. Chairman, where a department or a school of veterinary medicine should be. This is on the campus at the University of British Columbia. I say so for a number of reasons. The first of these, of course, is that the University Endowment Lands themselves were set aside originally as farmland. Though it may be difficult for Members today to comprehend this, it was at one time thought that these farmlands could bring an income to the university for educational purposes. As we now know, agriculture is an industry that barely survives in British Columbia.

Nevertheless, lands are there. And along the way, a very active animal husbandry programme has been established. There is a very fine Department of Agriculture and indeed the Minister's qualifications for the post he holds today stem from his graduation from that very fine school.

In addition to this, as the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) knows, there is an outstanding health sciences complex at the University of British Columbia which means that all of the basic sciences for a veterinary school are already in existence. All that really needs to be added is the clinical facility for large animals.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) knows this — there are some 50,000 horses in the lower mainland area. Not all of them race at the tracks sponsored by the Attorney General and the Second Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr., Williams) but the horses are there. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there's a shortage of horse doctors in the lower mainland.

Not only are the horses there — and not all of them are on the voters' list — but the cattle are there too. As the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) well know, there's this large population of milk cows in the lower mainland. All of this again means that we have this need for veterinary doctors as well as the large animal population that would serve to provide clinical facilities for these aspiring young veterinarians.

Mr. Chairman, a veterinary college at the University of British Columbia is a natural; and that's why I hope that the Minister of Agriculture today might speak favourably for this concept.

The second question that I'd like to ask the Minister's opinion on is with regard to succession duties and gift taxes. We've all spoken so many times in the House about the need to "keep 'em down on the farm." So the way you do that, Mr. Chairman, is to make it easy for farms to be passed on in agricultural families. There's no doubt that a major deterrent to achieving this has been the gift and succession duty impediments imposed by the former government.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister of Agriculture is getting the right kind of briefing and that….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Oh, I'm sorry if I wasn't present. Really. I have to go outside and rest after I've tried to get the floor.

The third point then — we've been given a reassurance on that.

The third point, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the Minister if he's given some thought and consideration to a proposal that has been made before and which I repeat again, namely to remove all property taxes from producing farmland — not just educational taxes but all property taxes.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of doing this would be probably less than $5 million a year, certainly less than $10 million.

We have introduced each year, Mr. Chairman, new taxes in this House: taxes on corporations this year, taxes on capital for corporations, taxes on smokes last year, increased taxes on liquor. Each single tax increase introduced in the last four or five years produced income greater than the total income from taxation on the farm at the local and educational level.

So it would be extremely easy, Mr. Chairman, since we have these huge tax surpluses anyway, to trade one of these new taxes for all the land taxes on the farm. What would happen if the producing farm were relieved of all land taxes is that the poor cows wouldn't have to be trying to produce extra milk to take care of the increase in the mill rate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Hon. Member….

[ Page 932 ]

MR. McGEER: The cows don't understand, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, I would just remind you of the fact that you are touching on a matter which is proposing legislation or suggesting legislation which….

MR. McGEER: No, no, no. I know the Minister milked the subject very hard. No, Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite appropriate for the Minister of Agriculture to talk about taxation down on the farm. I think it is right that he should. I think it is right that he should consider taxation policies that affect farmland, because what could be more important to that cow chewing the grass than to know that there isn't this problem of trying to produce milk to pay for educational taxes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I have allowed some latitude of touching on the subject. However, in order to pursue the subject, which is really a matter of legislation, this is something that is out of order.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if I can explain for a minute, we did have a discussion earlier this evening about the educational taxes on the farm. You recall that went on right after the dinner hour. This is something that is bigger and more important than just that educational tax. This is all the taxes on the farm. In terms of dollars, perhaps, it is small potatoes. The Minister of Finance stands up and talks about 50 per cent increases in the sales taxes. That would easily take care of the Minister of Agriculture's problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not wish to enter into a debate with the Hon. Member. I am simply stating that the matter of legislation is out of order, and therefore I would ask him to move to another subject.

MR. McGEER: I am not discussing legislation, I'm discussing the Minister's sentiments concerning this idea. It is a principle, Mr. Chairman, because the removal of these taxes on the land would go directly into the farmers' pockets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I would ask you to either desist and move on to another subject or else be seated.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, someone said this was really just chicken feed. But not to the farmer, because what we are trying to do is to make his income the equivalent of that of any hard working producing citizen in this province. It isn't that way today.

I have stood here, Mr. Chairman, year after year and listened to all the speeches about helping the farmer and it has come to nothing up to this point. They are just as deprived in their share of the provincial income as they were 20 years ago — more deprived. We should be having debates on the floor of the chamber on issues that will give them a share. What takes that share away is taxation, and I'm for relieving the farmer of these unjust and unfair taxes.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions I would like to ask the Minister. One relates back to the debate earlier in the afternoon on hydroponics. In the Okanagan Valley we have rather a contentious industry called Hiram Walker's. They take water from Okanagan Lake and they use it as a cooling agent for the malt and basic products they are producing. This is now heated water that then flows through a creek and then into Woods Lake. We suspect it may be causing a problem.

Would the Minister undertake to or have his Department examine the feasibility of using this heated water or this cooling water as a possible means involving an experimental project in hydroponics? It would have to be heated, as I understand it, but you would be starting with essentially warm water. I believe it comes to about 90º as it comes out of the pipe. Then it is cooled through an open channel. If it was taken directly from the point where it is a cooling agent and utilized in hydroponics it might have an attribute in this way.

I would ask 1) has it ever been looked into, and 2) if not, could an examination of even the possible feasibility of it be entered into?

I would solve a lot of problems. It would be an added protection to Woods Lake and it would perhaps allow the year-round production of some produce in the Okanagan. There is certainly ample land around it where it could be done. It might even be feasible to use it not in hydroponics but just as a warming agent in hothouse production.

The next question I would like to ask the Minister in light of the current situation of the PNE, is: what is going to be the fate of the interior national exhibition at Armstrong? Is there to be a review of their structure? Is there any danger it will be taken over by the provincial government.

It is very much in the same situation. It's exhibition land, it's local administration and it's now the second largest exhibition in British Columbia and it serves a very useful function. It is also very entertaining for people. Frankly, Mr. Minister, I should caution you and caution you very firmly, not to interfere in the administration of that exhibition programme. If you think the people of Vancouver are difficult to deal with, I assure you the fellows in

[ Page 933 ]

Armstrong are tougher than ever.

Reference was made earlier this afternoon to the fact that when he was in the Opposition the Premier frequently talked about selling apples in the liquor store. I think this is a good idea and I want to elaborate on it. I have thought about it for a long time.

This Government has brought in very strong legislation eroding the rights of the individual farmer without compensation in the belief that this is what society wants. The Minister himself at a number of public meetings and the Premier and other Ministers said, "We know it's going to be costly, but we know this is what people want." I think you should take the Premier's original suggestion and put it into practice. Let's test society.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Without his picture, though.

MRS. JORDAN: I suggest the provincial government put into all liquor stores, with proper keeping facilities and at a proper temperature, family packs of apples or grapes or cherries or pears — whatever is in season — and extend it to vegetables in season, if you wish. Let's find out how much society is willing to pay. Let's say every time you buy $5 worth of liquor, then you buy one family pack of B.C. produce.

That profit should go to the farmer and the Crown should absorb the cost of the keeping facilities. Let the profit go directly to the farmer and let's really put the test to society. It is awfully easy to sit in Vancouver in a nice apartment or to sit in Vernon in a nice house in town or to sit in Fort St. John and say: "Gee, isn't it great to preserve green areas. Sure I'm willing to pay for it, just don't tell me how much it costs." Let's find out if they are.

Look at the return to the Crown. All that liquor revenue would go up because everybody would be racing in to get B.C. produce instead of the liquor, and they would know they would have to take the liquor with their apples.

I suggest this really in all seriousness. We have got to test society. If we are going to make radical changes, such as are being made in the province, we can't just skim across the surface and say this extra-sensory perception we have or this female sixth sense tells us that society is willing to do it. Let's put it to the test.

It is like a meeting I was at in the Okanagan Basin Water Board, when a young man said, "I know the people in the Okanagan want the purest, cleanest, most aesthetic water in the world, and I know they will pay for it." I sat there, and I know they won't. They want the best they can afford and they have to be pushed further.

Let's not be too altruistic about it. Let's take these theories we have and really put them to the test. It would be expensive to the Crown to set up the keeping mechanism in the liquor store, but I think it would be worthwhile. I would ask the Minister if he would undertake to do this.

I have another question I would like to ask the Minister. It's a very minor one, and I'm sure it won't interest many of the Members of the Legislature, but it is important. It has to do with the PNE. I certainly don't want to get involved with the personalities that were involved.

There are a few producers in the Okanagan who are members of the B.C. Tree Fruit Growers Association who feel, to quote them, "they was robbed at the last PNE." For years they have put in a horticultural display in the fair. It has been an excellent display. They have nearly always been competing against themselves. I think public reaction has been very good to it and also the professional reaction.

The problem arose over the years where there hadn't been a lot of competition. No specific terms of reference were spelled out. This year the crunch came. After years of faithful service, years of sticking to what they felt were the terms of reference — a horticultural display — they went ahead with a lot of effort and, by George, they were robbed by a regional display. The other display which won was in itself an excellent display, but it did reflect other than horticultural activities — mining, tourism, this sort of thing.

The interior feel "they was robbed" and the others got away with the prize. So I would ask the Minister to spell out the terms of reference for this type of display for the next PNE. Then we won't have the horticultural robbers running around.

Another question that I would like to ask is in relation to a matter that I've brought to your attention many times. That is a pilot project for growing vegetables with the effluent spray irrigation in the Okanagan. I would ask the Minister if I heard correctly earlier in the debate when he said that "there was nothing to be gained from such a project". It has I know been referred to the plant science lead committee and I hope it will be favourably looked upon.

I was quite concerned with his comments. It was our understanding that there have not been experimental programmes done under this type of condition — using this type of effluent spray irrigation — for vegetables. If the hang-up on the whole thing is that it was suggested under an opportunities for youth programme as far as labour is concerned, this doesn't matter at all.

All that the interior vegetable growers want to do, and those who are involved in the effluent spray experiment programme, is to see whether in fact it is good for vegetable and berry growing. If it has to be an all technical approach, so much the better. Just let

[ Page 934 ]

us get on with the job and find out whether or not it is feasible and if this might in fact be another avenue of greater return of income to the interior producers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one or two comments and questions for the Minister.

First I would say that, having listened with care most of today to the discussion, I think perhaps it is forgotten that farm exports and of course the farm economy do contribute enormously to Canada and to British Columbia. Our total exports of farm produce last year were close on $2 billion which contributed approximately 38 per cent of the Canadian merchandise trade surplus.

I mention these figures only to indicate one thing. It's fine to talk of protection of certain farm products which may suffer from competition. But the fact of the matter is that if we get into retaliation from other countries we can suffer perhaps a great deal more than we will gain. Therefore, if it's going to be difficult to raise the return that way, we're going to have to look to ways of lowering the cost to the farmers and lowering his costs so that more of the return will wind up in his pocket.

I was very interested when the Minister said earlier that he thought this was not necessarily the best way because the increase that would come by way of a tax reduction, for example, would wind up in the pockets of the consumer. The advantage would be passed on to the consumer. I don't understand how he came to that conclusion and I would ask him to please elaborate. Because it would seem to me that if you cut taxes, as proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, you would be putting money directly into the hands of farmers.

In addition it was suggested that the succession duties should be removed. I appreciate the Minister's earlier reply, which I listened to, but I don't think it jibes with the New Democratic Party platform of the last election where it said that this would be done immediately. I quote the words, "immediately remove succession duties from farm lands," et cetera. Now I wonder why, if it had not been studied prior to the election, that was not done. If it was studied, why is it necessary to restudy the thing? I would think that it's a fairly clear statement and I would like to ask the Minister to answer more specifically and directly to this question: Why is it not possible to make these changes immediately?

Perhaps he has learned something on this matter since coming into office which he could let the House know.

Those are two points — one, taxation, which I think would wind up directly in the pockets of the farmer; two, an improvement on succession duties.

I would like to mention a third thing, and indeed I did try to question the Minister on a supplementary when he was dealing with crop insurance. The farmer in British Columbia taking crop insurance for tree fruit crops in 1971 paid $518 on the average in premiums. The average in 1972 was $620 and the estimated average cost in 1973, because of the federal increases in contribution which the Minister mentioned, is $407.

A direct cost of $407 is a fairly high one. If we could perhaps at the provincial level assist and subsidize this to the tune of 50 per cent again, we would be putting $200 in the pocket of every single fruit grower who takes out insurance — a very simple way of following the federal lead of subsidizing the insurance premium.

That was free fruits. The grape crop is much the same. The estimated cost next year for the grower is $340. Perhaps we could put money directly in the pocket of the grape grower by assisting with a subsidy for the premium.

In the berry crop, again we've got the same thing. We've got an average there of $878 as the expected cost for insurance in 1973. Now that's a fair chunk of money for people who are engaged in this business. That's their average cost. Last year they paid an average of $1,118.90. Now that's a big chunk of money. There are reductions, but I would like to know why it is not possible to assist in subsidizing these premiums and by so doing increase the money in the pocket of the farmer.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

The last group I'll mention is the grain farmer in the Peace River. Last year they paid an average of $436 per person. The expectation is that this year it's going to be $480. Once again, there's an opportunity there for a direct subsidy in terms of insurance premiums which would help overcome the problems the Minister talked about when he talked about disasters. I would like to know why this avenue has not been explored.

A final point on reducing costs is of course the rate structure of the BCR. We've had very little success in getting questions answered from the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) on B.C. Rail. But I would like to know, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, whether or not the discrepancy which now exists between rail rates for grain from Peace River over BCR compared to other lines is going to be eliminated.

The cents per hundredweight is now 90 cents from Dawson Creek to Abbotsford on the BCR; it's 67 cents Calgary to Abbotsford, CN or CP. I would like to know whether the British Columbia Rail is going

[ Page 935 ]

to reduce its rates to meet the competition to allow B.C. grain to be used on the lower mainland; whether this will be done to improve the situation of the farmer in the Peace River.

On this same point of freight rates, which is well within the provincial jurisdiction, I would ask why the famous alfalfa cubing plant which has been talked about by Members from that area, why the freight there for the finished product should be 44 cents per hundred. It seems to be an excessive amount for bringing the product down to the lower mainland. I'd like to know why B.C. Rail has not been approached to lower that and to make that project a more viable and economic one.

Ms. Chairwoman, these questions I trust can be answered by the Minister. The fact is that we will have no improvement in farm income unless we do something here and now and unless he indicates what will be done here and now in cutting back on costs to farmers.

The markets, as we've been told by the Minister, are often abroad. The farmer himself simply has no control over them — nor indeed has this Government, or the federal government for that matter. It's an overseas market situation in many cases. But within the province there are opportunities for cutting the cost to the farmer.

One way of improving it — and I repeat the unanswered question of my friend from Point Grey — the costs on BCR is another way; the subsidy of insurance rates, where we have already the federal programme well established, is a third one. In my view, Mr. Minister, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, it would be quite possible for us here and now to get going on improving farm income. I'd like to ask the Minister why this isn't being done.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. Just a couple of very quick questions. I happen to be one of the few of us who was at the meeting last evening to hear the Minister of Agriculture speak. I want to report to the House that the Minister of Agriculture did exceedingly well. I believe that he conducted himself in such a fashion that his colleagues should be justly proud of him. I'm being very kind tonight.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, he did. But not while he was on the stage.

He mentioned in his speech a fact that I was delighted that he was aware of. That is that "Most of our food in the Province of British Columbia is brought in from outside of the province." I don't remember him mentioning any percentages, but I have some figures in the area of one or two commodities. Perhaps I could refer to one this evening.

It's alarming in a sense that we in British Columbia couldn't provide for ourselves enough of this commodity. I've mentioned it before in this House and I would like to mention it just now again. These figures have not been heard here. We consume in British Columbia 260,000 carcasses of beef in a year. Of these 260,000 carcasses, 218,400 carcasses are imported. This is an average over a year — 218,400 out of 260,000 are imported.

I see a fantastic opportunity here for the Department of Agriculture to use this area of foodstuff as an incentive to establish new farmers and new cattle feeders. I'm wondering whether or not the Minister of Agriculture, now being aware that all of this importing is taking place, has any plans for providing incentives for this great area in agriculture. That's my first question.

My second question, just very briefly, has to do with farmers' institutes. I know that they have been stricken completely out of the estimates. I'm wondering what the thinking of the Minister is in this area. Have the farmers' institutes indeed been a dead horse, to use agricultural terms? Why is it that they have been struck from the record? Do they not serve a desirable function? This is just something I wonder.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Ms. Chairwoman, the school of veterinary medicine — I think this question should be directed in part to the Minister of Education- I'm not sure whether you're aware of the cooperation that exists among the four western provinces in this regard. An agreement was reached among the four western provinces to establish a veterinary college. This was some five or six years ago. It was agreed that it would be established in the Province of Saskatchewan, that Saskatchewan would pay the capital costs of establishing that college, and that each of the four western provinces would contribute towards the operating costs. B.C. contributes some $3,000 annually.

It was our understanding that admittance to this veterinary college was based purely on the academic standing of the people applying. I found out just within the last two weeks that this is not the case and that if B.C. were to increase its contribution, we could then gain more admittances. We're looking very favourably on the idea of doing that.

There is this concern too. That is that unfortunately, as fast as we turn the vets out, it's likely that there are more vets stationed in that Member's riding than there are in all the rural ridings in the province. When you turn these vets out, they start looking after dogs and cats. Well, I suppose they have to be looked after too. But it's one thing to train vets. It's another thing

[ Page 936 ]

to get them out into the rural areas where the Department of Agriculture would like to see them. This programme of the $4,000 a year contribution.

Nevertheless, I agree. We have to turn out more vets. We found out just recently that we can get more trained in this cooperative programme by increasing our contribution. At the moment, we're inclined to go that direction, rather than to establish our own veterinary college in B.C.

Removal of all property taxes — the question was, is it being considered? Yes, it's being considered.

The question of hydroponics and the cooling water — I didn't know anything about this cooling water emanating at 90 degrees. If it's Fahrenheit, it's not terribly warm, If it's Centigrade, well then it's very hot. I think that the people who are getting involved in hydroponic production don't really need any help. They're commercial people. It's doing very well on its own, thank you. By helping, them, I'm afraid we'd be treading on the toes of people who are growing field crops. At this time, we're not really concerned. Now the other aspects of it might be worth looking into. I hadn't thought of it at all. I didn't know about it.

The Armstrong exhibition — there are no plans to interfere in the conduct of the board of the Armstrong exhibition.

Sell apples in liquor stores — family packs. The Premier of the province did discuss this with me some time after I took office. We had a policy of him meeting with cabinet Ministers I believe it was to be once a week. In five months one of these meetings has taken place. There just hasn't been time. We've all been busy. We hope that after the end of March or April or May, whenever the House prorogues, we'll have time to re-institute this idea of having regular meetings.

However, he did tell me that he had made this promise during the election campaign. I hadn't even been aware of it. I guess I wasn't reading papers any more than I am now. But he did tell me that this was something that he hoped to see instituted. At that late date I did discuss it with the B.C. tree fruits. The difficulty of getting the thing going with respect to the 1972 crop just didn't seem to be workable.

However, on coming here, I did suggest to the Speaker and to the people running the restaurant that maybe we should try it here, by having fruit out. Unfortunately, as much as I could do to convince people in the House that they should be using this to show that we really wanted it, it wasn't being used very much. I notice the last couple of days that it hasn't been there.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): We thought it was a decoration.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I made my approach to the people and said, "Look, it would be nice to have these B.C. fruits and I think you should sell them to the Members." They chose to put them out on display and they didn't move that quickly. I thought that maybe if they were selling them, people would be less inclined to think that they were just there to look at, might buy them, and they might be more inclined to replenish the supplies. I would remind them also that bananas are not really grown in B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're wrong — in Port Coquitlam. (Laughter).

HON. MR. STUPICH: I was talking about B.C. (Laughter).

I would urge all of you that when you are making your individual representations to the people upstairs in the restaurant, you ask them to concentrate on B.C. produce. Urge them to put it out and urge them to sell it. I'm going to continue my representations and I'd welcome some assistance in this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think so. I agree with you. You tell them and help Me on that, You said something earlier about your helping. I'd appreciate it in this respect, really.

The idea of selling it in liquor, stores — it's not all that easy. I'm not saying it can't be done and won't be done, but there is the problem of storage. If the apples are going to be kept, they have to be kept properly or they will not be any recommendation to buy B.C. produce. It will tax the storage facilities of the liquor stores. They'll have to be stored in cold storage or, as I say, they won't be any recommendation to buy B.C. produce. I'm not saying it won't be done. If the Premier says "do it," then I suppose there has to be some way of doing it.

The PNE terms of reference …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The terms of reference of the horticultural exhibits — perhaps if there had been more cognizance taken of the needs of the agricultural industry in the province, there wouldn't have been the need to examine the board of the PNE. There is a committee, of course, that has been looking after that in the past. It's my hope that they'll look after it better in the future. I wasn't aware of the particular problem. It's a little thing but it's agriculture.

The spray irrigation — it is not really necessary to study the human sewage effluent and its effect on vegetable production. This has been studied in many

[ Page 937 ]

countries. It's been studied in 11 different countries, I'm told. We know that it will work. There's no question about that. We know that it can be done economically. We know that it is done in some areas economically.

However, we also know that in this country there is this hang-up. We're just afraid that if people know that the vegetables they're buying from the Vernon area are fertilized by human sewage, then they're just as apt to say that you should sell those vegetables somewhere else and fertilize ours with melorganite, which is human sewage from Chicago but it's not called that. It's called something else. If people don't that that's what it is, well that's fine. We know that we can use all of the quantities that are available. The mayor of Vernon, as you probably know, was down again today discussing this further….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not worried about the land. If you help me get that bill through, you needn't worry about the land either. We'll get the land if we get the cooperation of the House. That's one of the reasons we want this agricultural land saved.

The question of retaliation if we interfere in international trade and — can't even read my own notes here — that reducing the taxation and my suggestion that this would simply be passed onto the consumer; your feeling that it would actually remain in the hands of the producer. Well, I think not. The pressure is always on the producer.

One of the Members opposite — I don't recall which one it was — was talking about the rate at which feed costs have gone up in the poultry industry and the fact that the poultry board has refrained from letting the price of eggs go, even though we've given the poultry board some authority in this. I'm a little surprised that they haven't used that authority and haven't allowed the price to climb locally.

They're concerned that the price in Manitoba right now is 40 cents and here 50 cents. They're concerned that increasing the price would, in spite of their best efforts, encourage Manitoba eggs to come in. Now I think not. I think we've given them sufficient power, or responsibility if you like, to deal with that, and I just wish that they would be a little more bold about this question and allow the price to reflect the tremendous increase that there has been in the cost of production.

However, I do say this, when you reduce a cost like that, there is that tendency for the consumer to get the advantage of it. Now I know that people don't recognize that, and I know the farmers don't recognize that. I know the farmers want this, and as I said in answer to the question earlier, yes, I am going to be making representations to eliminate these taxes.

Increase the subsidy to crop insurance? Well, this is the first year when there has been this change. Previously the producers had to pay 75 per cent, this year they're paying 50 per cent. We started writing the programmes last fall on the basis of the producer paying 50 per cent. I'm not saying that's the end of it, our costs have gone up, the province is going to lose some half a million dollars.

But let's see how much more participation there is in the three areas that you mentioned, and next year let's look at the possibility of doing something better. But if it is to be an insurance scheme in any sense of the word at all, well then paying half of the cost of the programme — half of the premium — going beyond that even to half, it's not really insurance any more, it's subsidy. Going beyond that, is more subsidy and less insurance. I'm not saying that's wrong, but I'm just saying that we're not really calling it by the right name any more if we say insurance.

Freight rates on the B.C. Railway — again this is something that I could make representation to. As far as the alfalfa cubing is concerned, there has been a substantial reduction in what B.C. Railway was originally prepared to offer. Their original figures were in the neighbourhood of $13 to $14 and they have agreed to come down to $8.80 to get this project going. Now maybe a case could be made for a further reduction. I think it's not necessary. I think at that figure they can operate economically. We'll see what happens as it gets rolling, as it will.

The other costs on the B.C. Railway — I don't think they're quite as far apart as you say. Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be better, but my information is that the freight rates from the Peace River where there really hasn't been any grain to ship unfortunately, I wish there were, — this year in particular and other years not nearly enough — but the freight rates to Vancouver work out to a net of $14.40 a ton. The freight rates from Calgary, a net of $13.40 — a dollar difference, that's true. Maybe something could be done about that.

The question of beef — yes, we can stand a substantial increase in beef production. The figures are not quite complete the way you put them, though. We do raise something like 60 per cent of our supply now — to a certain point — then we lend them to Alberta to feed them, and then we get them back. It's sort of a lend-lease deal.

You know in one sense it's cheaper to freight animals to Alberta to eat the grain that's grown there and then freight them back, we're doing a lot less freight. Now it's not the way I want it. We want to increase the feedlot industry in this province. There are other reasons as well. There is a packing plant in the province that we desperately want to keep in operation in the province, and if we're going to do that, then we must increase the supplies of animals to

[ Page 938 ]

that plant. So certainly we do want to increase the feedlot operations in the province.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Ms. Chairwoman, I have just one quick question, one quick comment first. I'd like the Chair to give some consideration to the Minister propagandizing a bill that the Opposition has been very careful not to mention in any of this debate — one that's on the order table. He's insisted, particularly in the answers to questions from the Member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), then again in the answers to the question of the Member from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), and I just ask the Chair to take that into consideration.

I'd like to ask a couple of further questions with regard to the Pacific National Exhibition. The Minister, Ms. Chairwoman, has suggested that he will ensure that some agricultural representation is on the board whenever the new make-up is announced. However, the indication in the past has been that that might only be one member, and I don't think that's enough. I'd like to ask the Minister if he will ensure that there will also, besides agricultural representation on that board, be regional representation on the board from every region in British Columbia, because I think that's vitally important. The Minister indicated that nothing really serious has happened with the resignation of the entire working board of directors of the Pacific National Exhibition, and that the Cabinet Members are still here to run things. I'd like to know if one of the Members for Vancouver East is going to take over as interim president, I'd like to ask the Minister how many directors meetings he's attended, and whether he intends to continue attending them in the future.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley, I would like to advise that his point was well taken.

The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Well it seems like we have pretty well covered the agricultural waterfront, and I'm going to be very brief tonight. We've mentioned here today a number of points, primarily costs — and the Minister did mention about the subsidization of irrigation water in the United States. This is true, there is a high subsidization on water, but no storage dams can be put in there unless they're multi-purpose. This is the federal government's policy. First they must be power oriented, they must have flood control benefits, and they must have irrigation benefits. Naturally the flood control and the power potentiality subsidizes the irrigation, so they get it for probably $2 an acre. If we had the same situation in Canada, then we could probably do the same. We do get some benefits, but not nearly proportionally.

In listening to the various representations about apples in liquor stores — this is ludicrous as far as I'm concerned. Why not put the liquor in the grocery stores and you won't have to provide any storage. But I'm not going to recommend that. No, I'm just saying that that could be done. I would never recommend even putting in the lighter liquors or wines into grocery stores. My recommendation would be to use the outlets that presently handle apples and fruit, or whatever it is. You can have farmers' markets and so on as an additional outlet.

Now the debate has run on today, and it reminds me a good deal of a man and a wife going to look at a house. The wife can't get in the house quick enough to look at all the cupboards, the drawers and so on; but the man, he looks at the very fundamental part. Will the outside of the house, the foundation and all that, stand up? Will it carry the load of the house?

This is all that is wrong with agriculture. If there was an equitable return from agriculture, you would have no problem with agricultural land being taken out of that use. You'd have no problem as far as subsidization of farmers is concerned and so on. Now it's easy enough for me to stand up here and say these are the things that are needed, these are the things that should be done.

The other part of it is, how can the Minister of Agriculture in one province control such a situation? This would be virtually impossible. This must be Canada-wide. It must be national because of the necessary barriers that must be put up to protect our own producers against subsidized products from other. countries, no matter where they are. So it's a matter of dollars and cents.

We would have no problem keeping Johnny on the farm if there was a lucrative living to be made there. We would have no problem in seeing farmland converted to other uses, if there was a reasonable return from that land, commensurate with what people can receive in other jobs.

Let's take a very menial job in a construction area, where they're drawing $3 and $4 an hour. Certainly the farmer is not able to do that. Nor is he able to pay, because of the competition between the job on a construction job and a farm, a commensurate salary. This is all that's wrong with agriculture, it's a case of economics. The fact that we're not getting the return that we should for our products, commensurate with the cost that we have to put into it. I hope that the House will let the Minister's vote go through at this time.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just one brief question, Madam Chairwoman, Chairperson, or whatever you want to call it, I am wondering whether

[ Page 939 ]

— I'm wondering Mr. Minister….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: You want a point of order? Stand up and make your point of order.

Mr. Minister, I'm wondering whether farmers in British Columbia experienced any rain damage to their hay crops last year, and if so, whether any compensation for damage or loss of part of the hay crop was made by the national government? Why I ask this question is because I know that in the Province of Quebec, the farmers who were unable to harvest their hay — and it was classified as hay damage, they were unable to harvest it for a period of two or three weeks because of rain — did in my opinion receive substantial financial assistance from the national government in order to purchase additional supplies of hay. Also, along with the cheques submitted to these farmers there was also an application form for subsidy for transportation, depending on the distance from where the hay came. I am wondering if similar benefits have been available not only in 1972 but in the past to British Columbia farmers.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked about PNE representation. I said earlier that as the Minister of Agriculture I would hope there would be, a number of agricultural representatives representing various commodity groups and areas of the province.

How many meetings have I attended? Every one that I was invited to.

The Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) asked about apples in the liquor store and he questioned this. Really, the point of that is the point upstairs — it's to increase the exposure of the consumer to this produce. I think there is some value in it. At least it's worth trying. It's to increase the exposure of the people to the B.C. products and, in particular, to the fruit products.

As far as getting a reasonable return, I agree that there are the national and international influences. With respect to the national influences, that is why we have been encouraging the commodity groups in British Columbia to take part in the national agencies. Up to this point, one of them has signed, another is close and a third one is negotiating very hard.

Hay damage. Nothing for rain in British Columbia. The only programme that has been offered for forage assistance has been the freight assistance programme in the Peace River area. I know nothing about the details of the Quebec scheme for forage crops.

I would just say, as I indicated earlier, that to the best of my knowledge up this point only five people in the Peace River have applied for the freight assistance on the forage programme.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Shall vote 3 pass?

Vote 3 approved.

On vote 4: general administration, $4,043,894.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary Similkameen): I wonder if the Minister could explain on vote 4? I notice a driver there that received $6,840 last year and he is reduced to $4,710 this year.

A supplementary question: I see that there is no appropriation for keypunch operators this year. Does this mean that the farm management programme is not functioning any further?

You'll notice it on page M(18), at the top.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The report that I mentioned earlier?

MR. RICHTER: No. It's in your estimates. If you look at your estimate book at the top of the page. "Driver", the very top one — $6,840 last year, down to $4,710.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if that was the explanation that I could think of I certainly wouldn't dare offer it right now.

I have no idea at this moment why that vote has been reduced. I just don't understand it.

With respect to the keypunch operators, they are all being amalgamated into one data processing branch. I am not sure, but I think it's in the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce. All the keypunch operators are now in the one vote.

MR. RICHTER: Further on in the vote, I notice that the expenses of the Farmers' Institute Advisory Board is $1,200 but at the same time there is nothing for farmers' institutes as such.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Farmers' institutes have been transferred entirely. There were two positions in farmers' institutes. The salaries have been transferred into this group. The salaries make up some $12,000 in the estimates, so instead of having a separate vote for farmers' institutes they're included in this general administration section.

MR. RICHTER: In relation to the advertising publicity; last year it was $50,000, this year it's only half. Are you reducing your advertising publicity?

It's just down below the expenses of Farmers' Institute Advisory Board. Code double 0-7.

[ Page 940 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: 007.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question of advertising and publicity? Last year, half of that $50,000 was for a TV programme. The amount now has been included in the $200,000 vote for advertising B.C. products.

MR. RICHTER: And 032, rebates on stumping powder. What amount of this was spent last year, or do you have that figure with you?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the fiscal year 1972, $1,298.

MR. RICHTER: One thousand…

HON. MR. STUPICH: …298, in public accounts. Now I don't have it for the 1973 fiscal period which is not finished yet. But in your public accounts the figure is $1,298.

MR. RICHTER: On subsidies of agricultural lime; that's been reduced from $125,000 down to $25,000, and the farm labour service down from $22,000 to $20,000.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the case of the subsidies on agricultural lime, there's a new programme now. The amount spent in the same period was $81,000.

You would know, perhaps some of the other Members don't, that this subsidy was paid out to people all over the province and there was quite a disparity in this. People in the Fraser Valley could buy their lime very cheaply to start with, whereas people on the island or in the interior or further north were paying quite a high price for it. Yet they all got the same subsidy.

The subsidy has been eliminated for the people in the lower Fraser Valley who are still going to be able to buy their lime much more cheaply than people removed from the Fraser Valley. The subsidy will be continued for the people away from the Fraser Valley. The money is going into another vote for the practical applications of research. We discussed this with the Federation of Agriculture and they seemed to think this is a great idea.

MR. RICHTER: And your farm labour service?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the farm labour service, the amount spent last year was $2,496. There just didn't seem to be any way of using this money more efficiently to improve the service so it was felt not necessary to provide that amount of money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A quick question, Mr. Chairman. In the vote 001 there seems to be an increase for office expenses of more than 50 per cent in the one year. I wonder whether that could be explained to the House.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You'll recall that some items have been transferred. But more than that, even without those transfers like the farmers' institute, for example, over the years this has been overspent considerably. For example, looking at your public accounts that you probably have on your desk, the amount spent in the 1972 fiscal period was $36,370. So it's just that the estimates have not in any way kept pace with the, increase in expenditures.

Vote 4 approved.

On vote 5: production services, $500,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. RICHTER: The artificial insemination has been reduced from $15,000 to $ 10,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's more natural activity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: According to public accounts, there was $5,495 spent, so there's no need to provide that amount of money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thought the Minister, Mr. Chairman, might suggest they are using natural methods, "bolt," or something instead of artificial insemination.

My question is again on 001. Is the reason for the 90 per cent increase in office expenses the same in this vote as in the previous one?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The same in the 1972 fiscal period. The amount spent was $62,553.

Vote 5 approved.

On vote 6: special services, $593,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria,

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's a doubling here, Mr. Chairman, of equipment, machinery and supplies. I wonder if the Minister could indicate what the reason for the doubling of this vote is.

[ Page 941 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: There is an expansion of the veterinary laboratory and to provide the equipment for this expansion this vote had to be substantially increased. I think it's doubling the size of the lab.

Vote 6 approved.

On vote 7: Milk Board, $110,322.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, there was a question earlier about constitution of the board. I think some of you are aware that one of the members did resign the Milk Board. I think there was a question that I said I'd answer under this vote. We are looking at the membership of this board. If the Okanagan Member (Mrs. Jordan) were to get her wish and have the interior represented but Vancouver Island is producing the same amount of milk. Now we're looking at it but I don't know what the answer is as yet.

Vote 7 approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought that was the udder one. (Laughter).

On vote 8: farms, $10

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. RICHTER: I wonder if the Minister would give us some information as to how well these farms are paying their way. I notice it's only a $10 vote, so they must be carrying on. I know that a number of new programmes have been initiated which may or may not be subsidized by those who are contributing animals, such as the bull-testing and the beef-feeding operations. Are these carrying themselves pretty well, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry I can't answer that question. You know it carries its own weight because whatever is left over in the way of expenses is transferred to the institutions. Whether this is transferred at the proper cost, I don't know. I'll try to look into that in the year ahead and be able to answer the question better next year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is vote No. 8 carried?

Vote 8 approved.

On vote 9: crop insurance, $211,066.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned earlier in the debate tonight, that there would be half-a-million put forward by the provincial government in this area. I may be incorrect on this, but I thought his original figure when he talked about provincial contributions for crop insurance was $800,000. But I do know he mentioned the half-million figure. This apparently is under a quarter million and I wonder if there is some other area in his estimates where crop insurance comes up and where money is spent.

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

MRS. JORDAN: In relation, Mr. Chairman, to crop insurance: it has been discussed earlier but I didn't bring up the point; I want to bring it up now.

I recognize the Minister's comment and the value of it in suggesting that you have to draw a line as to how low you bring the premiums. But I think another area that you should examine is an expansion of the crop insurance programme. And I would cite as an example: in the Okanagan this year the people are pretty disturbed because there has been assistance given to the Peace River and there has been assistance given to the lower mainland. We don't deny them the right to this assistance.

But most of our farmers lost their first hay crop this year because of weather. They've been inflicted with heavy cost not only through the loss of their crop but also having to buy feed for their stock. To my knowledge, and I think to their knowledge, there's no crop insurance available, or feasible. I would ask the Minister to consider expanding crop insurance rather than bringing the premiums too low, so that they become a subsidy. Give other producers an opportunity to take part in this programme at a reasonable rate.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, certainly there is a considerable expansion in the programme this year. We expect a terrific increase in participation. We want this year of experience before we try to determine our programmes for next year. But, it is a common feeling in the department that the crop insurance programme should be expanded. It's a matter of working it out crop by crop. There are problems you'll appreciate. But, we're going to try to do it.

The costs to some extent are being borne from the crop insurance fund itself. The figures that I gave you — I said that the total administration last year was in excess of $800,000. Part of that is here, and part of it has been coming out of the Crop Insurance Fund. We expect with the increased participation that it will likely exceed a million dollars.

[ Page 942 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: If that yo-yo over there will sit down, it's the Minister of Agriculture's estimates we're on.

In your expansion of the crop insurance — and I don't want to tread outside the vote, but I didn't know where to bring it up — are you considering some form of livestock insurance to cover producers who lose their livestock through rustling or through death, or through being shot by indiscriminate hunters? Also, will you be extending it to poultry, and swine? And is it….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: With respect to the losses suffered by ranchers to game — the wolves that we were talking about or bears or things like that — there is a committee of interdepartmental people working with the Cattlemen's Association hoping to come up with some recommendation that the Government will consider.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Are you also taking under consideration…and I'm very glad to hear you are. I think this is becoming a big problem and I wasn't particularly concerned about the wolves. But what about hospitals? The Department of Agriculture did…horses, pardon me, not hospitals…extend their 4-H programme to include horses. I think that we recognize that horses are becoming an agricultural programme, not just for leisure. They're an industry. Would you also consider investigating the feasibility of a reasonable type of insurance that would also cover horses?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if there were some approach from the people who have these horses, then we'd have something to consider. I think we're not likely to go out looking for that at this time, unless there is some approach from the people interested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is vote No. 9 to pass?

Vote 9 approved.

Vote 10: farmers' land clearing and domestic water assistance, $900,000 — approved.

On vote 11: pest control, $89.000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister. It's becoming more difficult to ascertain just where certain items should come in. I know that what I'm going to ask you doesn't come under pest control. But it's in relation to the programme that was set up for the use of leaf cutter and soda straw bees for pollinization programme. Is that continuing?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It is continuing under the Apiary Branch.

Could I just say something about pests for a moment. I'm not arguing with the Premier, Mr. Chairman, but I was asked at a meeting in Nanaimo once, did I use the word "pets" or did I use the word "pests" in discussing problems like this. My answer was, "Well, if they're yours they're pets, and if they're your neighbour's they're pests."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is vote No. 1 to pass?

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: Pound District Act, $750.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Has the Minister any intention of expanding this programme to give grants to nonmunicipal areas in order to set up proper pounds in the rural districts — perhaps under the SPCA or any other auspices? As you are no doubt aware meandering dogs and cats are a real problem. And when they're outside the municipal area there's really no avenue of control. There hasn't up until now been any particular grant.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The opinion of the Department of Agriculture is that this should be more properly directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, since contributions and needs change from one regional district to another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is vote No. 12 to pass?

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: Grasshopper Control Act, $30,000 —approved.

Vote 14: Natural Products Marketing (British

[ Page 943 ]

Columbia) Act, $1,200 — approved.

Vote 15: Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, $5,500,000 — approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I wonder if the Premier would advise us as to what our programme will be tomorrow morning?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Yes, tomorrow because we are starting early we will do the Attorney General, and then Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we adjourn — I put on each desk, I hope, some notes on the question period. If there are any further matters involved in that that you wish further advice or criticism on please let me know before Monday.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Before the House adjourns, I want to inform the House that I've sent on all of our behalf a letter of congratulations to Karen Magnussen. She did us proud today, and I think we've got a chance to see her tonight on television. So I urge all Members to watch. And when she returns…if she returns in a few months we'll still be sitting, so we'll introduce her to the House at that time.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:20 p.m.