[ Page 519 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Heavy water plant proposal. Hon. Mr. Lauk — 519

Possible phasing out of ferry dining rooms. Mr. McClelland — 519

Renegotiation of Columbia River Treaty. Mr. McGeer — 520

Recognition of Chile. Mr. Wallace — 520

Invitations to NDP fund-raising dinner. Mr. Chabot — 521

Release of the Shortliffe report. Mr. McGeer — 521

Subsidy on milk. Mr. Wallace — 522

Future natural gas to go through B.C. pipelines. Mr. Smith — 522

Personal Information Reporting Act. (Bill 63)

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 523

Department of Transport and Communications Act. (Bill 64).

Hon. Mr. Strachan. Introduction and first reading — 523

Voluntary Emergency First Aid Act. (Bill 66).

Mr. McGeer. Introduction and first reading — 523

An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act. (Bill 40).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. King — 523

Mr. Liden — 523

Hon. Mr. King — 523

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 524

Mr. Williams — 524

Mr. Wallace — 525

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 525

An Act to Amend the Department of Commercial Transport Act.

(Bill 30).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 526

Mr. Williams — 526

Mr. Morrison — 526

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 526

Mr. Phillips — 527

Agricultural Credit Act. (Bill 44). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 527

Mr. Phillips — 529

Mr. Williams — 530

Mr. Wallace — 531

Mr. Gabelmann — 532

Mr. Smith — 533

Mr. Liden — 534

Mr. Kelly — 535

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 535

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act. (Bill 43).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 538

Mr. Wallace — 539

Mr. McClelland — 539

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 539

Domestic Animal Protection Act. (Bill 45). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 539

Mr. Phillips — 540

Mr. Curtis — 542

Mr. Williams — 542

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 542

Mr. Lewis — 542

Mr. Chabot — 543

Mr. Gardom — 543

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 543

Livestock Protection Act. (Bill 46). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 544

Mr. Phillips — 545

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 545

Beef Grading Act. (Bill 6).

Committee, report and third reading — 545

An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act. (Bill 7).

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 545

Amendment to section 4.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 546

Mr. Wallace — 546

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 546

Mr. Phillips — 546

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 547

Report and third reading — 548

Farm Income Assurance Act. (Bill 9).

Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 548

Mr. Smith — 549

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 549

Mr. Wallace — 549

Mr. Gardom — 550

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 550

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 551

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we are very honoured in the House today as a result of the efforts of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). Sitting on the Floor with us is Sir John Eccles. Sir John was a Nobel prize winner in 1963; he's a learned author of more than 300 scientific works, and he's a visiting lecturer this week at British Columbia universities. He's a former Rhodes Scholar from Australia — unfortunately in rowing rather than rugger — who distinguished himself at Oxford as a student, teaching and visiting lecturer and honorary fellow of Magdalene College in Oxford.

He is a holder of many medals and awards from the formal scientific societies of the world, including the Royal Medal of the Royal Society, and was knighted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in recognition for his pre-eminence in his field of research.

Sir John is accompanied by a great British Columbian, Bill Gibson.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, from the opposition side I would like to welcome Sir John too. He's recognized as the world's greatest living brain scientist. But I want to assure the Members that he's not here out of professional curiosity. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I asked that question before I introduced him.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to announce to the House that it's someone else's birthday today. I'd like the House to congratulate Marj Nichols on her 22nd birthday.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a personal note, I want to take the opportunity of introducing to the House my own Member of Parliament, a man of outstanding service to Canada, an outstanding British Columbian … and can you please help me with my culvert? — Mark Rose.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Members to welcome to the House today — seated in the Members' gallery — the mayor of Surrey, Bill Vander Zalm and his wife Mrs. Vander Zalm.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I was going to introduce the mayor of Surrey as well, since he is one of my constituents. But I'll take the opportunity to say hello to my MP as well, and to introduce his wife, who is sitting in the gallery; and it's nice to see her. (Laughter.)

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have a group of students from the White Rock-South Surrey area, from two schools; the Earl Merriot Junior Secondary and the Semiahmoo Senior Secondary, along with their teachers George Abbott and Doug Oram. I hope the House will make them welcome.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's a time-honoured custom, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, with so many introductions, to welcome to the House all of the guests who have not yet been welcomed. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: A custom honoured by that Member all the time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Haven't you got any friends here?

Oral questions.

HEAVY WATER PLANT PROPOSAL

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question was asked of me and I said that I would attempt to answer it today.

It was a question from the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). He indicated in his question that my department was involved in a proposal to Ottawa with respect to the location of a heavy water plant in the Province of British Columbia. My department is not so involved and, so far as I am aware, there is no such proposal, nor was there any indication that my department was involved in the newspaper clipping which I have and to which the Member referred.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that the reason under our rules that we do not, according to Beauchesne, use newspaper clippings as the basis for a question is that you cannot yourself take personal and honourable responsibility for the statement that you make in your questions. Therefore, you must ascertain that your question has some basis in fact before you ask it. That's the reason for the rule.

POSSIBLE PHASING OUT
OF FERRY DINING ROOMS

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Yesterday he indicated that there were some structural changes going on to the dining rooms of the ferry system in

[ Page 520 ]

British Columbia. I'd like to ask him if it's true that management people within the ferry system have already informed ferry personnel that the dining rooms will be phased out in the very near future and that their jobs are in jeopardy.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I have no knowledge that any management personnel have taken any such step.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. When the Minister stepped in to settle the ferry dispute some time ago he made a promise to the ferry personnel that he would appoint a high-level mediator to study all of the concerns of the ferry personnel with regard to their job situations. I'm wondering whether that person has yet been appointed. If not, when will he be appointed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a letter from the union concerned, and I have not yet replied to it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Does the Minister plan to honour the pledge that he made to appoint the mediator to look into the problems of the ferry service?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I told you I have not yet prepared a reply to the letter.

MR. McCLELLAND: But what about your promise? What are you going to do about it? Reply to the question; never mind the letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know the answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I know the answer. The letter was sent prior to the strike by the ferry workers — the telegram was sent. The telegram is public knowledge. I would ask you to read the telegram and then come back and ask your question.

RENEGOTIATION OF
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. McGEER: We'll try the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), Mr. Speaker.

In view of the $340 million plus that British Columbia lost on the Columbia River Treaty, and in view of the reports of power shortages along with natural gas and oil shortages, I would like to ask the Premier and Minister of Finance what steps are currently being taken to renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the election of this government it was announced that we had intended to explore all possible ways to see whether or not the treaty could be renegotiated. The only avenue that was open to us was a section of the Canada-British Columbia agreement related to the treaty that allowed for the province to make a direct appeal to the federal government on the basis of new information or related information, and to have the federal government then approach the United States for new discussions on the treaty.

I met with the Prime Minister once on this matter and shared with him our intention to approach the federal government through that section of the British Columbia-federal Government of Canada treaty.

We have, since that time, been engaged in the necessary research to make a detailed presentation relative to that opening of that particular section of the Canada-British Columbia agreement along with detailed information that we will need to present related to the second 30 years that the previous administration sold out to the United States. Now, when those two presentations are ready we will be meeting with the federal government.

I agree completely with the position and the question of the Member for West Point Grey, and I want to make it clear ….

AN HON. MEMBER: Vancouver–Point Grey.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point Grey; West Point Grey; Point Grey. It is a bit of a hangover related to earlier days.

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the Member's criticism, but there was a verbal commitment on the second 30 years of that treaty, which this government does not in any way agree with. The former administration wanted to sell out the power to 2024 instead of 1994. The whole matter is now being researched, as I said, and we will be presenting our detailed information and appeal to the federal government.

RECOGNITION OF CHILE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, who is a social democrat, if he has made any contact with the federal government with respect to Canada's official recognition of the illegal government in Chile.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we are releasing today a letter sent on October 5 outlining our caucus position opposed to the recognition of the military junta in Chile. Along with that, we conveyed to our federal colleagues our complete approval of their condemnation at the federal level of the recognition of what must be considered a fascist regime in Chile.

Speaking on behalf of my colleagues and the

[ Page 521 ]

government benches, I must say that we totally reject the concept that the federal government should recognize the new junta in Chile. Regardless of anyone's political philosophy, there is no question that that was purely an illegal uprising against a democratically-elected government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. While agreeing completely with the remarks about the illegality of the regime, may I ask whether the government consulted the Sidney resident who was imprisoned by the junta and who was released subsequent to recognition at the intervention of the Canadian embassy authorities in Chile prior to taking the step the Premier indicated his party has taken?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We didn't consult anyone, and we don't think that principles should be bargained for, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of fact that it is an illegal act against the Chilean government. It is a military illegal act — a violent overthrow, with murder accompanying it.

It is obvious to us that the federal government acted in haste. It is not a question of consulting people who had been there; it is a question of consulting one's conscience. It was obvious after the examination of the facts that that government is tyrannical, anti-democratic, and should not have been recognized by the federal administration.

INVITATIONS TO NDP
FUND-RAISING DINNER

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Recently the New Democratic Party held a fund-raising dinner in Vancouver. I am wondering whether it is a regular function of the Department of Industrial Development to send out invitations to people in the business community to attend these fund-raising functions of the NDP.

HON. MR. LAUK: As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, it was an open public dinner; anyone was entitled to attend and purchase tickets. They were being sold to everyone. I would have welcomed any Member of the opposition.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You didn't send me a letter, though. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I can promise you that every Member of the opposition is invited to the next dinner as long as they have the cash. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it this has to do with government business rather than private?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has to do with government business. It has to do with the public conduct of a Minister of the Crown. It has to do with the proper administration of a department. Mr. Speaker, you can smile and laugh all you want ….

MR. SPEAKER: No, I am smiling at the fact that you are making a speech instead of asking a question.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Minister if it is a regular function of his department to send out invitations to attend NDP fund-raising dinners. Is that a regular function? One of the participants at this dinner maintained that he received an invitation from your department. Was it a gilt-edged invitation; was it by phone, telegram? How was it communicated? Was there an invitation? These are questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order.

MR. CHABOT: Just because you are embarrassed you don't have to keep yelling, "Order."

Was it an invitation he couldn't turn down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. CHABOT: No answers from the Minister. He's ashamed of his act.

MR. SPEAKER: I think he has already answered you.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Jimmy and Ben are the new economic advisers to the NDP government. (Laughter.)

RELEASE OF THE
SHORTLIFFE REPORT

MR. McGEER: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Health Services. Several days ago we asked him whether he would release the Shortliffe report. He said he would consider this for awhile. I wonder if the Minister is prepared to announce that he is going to release it today.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, the Shortliffe report was not a report to this Ministry; it was a report to the Foulkes committee. I have considered every aspect of releasing this Shortliffe report and I don't feel that the Shortliffe report is really relevant.

[ Page 522 ]

It is certainly not relevant to this House. It was made after the approach of a committee that reports to me, and the committee report will be made public.

I said a few days ago that the Foulkes report will become a public document for public discussion, but if, in fact, I release every working paper that went into the making of the Foulkes report, this place would be like a confetti factory. I just don't think it would be worthwhile. So therefore I will not be releasing the Shortliffe report.

MR. McGEER: The Minister's reply doesn't surprise me, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to inquire whether he would be prepared to use the influence of his office to see that the Shortliffe report, in toto, appears at the time the Foulkes report is released to the general public.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that question. The Shortliffe report is not relevant. It would be as though I was asking the Foulkes committee to release all their correspondence.

They are charged with bringing a report to this Ministry. I believe, as the Minister responsible for this department, that that report should be made available. But I don't really think that every contribution should be made available. I just don't see it.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members, page 148, Beauchesne, that a Member must not ask for information which deals with matters that are concerning the advice given to the Crown or officers of the Crown, or which, by their nature, are secret. I take it that this statement of the Minister falls somewhere in that category, I hope that will terminate the questions on this subject.

SUBSIDY ON MILK

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he could tell the House at what stage negotiations are with regard to obtaining a federal subsidy on milk. If, in fact, there is not such a subsidy forthcoming, will the provincial government consider providing such a subsidy?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The answer to the first question: close. The second question is not applicable under the circumstances. Very close.

MR. WALLACE: Very close?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. We are committed to make a joint announcement when the time comes. I had hoped that it would be by today, but at any time.

FUTURE NATURAL GAS TO GO
THROUGH B.C. PIPELINES

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Hon. Attorney General with respect to the operations of the Energy Commission. Has any study been done or are you doing anything to ascertain the amount of natural gas production that could be brought into the gathering system, provided that wells that have been drilled were tied in to the main pipelines?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is yes. Discussions are going on with the industry at the present time — a day-long discussion yesterday, and further discussions, including possible piping facilities and other matters, including distribution of what resources we have as well.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question. The discovery of gas in the Monkman Pass area, of course, is of great concern. It is in British Columbia, but the Grizzly Valley area has been explored by the companies that are there. They have indicated they would like to divert that natural gas to Alberta.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't do that.

MR. SMITH: Well, to the Alberta pipeline, yes, they have indicated they would like to sell the gas to Alberta. Is the energy board investigating the possibility of tying that into the existing pipelines to the southern part of B.C.?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hope and expect that British Columbia gas from the Grizzly fields would go through the British Columbia system.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, is it to do with something happening today or in September?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's something that didn't happen in September.

MR. SPEAKER: We've already passed the motion to have introduction of bills.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I thought the Premier had an announcement when he stood up so….

MR. SPEAKER: He made the motion….

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[ Page 523 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be very short, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to know when the cabinet Ministers are going to answer the questions that are on the order paper. Question 1 is still on the order paper and the House has been in session nearly a month. Those in government promised that they would answer all of these questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you've brought it to their attention.

Introduction of bills.

PERSONAL INFORMATION
REPORTING ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill 63 intituled Personal Information Reporting Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 63 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Transport and Communications Act.

Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

VOLUNTARY EMERGENCY FIRST
AID ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill 66 intituled Voluntary Emergency First Aid Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 66 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PAYMENT
OF WAGES ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Bill 40 is an Act that is presented to clear up some of the problems that have revealed themselves in the power of the Department of Labour to recover wages under the Payment of Wages Act.

We have found that there has been an oversight in the legislation which prevented the department from collecting assignments of wages, such as union dues, health benefits and pension plan contributions that are assigned by the employee as a part of the collective agreement and which are consequently deductible from his payroll cheque. These, for all intents and purposes, since they do form part and parcel of the collective agreement, should be designated as wages within the meaning of the Act and therefore recoverable through the normal processes of recovering wages that are unpaid.

This amendment simply accomplishes that purpose and provides that designated deductions agreed to by the employee and the employer will be designated as wages and hence recoverable. It's a simple, straightforward amendment and I would commend it to second reading.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, while I rise to support this bill, there is some question in my mind. The way it is drafted, I have some doubts as to whether or not it'll reach into the fringes. I know that the assignments on wages are one thing; but in addition to that, there is in many contracts now, particularly in the building trades, in addition to the wages some payment per hour that goes into welfare funds that provide some very important benefits to workers — most of the medical plans, dental plans, wage loss insurance plans and that sort of thing. I'm not convinced that the bill quite covers that and I hope the Minister will clear it up for me when he winds up the debate. If an amendment is necessary, perhaps it can be forthcoming.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the point the Member for Delta makes is well taken. As a matter of fact, I do anticipate an amendment, which will be presented to the House before committee consideration of the bill. There are a number of problems and it's questionable as to whether the language of this bill covers each situation. We are studying that and I do anticipate that some amendments might well be presented for the committee stage.

[ Page 524 ]

However, the principle of this bill is what we're dealing with at this time. It's clearly to make recoverable all those provisions of the contractual relationship between the employee and his employer, which should be construed as wages and which should be recoverable in the same way that salary and wages are recoverable per se. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Payment of Wages Act.

Motion approved, Bill 40 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
REAL ESTATE ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, there are some minor matters in this bill, including retraining of salesmen and provisions as to those who compile lists of listings but don't sell, but there are two major principles contained in the bill.

The first one is to make it clear that the provisions relating to prospectuses, the landlord and tenant provisions relating to due notice and payment of moving fees and the municipal provisions requiring municipal approval, apply to the conversion of apartments to cooperative residential premises as they do in the case of conversions under Strata Titles Act.

The second major principle deals with those residents of British Columbia who purchase retirement property outside of the borders of the province, usually in the south, sometimes subject to high-pressure salesmanship, sometimes offered a ride by way of a junket down to Arizona, or to Texas, or to British Guiana; those who see in southern climes in their retirement years the lure of Florida sand lots or Arizona dry lands, Florida marsh lots, or Argentinean pampas, and who are subjected to heavy selling pressure in this province by fly-by-night salesmen with no roots in this province. Therefore, in this bill we provide that such properties can only be sold after provision to the residents of B.C. of a proper prospectus, and can only be sold through a duly licensed British Columbian agent.

Now there's a limit to how far we can go to protect people of British Columbia when they purchase outside of the province. But if the sale is made in here, in this province, and if the solicitation takes place in this province, we want it to measure up to the standards of protection which apply to B.C. sales. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd just like to make one observation concerning the bill, which is a good bill. The Attorney General illustrated many valid and florid points in his opening remarks, but I rather wonder why the government in its legislation, particularly with reference to this particular statute, hasn't taken into account the very good experience that British Columbia has learned from the amendment to the Legal Professions Act, which came into being over the past two years, to the effect that the interest from 75 per cent of the trust funds that a lawyer has is put to public use into the Law Foundation.

There is no question of a doubt that the enormity of trust funds in the Province of British Columbia are in the real estate field, and there's literally millions and millions of the dollars per year in trust. This would produce a very, very interesting and good interest return for the people of British Columbia. The real estate agents themselves are not permitted to receive any interest income on it, and I think there could be indeed comparable legislation to that which we find in the Legal Professions Act to see that the interest from the trust funds in real estate transactions would pass to the similar body as it does under the other statute. I would much appreciate receiving the Attorney General's comments on this point, when he sits down, as to whether or not there has been any development of government policy on the point — if it's in the process of being considered or if the decision has been made.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I concur entirely with what the Attorney General has said, particularly in connection with the need to protect our citizens from the so-called "fly-by-night" subdivider, promoter of properties, outside of this province.

However, I would point out to the Attorney General that British Columbia has not necessarily been in the forefront of establishing controls in respect to subdivisions. Many of the jurisdictions in Canada and in the United States have requirements much more stringent than those which we have in British Columbia. I am concerned when he talks about the sale of such properties by people who have their roots in this province that by insisting the sales take place through the facilities of a licensed agent he is neglecting those responsible companies in the Province of British Columbia, who have already taken the step of complying with the existing prospectus regulations in British Columbia, and who have in British Columbia full-time offices with their employees with their roots in the community, carrying on their business in a manner at least equal to that in which business is carried on by British Columbia subdividers themselves. By forcing those people into the hands of licensed agents is only to

[ Page 525 ]

increase the costs that they incur in doing business in British Columbia and may lead them to move elsewhere with the loss of employment to British Columbia.

I happen to know of one company which has complied with all of our statutory requirements, which has had the fullest review by the superintendent of insurance, and which employs 50 people in this particular project, Those people, at the moment, are in danger of losing their livelihood and having their livelihood turned over to someone who is a licensed agent.

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General might well consider, with the superintendent of insurance, whether or not companies registered in this province, complying with the prospectus requirements, having an office in this province and employees in this province, could somehow or other by registration be able to carry on the business without using the services of a licensed agent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sell property outside.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sell property outside, that's right.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we will support the aims of this bill in principle. I am particularly eager to support the legislation which will close one of the loopholes in the present legislation allowing conversion of apartments to condominiums. This has caused some considerable heartburn in elderly people in Oak Bay who had chosen to retire to rental accommodation and have subsequently had to make substantial upheavals in their later years because of a change they did not anticipate in the accommodation where they were living. So the idea that it will not be possible to simply get around the Strata Titles Act by forming a cooperative is very welcome.

We also welcome the intent. I am not sure that I understand all the details — and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has raised a very good point. I can only say that in principle this party would certainly support any attempts by legislation to prevent people being misled or being offered something more than what is actually available.

I wonder also if I could ask if the Attorney General would consider to what degree advertising of these kinds of junkets should perhaps be incorporated either in this Act or possibly in a better way in another Act. It seems to me that the biggest danger in misleading people is in the form of the full-page advertising of these, as he so eloquently described them, various attractions of California and Arizona — towns developed in the middle of the dessert specifically for retirement purposes. While it may offer some measure of protection that the prospectus must meet the legislation and that it must be a regular agent, I wonder to what degree there is still the danger that misleading advertising could still result in elderly people becoming involved in this kind of unfortunate situation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the points raised: the suggestion of the second Member for Vancouver Point-Grey (Mr. Gardom) is a very useful one. Quite out of order in the discussion of this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it's not part of the bill, but a very useful suggestion.

Maybe the bill's out of order and his suggestion is in order. (Laughter.) But it's one that is now imperishably enshrined in Hansard, which will be available to me tomorrow afternoon, and one which I intend actively to pursue because I know that the interest accruing on lawyers' trust funds and going into the law foundation is a support factor of considerable importance to such matters as legal libraries and legal aid. That suggestion will be given very serious consideration.

In respect to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) who asks whether or not direct selling of property outside of the province can proceed in view of the terms of this bill, all I can say to the Hon. Member is that I'll speak to a lawyer about that, try to get an opinion on the bill (laughter) and have something to say, hopefully, by committee stage.

In answer to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace): It does appear to me that if a person intends to advertise these out-of-the-province lots in a Vancouver paper, they've got to do that through a licensed agency in the province because the definition of agent is one who in any manner offers property for sale, I would think that when the papers accept that kind of advertisement, they've got to accept it from a properly authorized agent in this province who is therefore responsible for the misrepresentations which hopefully will not occur.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 29 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 526 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT ACT

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): A simple bill, Mr. Speaker, it does two things: it abolishes the Department of Commercial Transport as it has been heretofore organized, and the bill which I introduced earlier today will, of course, incorporate the functions of the Department of Commercial Transport as it has operated in the past.

The second thing the bill does is allow the licensing of transient truck trailers and semi-trailers, and the collecting of fees from them as they proceed through the Province of British Columbia. This is being done on a reciprocal basis on an ever-widening scale with the adjoining states and the neighbouring provinces.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Minister when closing the debate on this bill, having raised the matter of commercial vehicles being used to tow trailers on the highways, could indicate to what extent his department, under this legislation, will deal with the circumstances which are occurring today in this province where so-called house trailers or mobile homes are being towed on our highways, and those same mobile homes or house trailers are being used at the same time to transport freight with the result that the carrying capacity of those trailers is being grossly exceeded.

Now, the dolly wheels, the trailer facilities used to move these mobile homes are not controlled, as I understand it, by regulation; they are often very flimsy in nature and not capable of supporting the loads they are bearing. We are encountering on the highways of British Columbia these wide, long loads, and when breakdowns occur in the trailer facility then the serious consequences of damage to property and loss of life and injury is surely going to befall many of our citizens using our highways. It seems to be a shortcoming in this particular respect, Mr. Minister.

As I read this bill I am not certain that it is covered in this particular amendment and I would like to know whether or not your department might consider bringing this forward for further amendments later in committee.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I would just like to ask one question concerning this. The floater plates, I would assume, are a little like an auto dealer's licence plates. How do we cover the insurance portion of this which will come in March? Is that a fair question at this time or should it wait until the insurance is brought up?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First, the last question. The last question first.

Part of the issuing of the licence will be an insurance consideration.

With regard to the point raised by the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), I'll certainly check on the matter of them carrying freight in the mobile homes that are being transported. I was not aware that they were carrying freight in them. I agree with him that it is a real problem on our highways — the control of the transportation of mobile homes.

In the Province of British Columbia we have a much narrower limit than that allowed in other provinces, and I am under continual pressure from people in and out of this province to expand on that width. I want to say publicly that I have no intention of allowing any wider trailers on the highways than the existing 12 feet.

I suggest that if any of you have the opportunity, you should take a look at the "Stop-Go" film, which is available in the Department of Commercial Transport. I watched it a few weeks ago before I went back east to meet with the other Ministers of motor vehicles.

This is a camera mounted on a truck which takes a picture every 80 feet. I have watched this camera and the film as it followed a number of those mobile homes being transported on the highways of this province; and it scared me silly, let me tell you. And to think of that being enlarged to 14 feet in this province…it's just not going to happen as long as I am the Minister in charge of commercial transportation.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is a fairly simple piece of legislation. As far as the law is concerned, the full operation and import of the commercial transport Act is still in full force and operation. So there is no doubt in my mind that we have the legislative authority or power to control the carrying of freight or the overloading of any wheels that may be used to transport mobile homes in the Province of British Columbia.

I have made a note of it and I'll check with my Deputy first thing. With that I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid the debate has been closed. If there's only a word or two you want to say on the subject, you can only do so by leave of the House.

Leave granted.

[ Page 527 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I just wanted to ask the Minister if he has any comments regarding the pilot cars used in conveying these mobile homes throughout British Columbia. At the present time there is nothing in the Motor-vehicle Act or commercial transport Act to license proper pilot cars. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that these pilot cars should be licensed, should be equipped with two-way radios and that we should set some standards as to the proper lights they carry.

You can rest assured that the mobile home industry is in its infancy. There is going to be more and more of it. I would like the Minister to give some consideration to the licensing of proper pilot cars and lay out, in black and white, what equipment they should have on them in regard to light-safety measures, flares, et cetera in case of an accident, and also to protect the, pilot car industry in British Columbia, because at the present time pilot cars can come in from other provinces.

Maybe you can take that into consideration; maybe the Minister would take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and give me his comments on it. Thank you for the opportunity to….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question can be answered in committee stage. The motion is that Bill 30 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 30 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): This was described earlier in the session as the second of three of the most important pieces of legislation coming in to do with agriculture in this session, a session that was billed as one that would have very great importance in total for agriculture.

For a long time now, provincial Ministers of Agriculture across the country have been urging upon the federal government that there be some new federal-provincial policy with respect to credit for farmers. For many years the Ministers of Agriculture across the country have been meeting in conference every second year — moving across the country. Since 1969, when they met in New Brunswick, they have been urging that there be some study given to this — urging the federal government — in considering any new credit programme or in existing credit programmes, so that they do give some thought to involving the provinces so that the provinces could come along with it — certainly not without cost — but involving the provinces in planning the programme, in administering it and financing it.

This was put to the federal government in 1969 — to the federal Minister of Agriculture. It was put again in 1971, along with a much larger package of other proposals. It was put again to the federal Minister of Agriculture at the Minister's conference at Brudenelle, PEI, in the summer of '73. It was discussed, certainly, by the B.C. Minister and the Premier at the Calgary conference of premiers this summer. And it was discussed again a couple of weeks ago when I travelled to Ottawa, at the Prime Minister's invitation, to meet with other Ministers of Agriculture from across the country to discuss ways and means of helping to develop agriculture and to increase food production in the country.

There was this unanimous request, at every one of these meetings, a request supported by all of the Ministers of Agriculture — and at these meetings all of the Ministers do make a, point of attending — a request from all of them, a request that was reflecting the need that existed in their own provinces in spite of the many programmes that are offered by the different provinces.

During the time between the spring and fall sessions of 1973, when the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture travelled the province and, I think, under the term of reference that dealt specifically with the problems of developing agriculture in the Peace River, this question of credit for farmers came up. It came up not only in the Peace River, but came up wherever they met farmers everywhere in the province.

There are credit systems of one kind and another available to farmers. But there are so many different ones; the costs vary from one plan to another; the items for which the different programmes may be used vary from one plan to another. There is a great deal of confusion — different costs, different programmes, And in every instance — at least, every instance when I heard the subject discussed — farmers would talk about credit plans that are available in other provinces.

They never really seemed to know the details. They never really knew the interest rate, except that they knew it was low. They knew it was long term but they didn't know how long term it was, and they didn't know to what use the various plans could be put, But they did know that they were very encompassing, wide-ranging, that the cost was low and the terms were easy.

In other words, the far pastures looked greener when it came to credit for farmers in the Province of British Columbia.

As far as the federal government was concerned,

[ Page 528 ]

from 1969 until 1973, there just seemed to be no recognition of this need — certainly no response that was transmitted to the provincial Ministers of Agriculture.

In the Calgary conference this summer the federal paper on agriculture did recognize the need for some rationalization of the various forms of credit available. Having recognized that need in the paper, they then chose to ignore the need completely by advancing not one single proposal, not one programme of any kind, other than to say that there was some consideration being given to changing the Farm Credit programme so that it would be of particular assistance to young people trying to get established in farming for the first time. But there were no details of any kind.

At the conference in Ottawa a few weeks ago further discussion of this was led by myself, again with no response initially from the federal Minister of Agriculture — at least until the third time of asking, I believe it was, at which time we were all assured that the federal government is going to do something about this: that it is going to be in the form of changes to the Farm Credit Corporation lending programme; that the amendments to the legislation for that corporation are currently being prepared and that the provincial Ministers will be made aware of the amendments before they are actually tabled in the House, but with no information as to whether or not there would be any provincial involvement in planning, in administering, or financial involvement in the lending programme itself, There was absolutely no indication as to what sort of changes are being considered other than to say that there will be changes, and a hint that the changes would be very important for the agricultural industry.

B.C. has lagged very much behind the other provinces in providing credit for farmers. The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, as I say, found this wherever they went. They kept hearing about the better plans that are available in other provinces.

The committee was made aware of the lending programmes in so far as the departments had these. The Department of Agriculture got information from all of the provinces as to just what sort of lending programmes were available in the different provinces. Some of them are very good, and some of them not nearly as complete as, for example, the Province of Manitoba, which went further than any other province in coming up with a comprehensive lending programme to assist the farmers in the agricultural industry.

One feature of the Alberta plan, while it didn't go as far as the Manitoba plan in many areas, seemed to be different in that, as well as for strictly agricultural pursuits it would lend money to improve the farm home, which of course is very closely linked to agriculture. But in some of the plans lending for that purpose would not be permitted.

As far as the interest is concerned, in spite of the stories that we heard from the farmers as to how good the interest rates were, in checking with the provinces concerned we found out that the rate varied. In some cases the plans called for interest rates of from 7 to 9 per cent; in other plans, interest rates of 1 per cent above prime.

The Saskatchewan plan, a bit different again, is not as good as the Manitoba plan from the point of view of the farmer, but the Saskatchewan plan was deliberately designed to assist new farmers. It was not meant to be one that would be available to everybody farming in the community. They called it a farm-start programme, and it was directed to assisting people wanting to get established in the farming industry.

The Manitoba plan, as I said, is the best of all. I think in only one area would our own Select Standing Committee on Agriculture have found any question with respect to the Manitoba plan, and that is that it limited the amount of loan available. As I recall the report of the select standing committee, they didn't propose that there be any specific limit.

Ontario has several plans, each one of them geared to a particular purpose, but in total, not presenting a complete picture.

Nova Scotia, again, loans for specific purposes; Prince Edward Island also, loans for specific purposes.

In B.C., farmers have had some access to credit for farming purposes. There are the usual sorts of programmes that have been available in all the other provinces, for example, Farm Credit Corporation, which lends at rates that vary from time to time. The rate is currently running at 7 per cent, which is a very good rate compared to other forms of credit; the age limit, limited to 45 years; loan maximum.

And then there are federal programmes all across the country: the Farm Syndicate Credit Act, farm improvement loans, the Veterans Land Act, and the small farm development programme; all of these available in all other provinces.

As far as our own provincial government is concerned, the only plan of direct lending or even of guaranteeing that has been available up to this point, the only plan directed to agriculture was formerly the Farmers' Land-clearing Assistance Act, currently the Agricultural Land Development Act.

That has been the programme, a programme better in some ways than any other plan in the country, in that it did provide money at 4 per cent — and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single plan anywhere else in the country that does provide 4 per cent money — but one that was limited as to its use. The use was extended by this Legislature in the spring session, but nevertheless, still limited; and the amount that may be borrowed under this plan, again, limited to a maximum of $15,000.

[ Page 529 ]

Recognizing the fact that B.C. has been behind the rest of the country; recognizing the fact that we do feel now that agriculture should be much more important in the eyes of government, in the eyes of our total community than it has been in the past; recognizing that we have fallen far behind in producing food that we need for our own consumption, let alone those areas of export where we could possibly contemplate producing food for export; recognizing all of these deficiencies, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was asked to do this study, particularly with respect to the Peace River where they came up with this programme. Certainly the work of the standing committee, in identifying the need and in making suggestions as to how the plan should be drawn up, was invaluable.

The legislation before you I think goes further than that of any other Canadian province. It also provides for the possibility that the federal government, in presenting its legislation, will be prepared to cooperate with the provinces. We don't know what they're going to do, as I said earlier. We have no idea at this point. But we hope that they will recognize the need and recognize the importance of cooperating so that there will not be duplication of effort, so there will not be competition. For that reason we do include in the legislation the provision for adjusting our proposals to meet whatever requirements the federal government may have.

Beyond that, a credit programme; regulations still to be drafted, many of the terms and conditions to be handled by regulation in the same way that they are under the Agricultural Land Development Act, and yet legislation that I believe will be more important to the farming industry in this province than any other single piece of legislation in this session or for many sessions in the past — and perhaps even into the future.

A need that was expressed more often by farmers in the community coming before the select standing committee, more often by farmers writing to me and by their representatives in making submissions to me is the need for some more rational way of handling this question of farm credit. With that in mind, believing that we have introduced very forward thinking with this particular bill before us now, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 44.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want first of all to commend the Minister of Agriculture for bringing in this bill. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm certainly glad he took the suggestions that I made in the House last January when I outlined our agricultural policy.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's more than the previous government did.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly am in favour of this legislation. As the Minister said, everywhere the agricultural committee went in the province last year, this seemed to be one of the problems. Of course as you know, Mr. Speaker, and as I know, and as the whole House knows, this problem became much more severe throughout the province after Bill 42 became law, because the farmers could no longer term their agricultural land as an asset, because it was denied and bank managers throughout the province….

So as you bring in one piece of legislation, which the government has done, it creates a situation; then you have to bring in another piece of legislation which tries to solve the problem.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we laid down in the recommendations from the committee certain rules and regulations that we would love to have seen in the bill itself with regard to eligibility. And I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that this bill will only work if a great deal of thought goes into the eligibility of those who are going to be able to borrow the money through this bill, and also in the terms on which the money is loaned to the farmers, or prospective farmers.

The bill itself, insofar as the applications, is laid out practically word for word with the recommendations of the agricultural committee. In essence there is really nothing that a farmer can't borrow money for as laid out in the bill, and this is good. It certainly gives the Minister lots of range in promoting the agricultural industry within the province.

The eligibility of those who are going to be able to borrow the money is all-important. The terms of repayment are going to be all-important, because if the terms are so stringent that the farmer is not able to make his payments or is not able to use the money for what he borrowed it for, there should perhaps be in the regulations a period of maybe three to four years where no payments in many cases have to be made.

It is also going to be all-important whom you loan the money to, because we still haven't got a definition of a farmer, other than the federal government one where a certain amount of money is derived from the farm. There are many would-be farmers and many professional people who are dabbling in farming, sort of hobby farmers, who have the desire to go into full-time farming, and I don't think we should forget about these people. I think they should be taken into consideration.

And of course thirdly, Mr. Speaker, and probably most important, will be the interest, rate which is going to be charged the farmers. I know the regulations where the Minister has the power to make certain adjustments on repayments and on principal, but the interest rate is going to be — probably it should have been the first one.

[ Page 530 ]

Now under the ALDA plan money can be borrowed at 4 per cent for a specific purpose. I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, will this bill supercede the ALDA bill? Will it opt it out? Are we going to have people on farms borrowing money at 4 per cent for specific purposes and then going on to other purposes such as building buildings and so forth which may be just as important? Mr. Speaker, shouldn't the interest rate be the same?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we will maybe have to increase the ALDA rate, but I'm just wondering about the equability of the whole thing. I would like to see this and I know the Minister would like to see this at the 4 per cent rate. I'm sure his problem would be with the Minister of Finance. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there would be nothing wrong with this.

It has been said in this House before and will be said in this House again, that this is a way the rest of the people of British Columbia — the consumers, the labourers and everybody who has increased their status and their return on investment and so forth during the past several years — could help out the agricultural community and in an indirect way subsidize agriculture in this province.

So with those comments and those suggestions to the Minister, those warnings about eligibility terms and interest rate, I would like to say that we're certainly going to support the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too will support this bill. The Minister in opening the debate indicated the reaction which was received by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture as it toured the province this year and he was right on. There was no question, as we went about this province, that the one major problem facing all people engaged in agriculture — and it doesn't matter in what sphere — was the availability of necessary capital in order to enable them to carry on the business as it then was and to improve the kind of business that they were doing or hoped to do.

It's true, as well, that while farmers were aware that credit programmes were available in other jurisdictions, they never seemed to know what the terms of the legislation were, they never knew what the interest rates were, they never knew what the eligibility provisions were.

Mr. Speaker, I find it shocking that the Minister would bring in yet another bill where the farmers in the Province of British Columbia still don't know what credit is going to be available to them. They still don't know under the proposals in this legislation how much they can borrow, who will be able to borrow the money, how they \will have to repay it, and what the interest rate will be.

Like the Farm Income Assurance Act, this bill has been conceived in haste and I'm sure it will be born in agony. The trouble is that it will be the agony of the agricultural community again which is to be experienced.

All the Minister is telling the farmers in the Province of British Columbia with respect to this bill is: we recognize a need for a lending programme; we recognize that there are some purposes for which credit should be advanced. One of these days we're going to get around to telling you how you can borrow, how much you can borrow, how much you have to pay by way of interest, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why, when we are as concerned as we say we are about the economic plight of the farmer in British Columbia, when we're talking about improving his income position, when we recognize that year after year after year farmers have had to borrow money at high interest rates, pay those moneys back out of shrinking incomes, another year older and deeper in debt — that's the farmers' lot — why, when we recognize this, the government doesn't stop pussyfooting around and make the hard decisions, if they are hard decisions, that must be made.

State the interest rate. If it's going to be 4.5 per cent or 5 per cent or 1 per cent less than the farm credit rate — whatever the case may be — why not let the farmer know?

Mr. Speaker, it's all going to be done by regulation. Again, once again, the cabinet is going to decide. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Treasury Board and the cabinet of this government had to make a decision before they permitted the Minister to bring this bill before the House. Why, when making that decision, didn't they say, "Okay, let's say what the interest rate is going to be. Let's specify who will be eligible in the sense of the income level that a person who applies for the loan might have before receiving the loan." Why leave it all to regulation?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his department must make the determination at some time; why not now? What's the advantage of waiting? Nothing that the Minister said in opening the debate indicated that there was any problem about making the decision. He hasn't indicated there was a problem. Then why not go ahead and do it? If it's a subsidy, as the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) says, let the government face up to it. Let there be a subsidy with respect to lending to farmers.

The Minister also indicated that one of the outstanding features of similar legislation in the Province of Alberta was that moneys could be borrowed by a farmer for the acquisition or improvements to the family farm home. Is it in this legislation? If it's not, why isn't it? You can purchase and improve farm buildings. I don't know whether a farm home qualifies as a farm building or not, but,

[ Page 531 ]

Mr. Speaker, why leave it in doubt? Is there any reason that the farmer and his family should live in any poorer surroundings than the people in the urban centres? —They can borrow money to improve their homes; why not the farmer?

The farm home is as important to the operation of the farm as is any other building. Why should we lend money to house the cows but not to house the farmer's family? I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that one thing I learned as we toured the province this year with the agricultural committee was that the farmer's wife and the farmer's family were every bit as productive as the cows and as necessary for the successful economic operation as were the cows or any other livestock there might be on the farm.

I know that the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), coming from the constituency that he does, would not disagree with that statement.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why we have to leave all these things to regulation. They can always be changed. Regulations can always be used to expand any of the necessary powers of the Minister or the cabinet to make sure that such a credit programme is successfully carried out.

But why, Mr. Speaker, when the farmers of British Columbia write to their Members, as is happening right today, why when we receive letters saying: "We understand there is going to be a farm credit programme. We'd like to be able to apply. How much can be borrow? What will the interest rates be?" Why can't we tell them?

Why do we have to write back and say: "the government has got a good idea but we're going to have to wait until some decision is made behind the cabinet doors as to whether or not this loan programme is going to be one which will be available to you or not."

You know, this is the government which always talked about sunshine, and so on. Let it shine in. It just doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen. A little foggy.

When you look at the regulatory powers that are given to the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, they are in a position again, as was the case with the Farm Income Assurance Act, to make distinctions between farmers. They can prescribe terms and conditions subject to which a farm operator may apply for credit. What can be more vague than that? They can prescribe terms and conditions. It's as wide as the world, the things they can do.

No matter what the Minister says about their intentions, nonetheless the power is always there for the cabinet to make these special terms and conditions. That's not the kind of a deal, Mr. Speaker, that the farming community in British Columbia is entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, when the farmer embarks on the beginning of the agricultural year, when he sows his crop, when he breeds his cows, whatever activity starts off the year's performance in agriculture, he doesn't lay down any terms and conditions. He engages in his business forthrightly. Why, when we're dealing with farm credit, can't this government do the same?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this bill places me in the same position as the former speaker for West Vancouver–Howe Sound and in the same position I took in speaking against the Farm Income Assurance Act. I want to try to be consistent, which I may say, in politics, is just about the hardest part. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker — and I don't wish to sound philosophical — it really does surprise me, not just in relation to this Minister's bills but in relation to, it seems, almost all bills, that so often the legislation, which will involve expenditures of large sums of money, is expressed in what I would say is merely a form of good intent. It's like saying you are in favour of the farmer.

We think that he should have an assured minimum income and that he should be assured of credit, but beyond that the government is not prepared to go in black and white in the bill. As the former Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has said so eloquently on many occasions, that's all very well, but we're here to debate something more than good intentions. After all's said and done, if I can draw an analogy….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I could make the analogy, Mr. Speaker, regarding the budget speech. For example, when the government says it will raise or lower taxes, or rather it will raise or reduce revenue, it spells out in the budget and in the debate which follows how that money will be raised, or how it will be spent. I just fail to see why that very sensible, reasonable approach in the budget speech itself should not be followed, at least to a degree, in bills of this nature where, indeed, taxpayers' money will be spent, admittedly not by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) but certainly by, in this case, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that on one point I have to be fair and say that the Minister, in this bill at least has said that the fund will not exceed $5 million. One of my main criticisms, and this is where I am trying to be consistent, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the Farm Income Assurance Act just left the whole ballpark wide open. It could be $1, $10, $100 or $1 billion, but at least in this bill the Minister is learning a little bit.

I don't know whether this was put in as a sop to

[ Page 532 ]

the opposition or not, or perhaps the Minister was just going a little way to try to weaken my argument, but apart from section 3, which does state that $5 million will be the limit of the moneys loaned, there is nothing else in the bill which gives any kind of detail. I have to turn again to the same criticism I offered on the Farm Income Assurance Act that the Minister issues a press release giving all kinds of detail, Mr. Speaker, which is not in the bill. Now, why should I, as an MLA representing a riding in the province, sit and study the bill and learn very little, and then read the Province of October 5 where Mr. Stupich told a news conference that $5 million would be set aside and that the maximum limit for any borrower would be $100,000?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We are often told that we can't believe everything we read in the press, and I guess you have just proved that point. But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I don't like getting press releases giving information which could quite reasonably be included in the bill. I think, as I said earlier in the other debate on the first farm bill, that one of the most responsible jobs we have, in my view at least, is to make sure that the taxpayers' dollar is spent wisely. For example, the bill suggests that we hope the federal government will help to share the losses and high-risk ventures which, right off the bat, implies that this farm credit Act is going to be lending money on some pretty slender pretext in which the risk of losing the loan is considerable. I'm not, in effect, criticizing that. It may be that some of these risks are well worth taking, but the point is that we are loaning taxpayers' money, and I see no reason why, if we are able to embark on that philosophy with the good intention of helping the farmer, we on the opposition side should not have more specific details of the sums of money involved, the maximum available, the interest rate. Again, to echo the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, surely you should be able to put in the bill that it will be 1 per cent, 0.5 per cent, 2 per cent or what-have-you less than the prime lending rate.

It is all very well to talk about other forms of credit being available but, as I also mentioned in an earlier debate, prime loans at the bank are 10.75 per cent and I don't think that too many farmers can borrow $50,000 or $100,000 at 10.75 per cent. So my interpretation of this bill is that it will make credit easier for the farmer to obtain at a lower interest rate than presently exists.

Perhaps the Minister, in closing the debate, would mention if this is indeed the basic principle behind the bill, which it seems to me it is. If that is the case, why cannot we have specific details spelled out to say how much the farmer can borrow, what the maximum will be, and what interest rate would be applied to that loan?

I also would have to say with regard to this whole business under sections of each of these bills entitled "regulations, " you might almost just put it in one sentence and say this gives the Minister the power to do anything he wants to do. They just add up to the same thing. All you've done is break it into four sections: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). But if you add (a) to (g) together, it really just says in great big letters that the Minister may do what he chooses to do in providing farm credit.

I know we keep repeating this like a worn-out gramophone record, but I just think that maybe, Mr. Speaker, if we keep chip, chip, chipping away, one day we may get some legislation into this House where we will get some meat to chew upon instead of having to repeat like a parrot, time after time after time, the fact that this legislation is not responsible legislation. It is simply an outline of good intention. I'm even getting fed up hearing myself say it over and over again, so I'll sit down.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I just want to make a few brief comments. Before I do that I want to suggest to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that if he is so much in favour of having fixed interest rates set into legislation, I wish he would send that message down to his colleagues in Ottawa and have them do something about some of the mortgage rates to deal with housing, because we are, in that sense, subject to the vagaries of the marketplace. For many citizens in his riding and mine and throughout Canada that is as major a problem as interest rates for farmers is.

Mr. Speaker, I just want briefly to mention a couple of things. I don't represent any farmers directly in my constituency, but I have grown up on an orchard in the Okanagan. My parents are in the farming business, and my brother has just recently in the last couple of years purchased a small farm at an incredibly high cost — and this, incidentally, was prior to the Bill 42 legislation. Even though it is an orchard that requires his full attendance in terms of a full work year, he's forced, because of the credit situation, to work out at least four, five or six months of the year in another job in order to make enough money each year to pay back the loan that he has been forced to take out in order to purchase this orchard.

I realize I'm speaking in a fairly limited way because I'm not familiar with the problems in the Peace River and I'm not particularly familiar with the large cattle operations that do exist in the province. I'm actually much more familiar with the small orchard situation. But when we talked about loans that are being used in terms of working capital for

[ Page 533 ]

one year, that's a very important feature. The Member for West Vancouver talked about the annual picture. Mr. Speaker, there is also a picture that exists for a period of 5, 6, and sometimes for 10 years, This is particularly true in orcharding and I presume it is true in the cattle business, where your production doesn't come to fruition in the first year.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the legislation will allow loans to be payable starting not the following year or at some fixed period of time but rather tied to the return on the investment itself. In other words, if money is spent to plant trees, that money will then be paid back on the basis of when those trees are in production. That is, I think, a very important principle.

For too long farmers have had to go to the bank at the beginning of the year for their annual operating costs, and have, in effect, suffered a 6, 8 or 10 per cent reduction in income for that year because of the interest charges on their principle. That, Mr. Speaker, leads me to want to rise in this debate because I feel that this bill, even though it is being debated in a rather muted fashion and hasn't received a great deal of publicity like some other pieces of legislation, is really, in a sense, breaking new ground.

We can go, from this bill, with the attitude and the idea and the policy that this is not setting up a bank, it is not setting up another CMHC situation, but rather that it is, in fact, a form of subsidization to farmers in British Columbia.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the interest rates would be set at a very low figure. I would hope that it could be less than 3 or 4 per cent, or in that neighbourhood at least, because to do otherwise is to make the money almost meaningless. I would hope that money is available, as I suggested earlier, not only for the annual working capital requirements, not only for all the items that are listed in section 2, but also for the problem of revenue being delayed for 5 or 10 years in some cases.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I won't say more than that, other than to say that I just want to re-emphasize the point that I hope that we don't treat this fund as a loan fund in the traditional banking sense, but rather that we treat it philosophically as a form of subsidization to farmers in British Columbia. Thank you.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I certainly couldn't let this bill go through the House without making a few comments concerning the agricultural industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I agree with many of the remarks of the previous speakers that the type of legislation that we have before us today is something that is overdue in the Province of British Columbia. Perhaps that has been a result of the fact that the farming community in the province does not represent a large percentage of the population. Whatever the reason might be, we have needed this type of legislation, for those people who wish to remain farmers, for some time.

I'm concerned that this bill requires another stage, which will not be before us. It requires the regulations to be read with the bill before we can actually visualize what the Minister has in mind, if indeed he has a master plan in front of him at the present time.

Certainly the farmers will, on the surface, greet the bill with great acceptance because this is the type of legislation that they've asked for. But they would like to know, I think, at the same time, who will be considered a farmer. I think they would like to know if the terms of credit will be available and extended to young, new people coming into the farming business.

It seems that the bill also includes phrases that have run through many pieces of similar legislation since the NDP has taken office — phrases such as, "the bill and the regulations," and "prescribing powers and duties of the Minister, a corporation, branch, or agency established under clause (e), or any other person, respecting farm credit," and so on.

In other words, is it the intent of the Minister, when setting up the regulations, to set up another Crown corporation in the Province of British Columbia? Is it the intent of the legislation for the government to go directly into the business of farming in the Province of British Columbia?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

It would seem that this type of phrase is included in almost every piece of legislation in which the government will be either advancing money on a loan or making grants and, in my opinion, it's the type of phrase that is too often included in the legislation before us this year and in the past session.

If the interest rate cannot be spelled out in the bill, at least there should be an indication there of what the Minister intends. Certainly, if you take the prime rate as expressed by the chartered banks in Canada today as the interest rate, then most farmers would be ill-advised to use the credit available under this bill because of the simple fact that they cannot pay 8, 9 or 10 per cent interest on borrowed money at the return that they have received in the past from the products that they produce.

If people generally who are not farmers expect to have some stability in the marketplace with regard to the purchase of farm products, then I think that those same people must of necessity allow the Minister of Agriculture to subsidize the interest rate that will be charged to farmers borrowing money through this Act. Certainly that subsidy will come out of the collective revenue of the province and each and every taxpayer, of course, would help to

[ Page 534 ]

subsidize that interest rate.

In my estimation, that is a fair way for people, who expect to buy eggs, cheese, butter, milk, dairy products, or whatever at a less-than-market-value price today, to participate in the farming process that makes it possible for these products to be delivered to the market.

I would hope that when this bill becomes operative you will have at your disposal and in the Department of Agriculture people who will have some expertise in giving advice to farmers concerning their credit problems. Certainly, if we look at the record of the IDB, we have cause for apprehension, because it has been my experience that quite often the people who work for IDB and were responsible for granting or refusing the loans did not always exercise prudent judgment.

Quite often they approved loans to business enterprises at interest rates that the enterprise could not afford to pay. As a result they walked individuals or small companies into financial distress and bankruptcy.

I would hope that not only will the bill provide financial assistance at a reasonable interest rate for farmers, but that it will give them advice on the matter of whether it is really a good idea at that particular time to borrow money or not. This can be done if you take a look at the return on farming and project that into the future on the basis of at least a slowly-escalating price for farm products.

Certainly the picture in farming today is brighter than it has been for some time, but it will only remain bright if the farmer is reimbursed in a manner that is comparable to people working in every type of industry in the province. Too long we've expected cheap food products, and we've expected the farmer to work long hours — only to give him a very poor return when he counted the profit and loss at the end of the year.

We support the concept of establishing an agency to provide credit to farmers engaged In agriculture. I'm unhappy that the bill does not fill out in more detail what you intend to do, and that it is the intention of the Minister to prescribe that by regulation.

I would hope that the Minister will move with great speed to bring those regulations into the public eye so that the farmers will know what you have in mind, how they'll go about qualifying for a loan, the interest rates that they will pay and the terms of repayment.

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It's the kind of bill that lets some sunshine into the farm community, in my view. It's surprising to hear some of the people talking about setting the interest rates in the bill when some of their colleagues have allowed bank interest rates to rise to unbelievable levels in this country and have really done nothing about it.

HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LIDEN: We've got a great many problems in the farming community. One of the biggest problems, in my view, is that young farmers find it so difficult to get farm property and get on the land. Certainly in the areas that are nearest the urban centres this is more pressing than anywhere else, because here we have all the pressures of land sales from people who are involved in other things than farming.

Recently in Delta there was a farm of some 130 acres that was for sale. Young farmers wanted to buy it but couldn't establish the credit and couldn't face the interest rates even if they were able to establish the credit, We have many young farmers who really want to continue farming. They work with their parents on their farms until they reach adulthood, but then they find there isn't sufficient work for the family on that farm any longer.

I just want to tell you what happened to that farm in Delta. That farm, while it was 130 acres, was actually a number of parcels — an 80-acre parcel, another parcel of 12 acres and another parcel of 30-odd acres. Because the young farmers who would have liked to have bought the farm were unable to raise the money, that farm was actually sold to the hobby farmers and the people who really don't have any difficulty in raising the money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speculators.

MR. LIDEN: So it is questionable now as to whether it will really be a producing farm and something that remains in the real agriculture community.

That's not the only kind of problem we have. I'm not sure whether this bill will solve the other kind of problem, but perhaps because it does leave some discretion to the Minister it may be that we can handle some of these things.

There are many farmers now who are on short-term leases on farm lands in the Delta area which are owned by various development companies that have no intention of farming, and we find that it is very, very difficult for the farmer to really get the farm into production.

There is one case where the farm is owned by Western Realty. It's leased by a farmer who has a one-year lease; he can't seem to get a better lease than that. He lost the barn in a fire not long ago, and he just can't raise the dough in order to build another barn. He gets no cooperation from the realty company that owns it. If some credit is available for those sorts of situations then we may once again have that farm in a good producing position and be part of

[ Page 535 ]

a real agriculture community.

In addition to that, certainly in our area, there is a great cost in buying equipment due to the change of farming methods and the mechanization that is taking place. The cost of equipment is now fantastic. Certainly credits are needed for that sort of thing, and I see that being available in this bill.

I think that this is the kind of legislation that must go with the Land Commission Act that was passed last spring, and it's the kind of thing that is really going to keep farmland in the agricultural community. There's no question in my mind that the farmers that I've spoken to in Delta are very much in support of this kind of legislation, and I am pleased to be able to stand here and speak for them and say that we support this bill.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I was fortunate enough this summer to have been one of the members of the agriculture committee and was able to tour the province. I saw the chaotic situation that exists in this province today as far as the plight of farmers is concerned, pertaining to their industry.

When I see this bill I am very pleased, of course, for some of the things that are going to come out of it. You know, Mr. Speaker, that I come from a constituency that is in the frontier of the farming industry today, There are a considerable number of farms being created and being actually wrestled right out of the wild forest today. I want to tell the Minister that in trying to develop a farm in the raw state of land that we have in that area today it takes several years to make farmland from the forest to the operating farm. In fact, there are a considerable number of farmers and ranchers today who are sort of at the halfway mark. They have spent three or four years clearing several hundreds of acres of land, trying to get their buildings raised — their barns and their homes — to get a herd of stock. In many cases they are going through extreme hardships in getting these things done.

When you look at the interpretation of a farmer in the Act, for this farmer to be eligible for funds, especially for clearing of land, he should have already a certain amount of income — I think in one instance it's $1,600 from that farm. These farmers sometimes have to wait three or four or five years before they have any amount of income at all. When the regulations are designed surely this must be considered, especially in the northern sections of this province where these people have to really go through a long period of time before they do have enough income to qualify as a bona fide farm operator.

I would imagine that there is no other riding in the province that has as much available farmland that will be developed into farms in the very near future. Driving along Highway 16 from Prince George through my riding going west, only in the last five or six years people don't recognize the countryside because of the number of farms that are being developed and the amount of land being cleared.

It is an extreme hardship to some of these farmers trying to get their farms developed, and I think the department should consider this when they make the regulation or policy pertaining to who a farm operator is. I think that if it takes four years to get a farm going, then these people should have funding for that period of time.

Section 2(2) of the bill gives the conditions that the money should be lent for. I do have many examples in the riding where farmers lack hydro power. When you go into a comparatively new country you might see one farm and then drive several miles before you see another farm. Naturally it's hard for these people to get the hydro in because of the shortage of numbers of people going to use that power. I think that if a farmer is a mile off the highway he should be able to get hydro. If he is developing his farm he needs all his going capital to put the electrical installations in his buildings — his pump house because just about everybody in that country has to pump water and his accommodation. Yet in the regulations there is no provision for hydro-electric. I know that B.C. Hydro does have certain qualifications for people to obtain power, but if you were a farmer and you were a mile off the main highway where there was an existing power line, it would cost you minimum of $4,000 to put that line in, and then you would have to pay a considerable amount per month to have them hook you up to that power line. So I feel that the department itself should really look at this, because hydro-electric is a very important facility on a farm.

With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and I am certainly looking forward to it. Thank you very much.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, most of the discussion has been about material that we propose to include in the regulations, and the concern seems to be expressed that this material is not available in the actual legislation itself.

I agree with the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that the legislation will be important only if the eligibility and terms are set out in the regulations in a way that makes the bill important. Certainly the experience with ALDA would back up that appraisal. The experience there has been very good. The drawdown on that money this year has been very large because the eligibility was improved. It was extended to include those who are just part-time farmers, as opposed to the previous criteria where you had to be getting, I believe the

[ Page 536 ]

wording was: a significant amount of your income from agriculture. Now it's a limit of $1,600.

I have indicated the thinking of the Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council at the time that was changed: in this particular day and age, it's in the interests of the community as a whole to extend ALDA so that it would be available to these people. That situation might exist one day, one week, one month, one year, but something might happen that would persuade the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that this need not always be so, or that it might be appropriate in one part of the province and not appropriate in another, or the use to which it is going to be made might be appropriate in one part and not appropriate in another. These are the sort of things we feel can best be handled by regulation.

Those who were drafting the original B.C. land-clearing and drainage Act, I am sure, felt the same way. By allowing this sort of flexibility, if I may use that word, the government of the day can adjust its programme to suit the needs not only of the farming community but also of the community as a whole at the time the regulations are being considered for change.

The definition of a farmer is lacking in this legislation. As I say, it changed in the ALDA regulations; it may change again. There are no immediate plans to change it. It is subject to change, depending on the needs of the day.

The interest rate, of course, is very important. An interest rate raises some complications. I am not saying this is why it isn't in the legislation. Again, we chose to leave out interest rate because there might be some particular reason for changing it from time to time or for having different rates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Prime changes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If we related it to prime, that would be useless. Some of the Members speaking on it have made that point. It would be useless to the farming community. People talk about getting money at prime rate. Farmers don't get money at prime rate; they get it at so many points above prime rate. So to relate it in any way at all to prime rate would not tell the farmer from one day to the next just what he would be paying in the way of an interest rate.

We would want, by regulation, to say specifically what the rate is. It might be a rate that would change for long, medium or short-term loans, or for specific purposes. It might be different because this is a much-expanded programme over that currently offered by ALDA. This brings me to the next question raised by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips); that is, what will happen to ALDA (Agricultural Land Development Act) with this new programme?

There are no plans at this time to do away with

ALDA. It is a specific programme with a very low rate of interest, not that the new programme will have a high rate. It is a specific rate right now of 4 per cent, it's for specific purposes, and it has a maximum of $15,000. It may well be, in keeping with what I said in first speaking on this Bill, that to rationalize the programme we might eventually do away with ALDA. At the present time there is no thinking of doing that but we may find that ALDA will not be used because the new programme will be so much more flexible, will allow for so many more possibilities and will not have the same maximum.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) raised the question that the criteria should be in legislation. I have tried to say why we prefer to have them in regulation. The farmers still don't know if it is good or not, that's true. They won't know until they see the regulations whether or not it applies to their own particular circumstance or to the needs of their commodity group or to the needs of the whole farming community. They won't know until they see the regulations.

On the other hand, they certainly know they are not bound to come to the government for this assistance in any way at all. If there's any way that a farmer, either privately or through any of the recognized lending institutions, can get any better deal, of course, he can go that route. I think it will not be possible. I think it's clearly in line with the government's present intention that this will be the best form of credit available for farmers. If, because regulations are set and regulations are not changed, or if, because of peculiar circumstances, a farmer can get a better deal somewhere else, then he is certainly welcome to go that route.

Should the rate relate to prime — and I believe the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) said for example,: it might be 7 per cent — 7 per cent might be considered in some areas to be a subsidy for farmers. It's not too long ago that 7 per cent would have been considered an unjust impost. You have to be able to move the rate.

Perhaps, with the Legislature meeting twice a year, if we continue to meet twice a year, that would be often enough to change it. That's conceivable. But we prefer to go the regulation route, not just to set a rate that is appropriate for the day that we set it, but as I said earlier, to set a rate that may be appropriate to different areas and for different reasons and for different terms. The farmer still has the choice to take it or not take it if he thinks it's not good or not to his own interest or to go elsewhere if he prefers.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) seems to feel that this government has a tendency to introduce legislation that shows only good intent rather than specifics of the programme. I suppose there does seem to be some tendency for that, in

[ Page 537 ]

part, because we want to be flexible; in part, because we want to have the authority to improve these programmes from time to time as we feel the need arises without waiting for a special session of the Legislature; in part, because we feel it is the role of the Legislature to adopt a programme more in general principle rather than in specifics to indicate to the government that they support the idea, in this instance, of a rational farm credit programme in principle without getting into the nitty-gritty of the details.

Another problem I noted when the Hon. Member was speaking that I didn't mention previously: perhaps there might have to be some consideration at some time to the cost of money to the government, and the cost certainly changes. A lot of money right now comes from our Canada Pension Plan money that comes back to us from Ottawa. Certainly this is subject to very frequent and sometimes very dramatic changes in the rate. So whether or not we would be influenced by that, I'm not suggesting at this moment. I'm just saying that there are a lot of factors to be considered in setting an interest rate. With that in mind, we prefer to leave the actual interest rate to regulation. We believe also that this has worked quite satisfactorily with respect to the ALDA programme.

I must apologize for the press release; I was working on it at the same time as I was conducting a number of pieces of legislation through the House. There were certainly a couple of good questions that could be asked about the press release.

One that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) drew to our attention was about sharing losses on high risk adventures. Perhaps this should be better dealt with in committee, but what we are referring to there is the authority that we propose to have given to us under this legislation. In certain circumstances, there might be discounts of principle or interest. In a sense, they are losses; they are costs to the government of embarking on certain new programmes where we would, without getting into government farming, the fear expressed by one Member — in a sense enter into a partnership to that extent with a farmer to try something new and different, something that has been tested experimentally research-wise but has not actually been tested in the field. While, in this press release, it has been suggested that they are losses, the experience with farm lending generally, as far as governments are concerned, is that there will not be losses but there might be costs involved in embarking on new programmes that would be demonstrated to farmers.

The other item, the limit of $100,000, was just picked up in error in reviewing our own legislation and comparing it with others. So I apologize for the one question and one error in that press release.

MR. WALLACE: No limit has been set?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No limit has been set in the legislation. I don't think there would be even in regulation unless it's a different limit for different circumstances. The amount of capitalization necessary for different types of farming differs dramatically. It would seem to me that if we are going to enter into a limit discussion, we have to relate that limit to the particular farming enterprise we are talking about, again, whether it's for purchase of land or for other assets.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) raised the question as to whether or not we would propose postponing principal payments. I'm not sure; he may have meant all payments. It is a feature of the ALDA programme that principal payments may be postponed for three years. The case he makes, where in some instances there will be no income from the particular type of farming investment for a number of years, is certainly a very good reason for postponing payments. I am sure in a situation like that, the regulations would provide for that situation.

As far as the interest rate, again, I would hope that it would be low, but there is something else to consider. Nobody really suggested today, with the exception of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann), as to just exactly what the interest rate should be. When the Hon. Member for Oak Bay was comparing this with the farm income assurance plan interest rate entered into that discussion too.

Then you were talking about cost of production and about allowing interest on capital. Now in deciding what interest rate we're going to allow on invested capital, should we have that figure in mind at the time we're considering at what interest rate we're going to lend? Now these are just questions. I'm not answering; I'm just throwing them out to show that it's not just a simple matter of picking a figure and saying that this will be it.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) suggested that this particular programme, while he might have wanted to see more in the legislation, is overdue, perhaps because the number of farmers in our total community is low in proportion to the rest, and certainly that's one reason. But the fact that it is overdue, that the government of today recognizes it as overdue and is bringing it in, shows that this government is prepared to enter into this kind of programme, even though the farmers do represent a relatively small number of people in the total community. We think they are doing an extremely important job, that they need the encouragement of this legislation and the regulations attendant thereto. They need the encouragement that this will bring about and this government is prepared to act in that direction.

What of our young, new people? Again we expect

[ Page 538 ]

there will be a lot of consideration given to the young, new people by the federal government when they introduce their programme. But in the meantime, our programme will be available. I would hope it will not be slanted toward young, new people. I hope it will be a programme that will assist farmers in general without too much attention being paid to how old they are.

And who will be a farmer? Again this question of part-time farming enters into it, and I think we'll take the same approach that we did on the ALDA — and I hope the Members from both sides will join me in this — and that is we're thinking not only of producing food, we're also thinking about the agricultural way of life as something that should be preserved in our community, even though people may be earning a significant amount of their income from other sources. But, still, development of agriculture is important and the government should take a hand in helping to develop it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The family farm.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The family farm.

It's part of the programme that we started in the spring session when we said that we're going to save the farmland, and said then that we would introduce legislation in the fall session to save the farmers. Certainly the programme to save the farmers is attracting a lot less heat than the programme to save the land, but it is every bit as important as the one to save the land.

Do grants mean government farming? I think I've dealt with that, in part at least. I'm not saying there won't be government farming; there currently is some government farming, and I think government farming has a place in our community. Certainly there's no intention to extend this markedly nor to withdraw, but there are no great plans for any changes there and I've described how the system of grants would work.

Financial advice would have to be part of a programme, and you'll note that the legislation calls not only for direct lending but also for guaranteeing. In the case of guaranteeing, when one goes to any one of the recognized lending agencies there is financial advice available; not only is it available, you have to accept it if you are going to be dealing with one of the lending agencies.

Certainly the government also has accounting plans available and would encourage the farmers to make use of this kind of accounting assistance so the farmers themselves will know whether they're embarking on something or whether they're conducting their business in a way that will be worthwhile, economically speaking.

The last remark that I noticed, again from the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), is that we move with speed. I think that's advice that I'm very happy to accept. Since being in office it's always been my main ambition to move with speed. I don't know how long I'm going to be here, but I want to see things happen while I'm here, not after I'm gone. So, with legislative approval, I assure you that the Department of Agriculture will move with great speed to put into effect the provisions of this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to the Department of Finance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: If I went to the Department of Finance, I might have to be more responsible with the people's money.

I move second reading of Bill 44, Agricultural Credit Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 44 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 43.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
HUMAN TISSUE GIFT ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, in putting this bill forward today for second reading, I just want to give a very short explanation.

The people in foundations that have to do with human tissue, for example a cornea transplant or other gifts of human tissue, feel that it's necessary that this whole question be given a great deal more publicity. But they feel that you cannot give it publicity at the time of the event because there would be some embarrassment. People would be caught up in the whole emotional aspect of, for example, knowing from whom they got their cornea transplant or kidney transplant, or whatever.

The foundations do feel that it's essential that more people become aware of the necessity for the gifts of human tissue. So that in providing this kind of legislation, it gives the foundations the opportunity, with the consent of the donor and also the consent of the recipient, for publicity to be given or at least the announcement of the name of a recipient or donor, as they wish, can be made public. Now this would not be done, nor could it be done, within a 30-day period, so that there can be some anonymity as far as people knowing directly where they got their transplant.

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is quite obvious and I would answer any questions that might be put in moving second reading.

[ Page 539 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill. I would say that the Minister probably does not mean publicity so much as he means public education. And I think we should try to draw the distinction. I'm sure the bill does not intend to encourage people to publicize this kind of event for the sake of publicity but rather that there should be a greater awareness in the public mind of the various tissues which can be transplanted and, in other words, can be donated.

The one field in health care in the future, Mr. Speaker, which has the most momentous potential for the human race, is the whole question of donation of human tissue. This is a matter which gets a great deal of discussion, as indeed it should, in Reader's Digest and other popular magazines, because once the whole question of tissue rejection is overcome, as I'm certain it will be one day, the potential to transplant many different tissues and different organs in the body to a donor will mushroom dramatically.

While one need not tell the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, about the costs of health care — he already knows all about that — but the problems we're having right now will be simply peanuts, if I could use the expression, compared to the costs that will be involved when tissue transplantation becomes much more widely available.

At the present time, I'm sure the Minister has in mind such examples as he quoted, the tissue transplants of the cornea to prevent or relieve blindness in certain cases, which at the present time has a somewhat limited field, albeit a very important one. But the whole question of heart transplants and more readily available kidney transplants at the present time takes a very important part of the budget of the Department of Health.

Much of the dialysis expense, as the Minister is well aware, and the artificial kidney costs, will of course be circumvented or hopefully reduced when the time comes that kidney transplantation can take place readily with a higher margin of success than at the present time. I can't recall the precise figures, but it's something like 40 per cent success at the present time for transplants of kidney tissue.

One can't go into a long discussion of the whole principle of transplanting of tissue, except simply to say that it holds tremendous potential in the future.

Therefore, any bill which has the specific aim of educating the public and making them aware of some of those techniques and procedures which can be employed is well worthwhile, provided it is not an attempt to pander to people's innate search for publicity per se.

As long as I have not misunderstood the Minister's comments: that this is an attempt to make the public aware through simple reporting of the facts rather than any embroidered story of the dramatics of the actual transplantation process; provided there's that very clear distinction that this bill is not designed to encourage publicity-seeking as such, but simply to report the frequency of these operations and the fact that they are technically capable of being done and the benefits that are derived by the donor — this kind of information — if this is the purpose of the bill, we most strongly support it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I just want to express the opposition view that we will support this bill. We assume that there must have been many people who asked for this provision in order that the Health Minister put it forward.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, first I will assure the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that this has not been brought about as a move toward a publicity stunt or to put the whole question of tissue transplants into that kind of an arena. What it is brought about for is to produce exactly what you said, Mr. Member, and that is: public education in the whole area.

I might go on to say that we do recognize in this department the real problem around tissue transplants — and that is the escalating costs of the delivery of health care. I'm not suggesting, by an stretch of the imagination, that there is going to be a great deal of emphasis in this area other than, you know, the real, true relief of illness, where it is possible for us to make that kind of a contribution.

In answer to the Member for Langley's (Mr. McClelland's) question, yes it has. This was asked of us as opposed to having been initiated in my department. The number of foundations and groups that are involved directly in a voluntary way in these areas were the people who initiated this whole question.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will move second reading of Bill 43.

Motion approved.

Bill 43 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 45, Mr. Speaker.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL
PROTECTION ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this bill replaces provisions of two Acts, the Sheep Protection

[ Page 540 ]

Act and the Animals Act. There has been some concern in the livestock community that the legislation we've had on the books up to this time has not really done the job of protecting domestic animals.

There is some thinking that we should go even much further than the legislation before us at the moment, and some thinking also that we try to include in this programme protection for domestic animals not only from dogs, as the legislation before us does provide, but that we should include protection from predators — wild predators, that is — and compensation for losses due to destruction caused by wild predators.

At the present time, insofar as wild predators are concerned, they come under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Branch. The Fish and Wildlife Branch has been made very much aware of the feeling of the livestock owners in the province over the years, as has, more particularly, very recently the new Minister charged with that responsibility. He too has become aware of their feelings.

There are some areas where there seem to have been deficiencies in control of predators in the past. It does seem logical, in consultation with him, that the control of wildlife should be under the Minister responsible for wildlife — whether they be predators or whether they be game animals.

So the legislation before us leaves out reference to wildlife. It deals with protection of domestic animals, but is concerned more with control of dogs than with wildlife, and it provides for compensation for losses from destruction caused by dogs.

It makes provision for assistance to the RCMP in the employment of domestic animal protection officers, who may sell dog licenses and who may seize dogs that are illegally running at large.

It does put some onus on the livestock owners in that they must show that they have taken reasonable measures to protect their animals from the action of dogs before any claim for losses will be paid.

It makes provision for more effective control of dogs that are running at large than we previously had under the provisions of the Animals Act.

It makes provision for grants from the fund, which may be allowed by the Minister for associations which he deems to be effective in promoting dog husbandry practices which lead to the reduction of dog problems. And, as I say, it allows for compensation for a much wider range of livestock than we previously had where it was limited to sheep.

I With that explanation, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: When I first saw this piece of legislation, I was very, very thrilled indeed. Mr. Speaker, I was very happy indeed, and I ran down to my office and I said to myself, "I'm going to let those ranchers up in that great Peace River country know that this great open government, this people's government, is going to protect them…"

AN HON. MEMBER: …and their assets.

MR. PHILLIPS: "… and their assets."

I dialled the number and, as I'm listening, Mr. Speaker …

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: …as I'm waiting for the ranchers in the Peace River country to answer my phone, what happens, Mr. Speaker? I start to read the legislation — and what do I find? It's a Domestic Animal Protection Act, but what's it going to protect the domestic animal from? — Snoopy! (Laughter.) Lassie!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't want to make light of….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How about "Droopy, Drippy and Droppy"? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: But there are different people over here now. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I do not want to make light of the fact that certain livestock in this province need protection from roving dogs, but I do want to draw attention again to the fact that livestock, domestic animals in this province, need protection from the greatest predator of all — the wolf.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Two legs or four?

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well, I will talk in a moment. I'm going to say that certainly the livestock industry, as you well know, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), also needs protection, greater protection, I should say, than presently exists, against two-legged predators.

I refer to the hunters of this province who go out into the great out-of-doors in search of those lovely little deer and moose who graze there in our great wild lands. They go out with their guns to hide behind trees and shoot them up. But sometimes they make a mistake and they shoot domestic animals. Also there are the thieves in the province who we call "rustlers," and our livestock and domestic animals need protection from them.

Now if we are not going to protect our livestock

[ Page 541 ]

from these predators, both human and wild, we are going to have to come to grips and reimburse the livestock owner, the owner of domestic animals. We are going to have to reimburse them from the public purse.

I say that if the people who live in Vancouver-Little Mountain, who live in Vancouver south and who live in all of the lower mainland, want to protect the wolves in the province, then they are going to have to be prepared to pay the price.

No longer, with the great shortage of food, no longer with bringing in legislation to improve the livestock industry, no longer with bringing in legislation to help the farmers of this province — no longer can we go on to leave them unprotected against the predators.

Mr. Speaker, it says in this piece of legislation that the fund will provide compensation for owners of domestic animals killed or injured by a dog. This is not the biggest problem, Mr. Speaker — we have a new leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: I know, Mr. Speaker, that if there were other people on that side of the House, this problem would be resolved. I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and I want to say this sincerely, that I'm acquainted with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and I'm acquainted with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) who is sitting right here in front of me. If you need someone to intercede on your behalf, to go to these Ministers and to ask for assistance, I would certainly be most willing to give you assistance in this area. Now, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of Finance, I'm getting them prepared — to produce some pictures in this House of cattle that have been slaughtered by wolves. I want this province to see the gory details and to realize, Mr. Speaker, that this must stop.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, would the Hon. Member try to confine himself to the bill, which deals with domestic animals and dogs?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the bill, which made me so ghastly disappointed, as I said, says Domestic Animal Protection Act, and I'm talking about the protection of domestic animals. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this problem is serious. In our area I had our cattlemen's association prepare statistics from last summer's losses, and I want to read them to the House, Mr. Speaker. These statistics were presented to the Hon. Premier, with a copy of this letter to the Minister, urging that legislation be brought in at this sitting of the House. I want to read you the figures, and these are not to be laughed at: "Losses reported by members of our association to date this year are running 5 to 10 per cent on calves and up to 5 per cent on mature stock." There are many people in my area and many people in the Member for Omineca's (Mr. Kelly) riding who are trying desperately to get into the cattle business. Mr. Speaker, these men cannot survive with 5 to 10 per cent losses from the predators.

There was a recommendation, Mr. Speaker, that went in from the agricultural committee as to how this problem could be solved. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to the House that this recommendation received a great deal of soul searching by all members on that committee before it was forwarded. The first clause in that recommendation is that there should be compensation from public funds for cattle and sheep losses, not only in the Peace River district but throughout the province. These losses may be from predators, hunters of rustlers with claims to be approved initially by the nearest stockmen's association.

Now, this is urgent, Mr. Speaker, and I'm waiting for this legislation to come in. We have said that we want to promote the agricultural industry, and in particular in the Peace River area we would like many farmers to go out of grain and into cattle. But these wolves are running wild in a predominantly agricultural area. There is certainly lots of room in British Columbia for wolves — many, many hundreds of thousands of square miles in this province, Mr. Speaker, where there is no agricultural activity whatsoever. I'm not going to get into the reasons why the wolves are encroaching on agricultural land and why they're standing on the perimeters of the community pastures. I'm not going to go into those reasons; I'll let the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) decide for himself.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you should go any further into the matter because it's out of order. If you want to make an amendment to the bill that's one thing and you can debate wolves, but the question before the House is to do with dogs.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll say that I hope that in bringing in this legislation, Domestic Animal Protection Act, the Minister is not really hiding in grandma's clothes, because Little Red Riding Hood, who are the ranchers in this province, are going to come forward and they're not going to be lulled by a grandma who is a sheep in wolf's clothing. Mr. Speaker, they're going to get angry if this legislation doesn't come in.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to make light and I'm going to close my remarks. I do not want to make light of the problem with domestic animals and dogs. That's not my intention at all. But I do want to once again bring before this House the serious

[ Page 542 ]

problem of predators as it pertains to the ranching industry in this province. I'm asking the Minister, and I'm pleading with the Minister, Mr. Speaker, to bring in this legislation and to bring it in this session, because many small ranchers are suffering.

With that last plea, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I will be forced to support this legislation, but I wish that it were the legislation that we really want and that we really need. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, we shall support this particular bill with the understanding that it is a good start. As the previous Member has said — and it's always a challenge to follow the previous speaker — we have to move into some other areas of animal control. I hope that the provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which deal with ensuring that the owners of various domestic animals — fowl and so on — will provide the proper kind of fencing or protection, because too often I think in British Columbia we can find that really the invitation is an open one to a dog, a predator of one kind or another, to move into a chicken yard or to interfere with geese or some other particular animal. That section of the bill that requires that proper fencing or enclosure be provided I think is most important.

There was an incident not too long ago and not too many miles from here, Mr. Speaker, where the invitation was wide open to a marauding dog, a dog which might otherwise have carried on with some other activity, to get into a particular area and attack geese. The dog seemed to become enraged with the taste of blood and I think we were very fortunate in avoiding a tragedy, perhaps involving a youngster.

I also am happy to see the section dealing with dog packs. This has to be a source of serious concern in semi-urban and rural parts of British Columbia. I have had, as I'm sure many Members in the House have had from time to time, calls from concerned parents or neighbours with respect to dogs which seem to have increased from two or three or four up to 10, 12 and 15 running in a pack. Thus far, as the explanatory note suggests, the previous Acts appear to have been unworkable in this regard.

I don't want to run the risk of being ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker. The previous speaker, the Member for South Peace River, spoke about wolves and that hopefully will be dealt with elsewhere, but I would suggest that this particular bill, Bill 45, is an important one in many parts of the province. One is only forced to hope that it will be enforced and, if found to be unworkable in certain sections, be quickly amended at the next session.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I too join in the remarks of the Members for South Peace River and Saanich. The Member for South Peace speaks eloquently and with a great deal of knowledge on this particular problem.

I must congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on bringing this Act before the House. I must also congratulate him on the obvious restraint that he exercised when he introduced this bill for second reading, because the thrust of the debate so far has not been directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but has been addressed to his colleague who sits behind him, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

I certainly wouldn't trespass against your rules either, Mr. Speaker, and I don't do so when I say to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation that if he isn't getting the message then he better start listening, because people who are concerned about the protection of domestic animals from wild animals and from hunters are getting fed up with it. We expect to see some changes in his department.

Mr. Speaker, we had a very graphic demonstration — short, but graphic — when we were in Dawson Creek as to how you control this matter of predation, particularly by dogs. We had a sheep rancher — and the sheep ranchers will welcome this bill, I'm sure — who explained how he handled the situation. When he finds an animal attacking his sheep, he shoots the animal, burns it, buries it, and doesn't say anything. That's the way you solve these problems under the existing legislation. I only hope that we will see some changes in that kind of activity once this bill becomes law.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I rise to support the bill, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly a good bill and badly needed, but I must agree with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't go as far as the agricultural committee recommendations.

I think we have a situation ever since Farley Mowat wrote a book with some pictures of cuddly little dog-like animals that there has been a lot of extra care taken for the predator and not for the animal that he preys on. Anyone who has seen coloured photographs of little wild animals should have a look at a few coloured photographs of calves or colts trying to walk across a field with their feet in their own entrails.

I certainly agree with the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that there is a need, and a very strong need, for better predator control in this province. I'm hoping there will be a bill introduced before too long in the House to this effect.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I too would like to speak in support of this bill. I'd also like to express my regrets that it didn't go farther in the protection of domestic animals. I feel that this bill will do more

[ Page 543 ]

for the protection of game animals than it will for domestic animals.

Being a farmer myself, I know just how many complaints there are in regard to domestic animals from dogs. They're very few; they run mainly in the area of sheep and small farmyard flocks of poultry. But dogs are a very large menace to wild game animals, in particular, deer and grouse. I think this bill will do more for the protection of them than it will for domestic animals.

I would also like to pass on a word to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). I think he'll have to live up to the responsibility now put on his department in regard to seeing that domestic animals are also protected from the wild animals — wolves, coyotes and bears that come into the farming communities and cause havoc. I find myself being in an embarrassing situation supporting the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) because I don't generally do that. But this is one area that I'll have to support him in.

I'm also very interested in game. I've always taken a keen interest in this field because I've been a hunter. I'm also what I consider to be a conservationist. As the Member from Kamloops said, you just have to see a domestic animal or a wild animal that has had its innards torn out by a wolf or coyote — coyote will get in packs and do the same thing — to realize that we also should have some concern about these animals.

I also say that there's lots of area in the province where these animals can be protected and every action can be taken to see that they don't become extinct. I'm looking forward to some legislation from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation in this area in the future.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Domestic Animal Protection Act would probably be better named the dog slaughter Act. I feel that I'm quite competent speaking on this particular bill because I would say there's probably no one in this House who has been bitten by dogs more often than I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the dog die? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: …provisions for the disposal of dogs running at large as well as dogs unlicensed. I hope that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation was listening closely when the arguments were put forward by some of the Members here relative to this Act, even though slightly out of order, and that there will be some form of legislative change in the Wildlife Act to reflect some of the thinking that has been put into this Act.

Not only does the legislation protect the livestock, it also protects the individual because the individual who is being pursued by a dog, viciously pursued …

AN HON. MEMBER: Woof! woof! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would you eject the dogs, please? (Laughter.) I heard a bark.

MR. SPEAKER: Would whatever is barking stop? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: If one is being viciously pursued by a dog, he can destroy the dog by, I guess, any means at his disposal. I'm wondering whether the Minister will give me a definition of "viciously pursuing." Is that a dog following a man that doesn't wag his tail? (Laughter.)

Also, I'm wondering if the Minister will give the farmer a reasonable doubt when it comes to establishing whether animals, be they sheep or be they chickens or geese or whatever they are, that have been killed by some animal, are killed by wolves or dogs.

I'm wondering what your attitude would be to a claim that's submitted by a farmer suggesting that his animals were destroyed by a dog rather than by a wolf, probably knowing they were destroyed by a wolf, but, because of the legislation, he must say that they were destroyed by an unlicensed dog or a dog running at large or a pack of dogs running at large. I'm wondering just how they would establish that.

But I do want to say that this legislation has gone a fair distance in compensating the farmers for the loss of their animals through roaming dogs.

MR. GARDOM: The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) made an exceptionally valid point here. Because of the way this bill is written and particularly the section which he is speaking about, we could find the situation of a dog viciously pursuing a burglar who has just come and taken pretty well all of your belongings out of your house, and that poor animal would be in the unfortunate position of having any person under your Act kill him. I certainly don't think that's the intention of this statute. At least, if it is, I hope that it is not.

Furthermore, there are, I'm afraid, in society probably an equal number of dog-haters as there are dog-lovers. This is certainly an "Open Sesame" to the people of the former category. I think it would be extremely prudent if the Hon. Minister would direct his attention very strenuously over the next few days to the section which the Member for Columbia River was complaining of. I associate myself with his remarks in that regard.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, a bit of hesitation there; I thought perhaps the Hon. Minister

[ Page 544 ]

of Recreation and Conservation might want to add something to this discussion of the legislation before us.

MR. SPEAKER: He's already spoken several times.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not for the record, Mr. Speaker.

To discuss what has happened, I have to be equally out of order. I would hope for some equal latitude, if you like, in discussing the principle of the bill before us. The concern about predators is a real one. It was expressed to me months ago. In the period between, it has been expressed to me since the legislation before us was first introduced. I've been told that it will be expressed to me again, not only on the floor of the House but from farmers out in the community.

I think it's a question of what do we mean by predator control? Surely none of us want to see predators done away with completely. We want the population of predators controlled; we want access to domestic animals controlled.

In areas where domestic animals should be running, then we would expect there would be a relatively low number of predators. There may be other areas where domestic animals are running and really shouldn't be. In those areas perhaps there wouldn't be the same incentive to control the population of predators for those reasons. There might be other reasons for controlling predators, such as preservation of wildlife.

So I think this question of predator control, as I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, is something to which the Department of Recreation and Conservation and, more specifically, the Wildlife Branch, which admittedly has not been devoting enough attention in the past, should be devoting more attention in the future. I am confident that under the present Minister that branch will be devoting more attention to control.

I insist that we certainly don't mean predator eradication but control, having anything in mind as to whether or not the competition from livestock animals is justified in particular circumstances. So, there should be control.

The question of compensation is another matter again. It hinges on the same thing. If you are in an area where domestic livestock have every right to be, whether the area is privately owned or whether it is Crown-owned, and the most efficient use of that resource in those circumstances is for domestic animals, well, then, there would seem to be a better case for compensation; but on the other hand there is also a better case for control.

If we can control the predators and avoid this question of compensation, then I think we are all much further ahead, because no one can expect that any form of compensation is really going to make up for the loss of the animal. So, rather than try to recover losses from the wild predators, we should try to control wild predators so there will not be loss of domestic animals.

As I said earlier, I am confident that the present Minister, after discussing this with myself and cabinet colleagues, and after listening to the remarks in the House this afternoon, will be just that much more aware of the need for it and I am sure will devote sufficient attention to the question.

The general feeling from everyone who has spoken is that the legislation before us now is important, it will make a contribution but it really isn't going far enough. I think for the time being it is going as far as we would like it to go. We're going to live with the present legislation and consider the need for further legislation.

On the question as to whether or not a loss could properly be attributed to a dog, of course the only thing I can do in circumstances like that is accept reports from the field. In my case it will be reports from, hopefully, the district agriculturists who are out in the field and who will be meeting with the farmers. It will be a matter of a farmer who has lost animals convincing the district agriculturist that the loss was caused by dogs. I would certainly not expect to be going out and investigating it personally.

On the question of what is "viciously pursuing," Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that a lawyer would ask that question. It seems to me that it is a point of fact whether a dog is viciously pursuing or not. If the dog is destroyed and there is then a court hearing as to whether it was viciously pursuing, the dog presumably would call its witnesses; the one being attacked would call its witnesses and let the judge decide. (Laughter.)

I move second reading of Bill 45, Domestic Animal Protection Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 45 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 46, the Livestock Protection Act.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in discussing Bill 451 said some of the provisions of the Animals Act were being included in that legislation. Other provisions have been included in the bill before us now, the Livestock Production Act.

In part, it has taken out of the legislation a lot of detail that more properly belongs in regulations. And to set those Members' minds at ease about what sort of things are in regulations, the formulae for example,

[ Page 545 ]

for controlling the proportion of cows that may run with bulls when cattle are turned out on range, that sort of detail, has previously been right in the legislation. We feel that that is not properly part of the legislation so we have drawn a new Act, the Livestock Production Act which allows more flexibility for controlling, for influencing the production of animals, more flexibility to encourage farmers to conduct proper breeding practices, to assure those buying our livestock, when they are told that they are buying purebred stock, that they are indeed buying stock where there has been some protection for the breeding programme. And the question of dogs that was formerly in the Livestock Production Act has now been removed from this legislation; it is now included in the legislation previously discussed.

Other items, deadwood, I suppose and obsolete sections of the old Animals Act, for example turkey control districts, have been omitted.

I move second reading of Bill 46.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I just rise to state that we in this party will support this legislation. I certainly realize, Mr. Speaker, that regulations are very necessary if we are going to have a good livestock industry in the province. There are new methods being devised by the experimental farm in Ottawa, which is practically the only real research being done in the livestock industry. If we are going to adopt these new methods and live with the livestock industry as it is in 1973 and project our thinking into a much larger livestock industry, we certainly have to have regulations.

I think the Minister and the department should have the authority to make these regulations because they will be made for the benefit of those in the industry. Also, when the regulations are made, those in the industry will be educated as to new methods. For instance a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, artificial insemination in the livestock industry was not even heard of; and now, to produce a healthy herd, it is used by any get-up-and-go rancher. So, I certainly agree with the legislation.

We have also, in the past few years, been going heavily into community pastures where several different ranchers are allowing their cattle to run together.

I think it's good legislation. We certainly agree with it and we will support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I now move second reading of Bill 46, Livestock Production Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 46 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

BEEF GRADING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Williams in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Beef Grading Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Williams in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There was question raised in second reading on section 3, specifically with respect to section 16(2) of the legislation.

I must confess that this particular provision is something that was lifted from the existing legislation. The need for including it in this day and age, when the number of producer-vendors is so limited, seems really to be almost negligible. I have some hesitation because the member of my staff who did prepare this bill has since passed away. There might have been a very good reason for including it at the time, but there is no note to indicate why it should be retained. We tried to find some reason that would justify keeping it in, but we haven't been able to do so. Under the circumstances, I would like to ask leave to amend section 3, to delete 16(2), and then the reference to (1) would also go.

Leave granted.

Section 3 approved with amendment.

On section 4.

[ Page 546 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question was asked again about the use of a dairy product and of an imitation milk product. We didn't feel that there would be the problems raised that were in the minds of the Members. But, in order to clear this up, I would like to move an amendment to add at the very end of section 4 where it says "use a dairy product in the preparation of an imitation milk product" the words "unless an exemption permit is obtained from the Minister."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister presents an amendment to section 4 whereby section 23(3)(c) would have the words added "unless an exemption permit is obtained from the Minister." Shall the amendment to section 4 pass? The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I was one of the Members who raised this issue on second reading, because I couldn't quite understand the reason for subsection (c). It seems to me that we are trying to sell all the dairy products we possibly can. If you can use a dairy product to manufacture what, albeit, is termed an imitation milk product, provided the preceding subsection (b) is adhered to and that labelling and details on the label express exactly what is in the product, I really wonder why (c) should be in at all.

Beyond that, I would like to know, before I could vote for this amendment, what the Minister has in mind as to the occasions on which an exemption might be accorded by the Minister, and those occasions on which, for whatever reason, the Minister would not grant an exemption.

I think that it would still make a lot more sense, with respect, through you Mr. Chairman, if the Minister deleted (c) altogether. If he cannot delete (c) perhaps he could tell us why there have to be some occasions in which he would consider the mechanism of a Ministerial exemption to be the best solution.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think some of the examples used in discussion of this — the one, for example, quoted by the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) … when he pointed out that, in the occasion of one of the toppings, a minimal amount of dairy product made a substantial change in the product itself without really involving very much milk.

Now in a case like that, as long as there is some control over it and as long as it is known that this sort of manufacturing process is going on, and it is clearly being revealed by labelling — the permit might simply say that it must indicate on the label that this is what is going on, As long as we insist that people, in producing an imitation product — if they are going to, for example, manufacture milk from vegetable products to a large extent, but use some milk product to make a saleable product — require some so that there is some register of the process going on, we can then insist, in granting this permit, that there be adequate representation as to exactly what the product is and know that the health of the consumers is being protected as well as the health of the industry itself.

Amendment to section 4 approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There is a typographical error in section 5 on page 2 of the bill, at the paragraph that is labelled (ff). In the second line of that…the "terms and conditions" — that is, the third word from the end of the second line under that (ff) — the word "term" should read "terms."

Amend to section 5 approved.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'm a bit concerned about subsection (ff) of section 5 because of the statement the Minister said during second reading. He said, "If we have to go into a place of business and seize the records, we will do so." If this amendment gives him the power to do that, I don't really know that I can support it. I think that the law must be followed and, in this case, I think that a search warrant or the necessary documentation should take place.

I'm sorry that you are in the chair, Mr. Chairman, because you, might, being a lawyer, be able to elaborate further on this particular point for the House. But I'm concerned about that particular point and I don't think the Minister even really meant what he said during second reading when he said that if we have to do this, we'll do this. Maybe he could elaborate further on that.

The other thing that does concern me is that we're talking in this section only about packaged milk. I think the day will come shortly when we are going to have to be concerned about such other dairy products as ice-cream, cottage cheese, yogurt, buttermilk, and certain other dairy products for which the dairy industry can say that it's more economical to have one dairy in the province, or two dairies; I don't know all of the ramifications of this. Maybe the Minister would elaborate before we pass on to this.

Is this in his thinking? If you're going to set up a dairy, for instance, in the Bulkley Valley or in the Peace River to process the dairy products of that area, that would certainly help the dairy industry. On the other hand, I can see what he is getting at here: if there is so much fluid milk produced, a certain

[ Page 547 ]

amount of it is going to go into powdered milk production.

Certainly, everybody should put a percentage of their milk into powdered milk production, which gives a less price to the producer, rather than having the producers in one area put all of their milk into powdered milk and in another area all go into fluid milk, which is transported from those areas. Maybe the Minister would enlighten me a little further on his thoughts in this particular section.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as far as the powers under (ff) are concerned, it does state that we require any person to make returns, to file copies of invoices, accounts; we require all these things. But when it comes to enforcing this, if it means entering premises, well, certainly there is no extra legal authority given by this legislation itself. If it is going to be a search of premises, then we would have to resort to the ordinary processes and, as you suggest, a search warrant would be required under those circumstances.

There is nothing in this legislation that grants any new police powers.

With respect to the manufactured products, there is no problem there. Contrary to what you say, if people in one area are producing milk that is going to be powdered them everybody in the province should produce a like proportion which is going to be powdered — actually it is probably more efficient if all of the milk that is going to be powdered is produced in one area, and the outside areas would produce milk going strictly into fluid milk, as long as there were some mechanism for evening this out among the milk producers themselves. That is the direction we would like to go.

There is no need at this time, and no foreseeable need, to be concerned about the movement of manufactured milk, even in the forms you have suggested. Cottage cheese, for example, today is made to a substantial degree from powdered milk that is imported from Alberta, because we just don't have the milk available in British Columbia.

So at the present we are concerned about increasing milk production, and the way to do this would be, in our minds, and in the foreseeable future, to increase fluid milk production — milk that is going to go into fluid sales throughout the province.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, when reporting the results of the proceedings before the committee to the Speaker, I would request, with leave of the committee, that the amendments that have been passed today be reported verbatim in Votes and Proceedings, and not just the results of the amendments, as heretofore has been the practice of this House. I would so request leave of the House for that — the leave of the committee, I should say.

Leave granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Shall leave be granted to record the results of the amendments in the Votes and Proceedings?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Of the results of the amendments.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the amendments that were made in committee verbatim.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a ruling from you as to the feasibility of adopting this practice. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but I would like to know what the difficulties are in adopting this practice.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm informed by the Clerk that there may be some complex matters involved in reporting. I would suggest that the matter be held in abeyance. I will ask you tomorrow on the question of whether this be reported in the Votes and Proceedings because of the difficulty involved in getting the printing, I presume, and other factors of a technical nature. I would ask that in the circumstances the matter be left in abeyance for a report back to the House by the Speaker, if that would meet with the approval of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I brought this to the attention of the Speaker a week ago. I brought in an amendment to the second reading of Bill 4, I think it was, and it wasn't recorded. I stood in the Legislature the next day and asked what the procedure was and you said that it could be recorded with leave. I thought the matter was settled.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the situation you raised at that time was that there was nothing in records showing what you had proposed. It was a verbal amendment that took place in committee and therefore would not be reported, so you couldn't complain of that situation.

[ Page 548 ]

But so far as making a formal change, as appears to be in the wind now, of reporting to Votes and Proceedings what happened in committee in the House, it's a difficult thing. I'd like to get the information from all the technical personnel involved as to how that can be achieved and report back to the House on that question tomorrow.

So subject to that, I accept the report from the chairman of the committee. When shall the bill be reported, Hon. Minister?

Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Williams in the chair.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, do you wish to speak on this bill?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I think I would like to.

[Hon. Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the committee come to order again, please. We're on Bill 9, Mr. Member.

Section I approved.

On section 2.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd have been happy to have spoken from where I was, Mr. Chairman. I might have got the attention of the Chairman more easily.

Mr. Chairman, when we come to consider section 2 in the administration of this income assurance plan, we find the part of this bill which is the regulatory power given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on which the whole plan rests. I don't wish to again go into the arguments that were raised in the second reading and, again, in section 1, the definition of farm income plan, except to express my regret and concern at the inability of the Minister to bring before us a bill which will clearly indicate how funds are to be made available through the Minister of Finance to provide income assurance.

I am particularly concerned with subsection (d) of section 2, which seems to indicate that the government, in implementing this plan, will take some security from farmers who enjoy the benefits of the plan. The taking of security is invariably associated with the lending of money. I trust that we are not going to find, when the government makes its plan known through regulations, that there are any aspects of a loan in connection with farm income assurance.

With the scant words that we have in section 2, it's difficult for me to do more than to ask the Minister what is meant by the inclusion of the words, "security required for any moneys advanced to a person," with respect to this plan and to have his assurance that there is nothing in his mind or in the minds in his department which would suggest that in some way these moneys are loaned to the farmers. This is not a lending bill; it's an income assurance bill. I'd like to have that clarified if I possibly could.

I also would like the Minister to deal with subsection (f) which gives the cabinet, in establishing such a plan, the right to designate areas of the province to which the farm income plan will apply.

I don't know that we can properly distinguish between the income needs of farmers on an area basis in this province. Scant as my experience might be, I recognize that a plan for income assurance, income stabilization is needed throughout the province.

In some areas there are farmers who do not require the assistance but there are others who do. There are many more who require assistance than who do not. To attempt to establish by geographical or other boundaries an area to which the plan might apply is, I would think, only to lead us into difficulties which the agricultural community shouldn't expect to assume.

As well, in subsection (f) — and I've raised this before — there seems to be power by regulation to establish classes of persons to whom an income plan might apply. I trust that we're not going to get into this situation. How you would determine the class of person who should receive assistance under a plan and the person who would not receive assistance is, I think, also going to lead the Minister and the government into a serious conflict with the agricultural community. It seems to me that in determining who is to benefit and who is to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the plan, there should be only one criteria: the income of that farmer from his farming operation.

Certainly there will need to be great care in determining whether or not the farmer is employing efficient means and is taking advantage of facilities that are made available by the government through the Department of Agriculture to increase his economic return from his farm. We certainly can't be putting ourselves in the position where we are going to reward poor husbandry and penalize good husbandry; but to establish classes of persons other than on an income and operating basis is, I think, fraught with difficulties.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, on section

[ Page 549 ]

2. I do hope that the Minister can give us some assurances which the bill is lacking.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Speaking to section 2 of this bill, which deals with the administration of the plan, it is evident when you read the bill that the intent and the thrust of this legislation is similar to other types of legislation which we have seen before this House.

For instance, the same general attitude prevails in this particular section of the Act as prevails in the Revenue Act, the Energy Act, the Land Commission Act and the Environment and Land Use Act to a greater or lesser degree.

It's the type of section which spells out in some detail in the subsections the manner in which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe the regulation for carrying out and administering this farm income plan. You can define areas of the province, you can define classes of people, who this plan shall apply to and who it shall not apply to.

In subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 2, the reference to a corporation, which I take to mean a Crown corporation, is made in each one of those three sections. For instance, in subsection (b) it says, "establish and maintain, or authorize the Minister to establish and maintain, a corporation, branch, or agency, and prescribe its powers and duties."

It would seem to those of us in the official opposition that there is no need for the Minister, in setting up this plan, to provide for another Crown corporation to be set up in the Province of British Columbia. But if that power is there, then we must assume that it was put into the Act and into this section of the Act because this is the intent of the government.

But so that we may all know exactly what the intent is, I would like to move an amendment to subsections (b), (c) and (d) in section 2 to delete the word "corporation" where it appears in each of the above subsections. That's subsections (b), (c) and (d), wherever the word "corporation" appears, so that we know without a doubt that it is not the intent of the government to set up another Crown corporation such as some of the other agencies that we have seen established by other Acts put through this Legislative Assembly.

I so move the amendment which I have filed with the Clerks' desk.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of what we've heard to this point, the government will not accept that amendment. There is no intention at this time of establishing a new Crown corporation. However, if the need to establish a corporation for this purpose is justified, then certainly we wouldn't shy away from forming one if we felt there was any need for it. We have nothing against the idea of forming a corporation, except that at this time there is no need for it.

From the beginning, we've talked about the flexibility in this legislation. In this particular instance, the main reason for wording this as we have, "corporation, branch, or agency," is to allow maximum flexibility in the event that we enter into discussions with the federal government as to how a jointly financed and managed farm income assurance programme might best be administered. In the event that in discussions with the federal government it seems that a corporation would be the best route to go, then the legislation we have before us provides for that eventuality.

At this time we have no intention of forming a corporation. The work towards this programme has already started within my department with existing staff. No question that as interest in this legislation picks up we will need more staff; but the intention for the foreseeable future is to handle it with the present staff in the Department of Agriculture, augmented as the need arises with further staff members.

Amendment negatived.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This party opposes section 2. I'll try not to be too repetitive, Mr. Chairman. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) and myself are always liable to be ruled out of order for being tedious and repetitious, but I have to repeat that, while I support the idea of farm income assistance, I cannot accept section 2 because of the tremendous power and wide scope of authority given in subsections (a) to (f) in particular, and (g) as well, which allows regulations to be spelled out.

I have to repeat that we consider our greatest responsibility as an opposition party to have some idea as to how much money is likely to be spent and how it will be spent. This does not appear in this bill.

We repeatedly hear the word "flexibility" about the legislation. I think this legislation is so flexible you could twist it any which way you want and still only finish up by saying that it gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to do anything he wants to give a certain assured income to the farmer.

We voted against this bill already in second reading for the very clear reason that we cannot accept the diffuse, vague, non-descript powers given to the Minister and the fact that it contains no evidence of financial responsibility whatever. You haven't even got your ballpark figures. That bill we discussed earlier this afternoon at least has a $5 million sign in it somewhere; this section 2 just doesn't state any kind of financial commitment, maximum or minimum. Under these circumstances, we certainly

[ Page 550 ]

have to oppose section 2.

I would like to comment also on subsection (f) of section 2, which does indeed — again with the utmost respect to the Minister; he personally might not choose to abuse subsection (f) — leave the door open to abuse if you can designate some areas and not others, or if you can extend assistance to certain persons in the farming industry and not to others.

Again, I would be willing to go along with this if there was some explanatory detail as to what would be the reasons given for designating some areas and not others, and designating some farmers and not other farm workers. It seems to me that it's a discriminatory subsection without any amplification. It doesn't tell us if it would be based on productivity or cost of production or the length of time the farmer has been trying to make a living, or a hundred other criteria that I could think of. It would seem that, since this is a farm income assurance Act, a subsection such as (f) should have some kind of detail to tell us what the ground rules are that would be adopted in reaching a decision as to who would get help and who would not get help. But more important even than subsection (f) is a general concern of the whole of section 2 — it lacks detail. We just do not feel in this party that we can be a responsible opposition if we can vote for this kind of very extensive power with very limited delineation of financial responsibility.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join, and I don't say "unfortunately", in echoing the remarks that have been said earlier in this House.

This is not a question of being flexible with the concepts of parliamentary democracy in my view; it's abusing all of its historic concepts and its safeguards. If we're going to follow this kind of a course in legislation and in the other primary products' fields — mining, forestry or fishing — or even in the service side of society, Mr. Chairman, the government may just as well bring in some more omnibus bills such as this and completely eliminate the need for this Legislature.

I think it's very much a derogation of legislative responsibility. It's certainly legislation by regulation; government by designation. We don't see parliamentary checks or balances; no definition of the ballpark, as has been stated before, or who's going to play in it or when or under what rules; no projection of cost; no indication of direction; no estimation or indication of control.

This surely, Mr. Chairman, does one thing very clearly, very clearly: it erodes the job and the function of the elected representatives of this province. This assembly is subjecting itself to the unlimited and unfettered power of cabinet. And that's it, just in a nutshell. This is an abuse of the power of parliament and an excessive delegation of power. I say, without hesitation, that I shall be voting against this section.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There were some specific questions raised about section 2(d) by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams). He wondered whether this meant that benefits paid out on the Farm Income Assurance Act might be considered loans, and the producers would be required to repay these. The idea here is that it might work something in the way of the advance payments Act, the federal legislation, where farmers might deliver their produce to some central storage system, and while it hasn't actually been sold and no one has paid for it yet, that in part of the agreement, knowing that it's the nature of the beast for that particular commodity group for the product to be delivered and stored under community conditions, if you like, there should be some provision for advance payments. In that instance it wouldn't be responsible — in the words being used by some of the Members opposite — unless some safeguard were in there to make certain that the producer didn't, after having received an advance payment, then remove his product from that storage and sell it by some other means. That's all we have in mind there. Certainly none of the benefits paid out under the Farm Income Assurance Act would be considered as loans.

Designating the area. What we have in mind here again, recalling from the earlier discussions of this legislation, is that we are talking about commodity groups. In some areas of the province commodity groups are very important. For example, in the Peace River grain production is very important. There is some grain produced and it would be appropriate to designate the Peace River area and perhaps other smaller areas it would be appropriate to designate the Peace River area and perhaps other smaller areas of the province for that particular farm income assurance plan but it would not be appropriate to include Vancouver Island or Salt Spring Island in that same plan.

With respect to persons, or classes of persons, again what we have in mind here is that people who may be producing products in the hobby farm sort of enterprise may be very gainfully employed in some other activity, quite remote from farming and yet be farming a few acres. It might not be appropriate for one reason or another, it might not be good for the rest of the people, the ones who are intentionally involved in the economics of the situation, for these people to be included. And they may not want to be included. In the case of some groups, as I said earlier in the debate, It might be advisable to include all of the members in a commodity group. But if we are going to include all of them….

Interjection.

[ Page 551 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, okay, but in some cases they might want to, we might want to; the realistic way to go might be to include everybody in a commodity group. But having decided to include everybody, then you might want to exclude some who really aren't members realistically of that particular commodity group. That is what we mean by using the words "persons" or "classes of persons" here. Their activity in the agricultural industry and their contribution to it are what counts. This leaves it flexible so that we can define this by regulations.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) put the same questions: we have no idea of how much money, giving too much power to cabinet, no delineation of responsibility. These are not new questions. As he admitted earlier in the debate, a later piece of legislation does come nearer meeting his concerns in this respect. I guess I can only say that now that he is one step nearer to being the leader of an opposition party, we are trying to produce legislation that the leader can support publicly, because we don't want him going out into the farming community saying that he opposed everything to do with agriculture.

MR. WALLACE: That won't keep me awake at night.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In this case I don't think I can add anything to the arguments that we have had before with the same concerns raised. I told you that it has to be flexible. We have to be able to accommodate the needs of the various commodity groups and we have to be able to accommodate any plan that we might enter into in cooperation with the federal government.

I have told you that after a break-in period and some experience in meeting with some of the members of the commodity groups, we would then be in a much better position to give you more of the details and to tell you more of the figures that you are so anxious….

MR. GARDOM: If this bill had been introduced three years ago you would never have supported it. You know that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Three years ago I wasn't in this House. Someone else was representing Nanaimo.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The more we hear the explanations of the Minister the more concerned I get about this section of the bill. He made a few remarks about a leader of a party — the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) — and the concern that he is going to have to voice in farming communities for opposition to this. Look, just a minute Mr. Minister. Bad legislation is bad legislation, regardless of whether the objectives may be good, regardless of whether it's to assist farmers, miners, loggers, or anybody else. This is bad legislation.

It's bad legislation because it is a complete, open-ended blank cheque. In no way do we have any idea, except your word in the House, which is not binding on you outside the House; it doesn't influence the court when they interpret this Act. Your soft-soap explanation of course is an irrelevancy, except inasmuch as it may persuade your own backbenchers.

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, you talk, in your explanation of this section, about flexibility. Now previously you talked about vagueness, but I guess you have been told that that's the wrong word to use so you now talk about flexibility. Well, the flexibility implicit in section 2 — and I shouldn't say implicit; it's explicit and it's incredible. You have total control in section 2(a) of any amount of money. We in this Legislature responsible to the public and taxpayers of British Columbia have no idea, Mr. Minister, no idea at all of the ballpark figures which I asked you for on second reading. We still really don't know.

You went on to discuss, Mr. Minister, the problems that have arisen over "persons" or "class of persons" which is down there in section 2(f). You worry me even more by what you said than what I understood this bill to be before. Apparently this bill is going to be so flexible, so much is going to be discretionary power, that you are going to single out individual Gulf Islands, where there may be only two or three producers of a certain commodity who will be excluded or included according to your regulations.

Surely one principle of legislation should be that it's fair and impartial and essentially for all people to benefit from, or all people to suffer from. Now of course, there are limitations on this, practical limitations, but by golly, when you start explaining 2(f) in terms of individual areas the size of Salt Spring Island — and there are only I don't know how many grain producers on Salt Spring Island …. The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) is here and probably he could answer that question in a flash. He hasn't jumped to his feet to do so, but perhaps there are half-a-dozen, perhaps a dozen, somewhere in there. It's probably not that many; it may well be under half-a-dozen, and yet you're going to be as specific as that in how this Act applies.

Mr. Minister, this is one of the real problem areas. You know the regulations are not properly examined in the Province of British Columbia. You know, because undoubtedly you have seen the brief from the Law Society, the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association, that this is a real area of concern to that group as well as of course to anyone else interested in the Government of the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 552 ]

Regulations are not properly controlled and they are not properly examined, and yet you intend to take all this power to yourself.

Mr. Chairman, under section 2, I just wonder how it would be if the party on my right had given that type of power to the former Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, Mr. Phil Gaglardi. Now, he's a great guy, no question about it. I'm not going to run down Mr. Phil Gaglardi. All I'm saying is if this type of legislation were put on the floor of the House four years ago, two years ago, five years ago, you people in your party would have hit the roof because all the arguments you put forward about too much discretion by Ministers….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, these arguments have already been repeated several times. I would ask you to ….

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would also ask you to address the Chair, if you don't mind.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't feel they have been refuted. I personally don't feel that way at all. I've not yet spoken on section 2 and that's why I want to speak on it now. The more he's mentioned, the more he's tried to explain away these problems, the more these problems have apparently developed, the more they worry me.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not addressing you in the interests of getting to the Minister. Perhaps I should have addressed the Minister through you, and my apologies for that. But please, Mr. Chairman, remain an impartial Chairman inasmuch as when you choose your words please don't indicate that you feel the arguments have been refuted, when in actual fact, as far as I am concerned, these arguments have hardly been touched by the Minister in his very weak explanations.

Now back to section 2. We've gone through, as you pointed out, the fact that this is essentially discriminatory legislation which will work by Ministerial discretions. God help us if we'd had that under the former Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. I think it would have caused the NDP party in opposition at the time to just hit the roof. And yet you're quite willing to put forward equally bad legislation,. In fact. worse legislation in this respect than anything we saw from the previous government, worse legislation in terms of principle, worse legislation in terms of detail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would mention to the Hon. Member that the word that I stated was not "refuted" but rather "repeated." The arguments have been repeated now a number of times and I would ask….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the one benefit of being in this Legislature is to remember a time when a certain Member asked the same question 67 times. Repetitions apparently ….

HON. MR. BARRETT: And look what happened to him. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, look what happened to him; he came into power, and of course he then put in legislation, which this is an example of, which is worse than the previous government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you're wrong. We like ourselves better than we like the other guys.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's clear from the way you pay yourselves money, Mr. Premier. You certainly do like yourselves.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 2(d). We talk here about "collection of moneys owing by a person with respect to moneys advanced to him under the farm income plan." We have no idea what this type of collection may be; we have no idea of interest rates; we have no idea of repayment plans. There's just simply no way that under this legislation we can as legislators go and tell the public that elected us what we passed, except to say that we've given the Minister a blank cheque to do as he likes by regulation.

Why does this legislation have to be this way when we've had intelligent logical discussion of other bills such as the bill on labour, where you had a detailed bill? If this is the type of legislation, Mr. Minister, and if section 2 is the type of section that you approve of, I don't know how you can sit in the same cabinet as a Minister who feels it necessary to put complete details of other things.

Mr. Chairman, this is the enabling section of this bill and I ask you to compare it with the other legislation we've been considering in this House, specifically, of course, Bill 11. For example, say we had in here: "The Minister may appoint a board of an undetermined number of people to deal with labour matters as they arise, and he may have an ombudsman, if he wishes, who may or may not have powers." If that type of legislation was before us, we would have howls of outrage from every sector of organized labour and organized industry. But because the farming community is not as well organized, because it is not as powerful a force within the government back bench and front bench, because it doesn't have the keen and well-financed organizations that labour has, the Minister feels he can put in things

[ Page 553 ]

like section 2, where he becomes the Big Daddy as far as things go for everybody involved in agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that this really is an iniquitous section. It's a section which makes a mockery of the type of legislature that I think we should have here and the type of parliaments or legislatures that we should have anywhere in the world. Simply handing powers, holus-bolus, to Ministers in this way is ridiculous. There's really no reason for us to have two sessions a year, for us to be paid more, for us to spend more time in Victoria, to have assistants such as the Premier just mentioned a moment ago. There's no reason to have all that if we're going to put forward idiotic legislation of this nature. It really makes no sense whatsoever. A legislator, if you put forward enabling legislation of this type, becomes simply a rubber stamp for good intentions, and it's the civil servants who write the regulations who are the people to whom representation should be addressed.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned a short time ago that leaders of parties would have to go out to the farming community and elsewhere to state their positions. Well I have no hesitation in stating our position on this bill which has been well expressed by my hon. friends in the Liberal Party. Our position is that this type of legislation, no matter what the subject, no matter whom it's designed to help — at least whom the Minister says it's designed to help — we cannot support. We cannot support it because it is essentially bad.

If I have to go out and justify our voting against that legislation, and if I find that difficult to do, well then that's tough for me. The fact is that there's no way in this Legislature that we can honour the commitment and can honour the trust placed in us by the electors of British Columbia unless we vote against bad legislation. Bill 9, section 2, is very bad legislation.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Premier, there are 126 questions on the order paper and I'm wondering if you would ask your Ministers to answer some questions, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll certainly do that, Mr. Member. I appreciate that inquiry.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.