CONTENTS

Wednesday, October 17, 1973
Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Committee stage.

Mr. Smith — 721

Mr. Wallace — 722

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. Chabot — 724

Mr. Smith — 724

Mr. Lewis — 725

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 725

Mr. Williams — 725

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 726

Mr. Chabot — 727

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 728

Mr. Smith — 731

Division on motion to rise and report progress — 732

Mr. Chabot — 732

Mr. Phillips — 733

Mr. Smith — 733

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 734

Mr. Smith — 734

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 734

Mr. Phillips — 735

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 736

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 736

Mr. Wallace — 736

Mr. Chabot — 736

Division on amendment to section 3 — 737

Mr. Curtis — 737

Mr. Phillips — 738

Division on section 4 — 738

Report and third reading — 738

Veterinary Laboratories Act (Bill 31 Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 738

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 738

Mr. Williams — 739

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 739

Mr. Morrison — 739

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 739

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 739

Report and third reading — 740

.Agricultural Credit Act. (Bill 44). Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 740

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 740

Mr. Williams — 740

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 740

Mr. Phillips — 741

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 741

Mr. Williams — 741

Report and third reading — 742

[ Page 721 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1973

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

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

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACI

House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 4.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): This is a little bit of a different setting. We at last get back to the evening sessions.

We welcome the fact that the Premier has decided that there is so much urgent legislation before the House that we have to have an evening session occasionally to make up for some of the problems of previous days, and the fact that we had no legislation before us for the first three weeks of the session of major importance, except perhaps one bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which bill are you on?

MR. SMITH: Nine, as a matter of fact, the Farm Income Assurance Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're the one that's confused.

MR. SMITH: …and say that during the last discussion that we had on this bill, it was fairly apparent that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), while he was asking for wide, very broad powers, really had nothing to tell us about how he would implement this legislation or just what he had in mind with respect to the programmes that would be involved with the money that would be appropriated from revenue.

The thing that concerns us most is the fact that this type of legislation is very similar to many other bills that came before the House. If it was not for the fact that much of the legislation we have seen in the past year gave the same blank-cheque approval to the government as this one, we would not be so concerned. But we have seen other Acts — to name a few: the Revenue Act, the Energy Act, the Land Commission Act, the Environment and Land Use Act — all of them leaving extreme powers in either the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or an appointed commission which would act on behalf of the Province of British Columbia.

Surely the Minister must have some idea not only of how he wants to implement this plan but the amount of money that will be involved to finance any programme that he has in mind. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, until we have had some reasonable explanation from the Minister of Agriculture concerning section 4, the appropriation of funds for this bill, we're certainly not prepared to accept what we have heard so far.

There are many areas of the farm economy where assurances of one form or another may be needed. But it would seem that this bill was prepared in haste, perhaps as much in haste as Bill 42. And as a result of getting the feedback that we did after the fact with respect to Bill 42, the Minister has tried to recover his position by rushing in a Farm Income Assurance Act.

There is no indication in this bill of what you consider to be a farmer. There's no indication in this bill as to how the plan will be operated or what products or what commodities you actually have in mind.

The plan in the interpretation calls for measures to be implemented and programmes "howsoever described." I'm not sure that that was intended by the Minister. I would hope that before this debate closes on this section he will clarify what he really means by such a broad statement as that one.

I would hope that the Minister has not been led down the garden path by the legislative counsel who drafted this bill, and that in their haste to provide the Minister with a bill to put into the House at a reasonable time after the legislative session was first called this fall, they have been involved in drafting a bill which is not really the intent of the Minister at all. Either that or we must assume that the Minister does not know what he really wants and has not been able to give the legislative counsel enough direction in drafting the legislation for them really to know what he had in mind. Either way, it's inexcusable and it makes us very concerned about the whole programme in the farm economy.

If this is an indication of the concern and the manner in which you intend to operate the Department of Agriculture, then all of us in the opposition have great cause for concern and so does every farmer in the Province of British Columbia.

We need more than a hit-and-miss proposition. We need more than a wide, all-embracing, motherhood type of legislation which gives the Minister of Agriculture extreme powers to appropriate funds, regardless of whether the plan was ever approved by the Legislative Assembly and the legislators that sit here or not.

I believe that had the Minister gone to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture they could have

[ Page 722 ]

told him very quickly the two or three areas at least that he should zero in on with this particular type of legislation. Certainly they spent a great deal of time this year, travelling throughout the province and listening to farmers and the farm problems. I think that that committee probably knows more about the farm problems than the Minister himself. So if he would just take their advice, if nobody else's, he would have at least been able, when this bill came before the House, to give us an indication of the direction and the scope of his programme. We're entitled to that, Mr. Chairman, as Members of the Legislature.

We should not be asked to pass blank-cheque legislation, particularly in the field of farming, because there has never been a time when the farm organizations collectively could not tell you many of the problems of the farming economy and do it in very concise terms.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: Very cynical people across the hall, Mr. Chairman, people who seem to have no respect for the farming economy in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh, listen to who's talking. You're holding up this Legislature.

MR. SMITH: I'm not holding up anything, my friend. You tell the Minister to spell out in chapter and verse what he intends under section 4, and we'll be prepared to go on to another bill. But until that's done in this House, don't expect us to sit down and say nothing about this type of legislation. Because the farmers don't know what's in it; we don't know what's in it; the Minister doesn't know what he intends to do.

So don't expect us to sit down and say nothing when we're talking about the farm economy of the Province of British Columbia. You should be ashamed — sitting on the cabinet benches — when you sit there and laugh about the situation of the economy in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to please address the Chair, and also to confine his remarks to the section 4 before us, if you don't mind.

MR. SMITH: Watch your finger on the hot button.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're standing up and saying nothing, not sitting down and saying nothing.

MR. SMITH: The Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is obviously a little jumpy this evening.

It's a fact that this bill has nothing in it for us to analyse with respect to the programmes that the Minister intends to introduce. I'm disappointed because I expected more from this type of legislation. The only conclusion I can come to, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this is a sop to alleviate the problems of the farmers and to misdirect their attention from the things that have happened to them and the way that their property has been devalued since the introduction of Bill 42.

It's the old tactic of diverting the attention of the farming economy by bringing into this House an Act which was not thought out. Until we see some details of the programme, we have every right to stand on our feet in this House and protest what the Minister is doing. All he has to do is to get up on his feet and tell us what his programme is before he asks us to approve of this type of legislation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few comments on section 4. I think the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), much as I admire him, was stretching our credulity just a little bit the other day when he said, "Well, we shouldn't get excited as representatives of the taxpayer. After all, money being debated in section 4 could always be brought back to the House." But he seemed to overlook the very simple fact that this would be after the money was spent.

I think, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the Attorney General, that that was rather a reflection on the stupidity of the opposition — that we would accept the kind of comment that it would be all right to scrutinize the expenditure of the government after the money had been spent. It's always been my concept that the role of the opposition was to scrutinize the proposed estimates. That's what the word "estimate" means: how much money the government thinks it will require to be spent in a certain budget, whether it's agriculture or medicine or education, or any other bill.

Therefore, I just have to comment that I can't accept the Attorney General's statement that because the expenditure would finally be debated by this Legislature…it is not good enough that we should debate the money after it's spent.

I'd also like to say that I can't accept the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich's) statement either, the other day, that he couldn't specify a figure because if it were too low, there might not be enough in the fund; and if the figure were too high, there might be a tremendous run on demands for the fund. I just don't think that that kind of explanation is really a fair attitude of the government to take on such an important matter as the large sum of money that we on the opposition side are supposed to take

[ Page 723 ]

without details being expressed.

The other thing that really crosses my mind is the number of times in this House that I've talked about the need for government to finance nursing home care. So often I get the answer from the Minister and from others, "Well, we don't know how much it will cost; it's a very difficult figure to assess. We just don't know how many patients might need to go to nursing homes."

It seems to me very strange, Mr. Chairman, that if that government attitude prevails toward the nursing homes, it's certainly absent from this bill regarding agriculture; the sky's the limit on this bill. No statement whatever as to how low or how high the cost might be, But apparently the sick people of this province who need nursing home care are a different problem. We don't know how much that's going to cost. And I agree that we don't know what it's going to cost. But why come in with a bill like this in farming and tell us to give you a blank cheque?

Apparently that kind of legislation cannot be brought in for sick people in this province. I think that this is really not good enough, that the government should ask in such vague, general terms for approval of the opposition towards the expenditure of potentially very large sums of money without any guideline or detail whatever.

It's becoming repetitious, Mr. Chairman, and if you're getting ready to rule me out of order, that's fine. But I can simply say that, in the opinion of this party in the House, it cannot be said too often that the first responsibility of a Member of this Legislature is to scrutinize very carefully the expenditure of taxpayers' money — in advance of it being spent.

For that reason I have to reiterate our strong opposition to section 4.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why the Member suggests that the government thinks that the opposition is stupid. Far be it from me to suggest that that be the case. But I am surprised to hear the Member suggest that his interpretation of estimates is a debate of funds after they're spent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then, Mr. Member, what we are telling you, and what the Attorney General told you, is that we're passing — we hope to pass; we hope to get the support to pass the bill … and we note with interest that the official opposition voted for the bill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you can't have it both ways. It's a very good political device to say, "Well, we voted for it in principle" — but then not have any principle by attacking it at opposition. At least the Liberal Party has said that they're not going to vote for it because it is, in their frame of reference, too vague; it doesn't have the detail. And they're principled enough in saying that they won't accept it on that basis.

But to have the official opposition vote for it in principle and then attempt to say, "We told the farmers we've endorsed the programme"…but when they came down to committee they really didn't't endorse the programme at all.

What are you saying to us? You are saying to us in committee stage that you're against this bill because there's not enough detail. But you were for it, even though there isn't enough detail, in second reading. Now how inconsistent can you get? If you take a position, at least stick by it.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Order, order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I say that this section has got as much detail as it had when you voted in second reading. When the estimates come in you can certainly stand up, as the Attorney General said, and attack the spending estimates. Without this bill we won't be able to initiate the programmes that I thought everybody in British Columbia wanted.

Section 4 enables the Minister to initiate new programmes. And when those funds are available and are spent in new programmes, the accountability is here in the House. We'll come back and we'll ask you to scrutinize those accounts and support or criticize the Minister for his actions. I just don't understand; I just don't understand — unless you're simply playing politics, which would be a terrible accusation to make against the party with a record like yours.

Mr. Chairman, I just can't understand the official opposition's position. I ask the House to get on and endorse this legislation or vote against it, as you see fit. But at least accept the idea….

MR. CHABOT: Ram it through.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ram it through? My friend we couldn't ram anything past you, especially in a leadership race, when every issue becomes a major mountain for you to climb over.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh yes, Mr. Chairman, I accept their calls for order because they are great observers of order themselves in a debate in the committee stage.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is asking your support or your opposition to a very simple section. With all of the clichés that you can

[ Page 724 ]

drag out, the speeches have now been reduced to certain categories on this section: under the "V" for "vague," under the "S" for "state socialism," under the "S" for "sweeping powers." I think that we can get a whole manual developed for this section that will be available for other sections as we go along.

Perhaps then they could just hold up cards and let us know what number they are referring to.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says, relative to section 4, that he needs this section to initiate new programmes. He's suggesting that with a specified amount under section 4 it would not be possible to initiate new programmes. What a bunch of nonsense! What a bunch of political nonsense!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, there he goes….

MR. CHABOT: We listened to the Attorney General saying, "Oh, we'll account for every penny; oh, every penny will be accounted for." What's wrong with calling for the pennies after you've indicated what kind of dollars you need for this programme? This is the type of programme where the government is saying "trust us." We've heard that statement before from that government. The people out there know that they can't trust them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against it.

MR. CHABOT: You can't trust them, Mr. Chairman. We want to know just what kind of programmes that the Minister looks forward to introducing in this open-ended section.

I'm sure that the Minister has failed, on numerous occasions, to get up and clarify his position as to why he needs an open-ended fund on section 4. The Minister has given us nothing but an indication that he's wallowing in a field of uncertainty.

I'm surprised, really, that those government supporters in the backbenches, those who come from rural parts of the province and those who come from the agricultural parts of this province, have remained so strangely silent in debate on this section 4. You know, it indicates to me very clearly that they have no concern for the respect and dignity of this parliament, where things should be debated in actual detail.

No, Mr. Chairman, I've never seen a debate like this, when we're discussing the matter that the government is given an open-ended fund to spend as they please, for agricultural purposes, for political purposes or for any other purposes, where the backbench has remained so silent. I'd hoped that the backbench would get up and discuss this matter which is of extreme importance to the respect of parliament.

I would hope that the Minister, in his last opportunity before we have a vote, or before his backbench gets up and turns on him for his lack of being specific, would get up and give us some kind of programme, some kind of idea of just what kind of dollars he's talking about.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it would have been a very easy thing indeed for the Minister of Agriculture to get on his feet this evening and give us some indication of what he really intends with this programme. It's fairly obvious that neither the Minister nor the government Members in this House who represent agricultural ridings in the province have anything to say. Nothing to say about this bill.

It would have been a good plan, I think, for the Minister to indicate to the House the amount of money that he felt was necessary for the plan, even if he was a little under or over on his original estimate. Certainly he could have included a ballpark figure within the bill and given to us an indication of what his plans were.

It would have been no great problem, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister to bring an amendment before this Legislative Assembly at the next session of the Legislature, which will probably be in January. It would probably come before this House before any plan was ever implemented or one dollar had to be paid out.

So what is the problem, Mr. Minister? Why are you stalling and staying in the weeds on this plan? Because the money that will be required will not be required in any great amounts for the next few months. If the amount set up by statute in this particular bill is insufficient, by the time we next meet in this assembly you could certainly propose an amendment.

It's your responsibility as Minister to indicate to the House, to your own Members at least if you don't want to say anything to the opposition, what you have in mind. Have you got them all gagged? Are they not as concerned about the farming community as the other Members of this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Obviously you're the one that's not concerned.

MR. SMITH: Either that or you have at some stage, or at some caucus meeting, indicated to them far more than you're prepared to indicate to the opposition Members of this House. I don't think that we should be asked to pass this particular section of the bill until you give us an indication of what you have in mind.

Certainly after the discussion that has taken place on this particular section in previous sittings of this Legislature it should have got to you I think, really, that there was a principle here and a concept that the opposition were not prepared to accept, that even

[ Page 725 ]

some of your own Members in your backbench may have some misgivings about. You could very simply have indicated in this section a specific number of dollars with the indication to the House that if this was not sufficient you would be coming back before us at the end of March — or at least it would take effect then, but in the next session of the Legislature — to ask for an increase in funds, to finance the programmes that you have in mind.

I ask just once again, without trying to be repetitious, Mr. Chairman: what are your programmes and where do you think the problem is at this particular time with respect to providing assurances or income to the farming community?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Seeing how the Hon. Members of the opposition are wanting some remarks from the backbench, I thought I should stand up and give them some. (Laughter.)

You know, we're certainly entering a new era in this province when the opposition has to worry about any government spending too much money on farming. (Laughter.) This has never happened before in British Columbia and it's never happened before in Canada.

I'll tell you one thing, that while that party was in power they were a disgrace to the farming community.

It just so happens that I'm a farmer and I'm very much affected by this legislation. I also live in a riding that's probably 70 per cent oriented toward agriculture and I haven't had one complaint from that riding in regards to this legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You asked for it!

MR. LEWIS: When we get around to where we worry about the opposition spending some money on farmers, possibly the election will turn around and you'll get some votes in another time. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're winding up the debate.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): No, I've no intention of winding it up. The last speaker spoke as a farmer. I wonder whether or not the Members of the opposition who are so concerned about us spending too much money on farmers have heard anything from the farmers in their constituencies. Is there any concern from the farming community, or are they speaking simply as Members of the opposition?

There was a question raised by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) when he spoke in this debate yesterday, I believe it was. He asked whether we had any programmes or plans. I tried to make it perfectly clear during discussion of this bill that there will not be any programme, there will not be any specific plans until we have an opportunity to discuss a particular plan with the commodity group involved. We're in no position to invite any discussions like that as long as we're discussing this legislation in this session of the Legislature. Only after the bill has been passed will we feel free and only then will the commodity groups feel that there's any point in talking to the government about any kind of a farm income stabilization plan.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm trying to listen to some of these comments in case they add anything which they have not been able to contribute to the debate so far. I thought that when they're sitting down they might speak with more sense than when they're standing, but it doesn't appear obvious so far.

In any case, we've had preliminary requests from two groups: from representatives of the fruit growers and from the dairy industry. Staff have worked on cost-of-production figures that will assist us in the development of plans for these two particular commodity groups so far. But in both cases they're going slow and we're going slow until we have the legislative authority to discuss this with them.

As far as the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) asking for clarification of section 4, I thought it was perfectly obvious that what we're saying in section 4 is that this is where the Lieutenant-Governor instructs the Minister of Finance where he is to get the money to provide for the fund that is provided for in section 2(a), and that's what section 4 does.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, every time we have a speech from the Minister, he increases the concern that I have about the wisdom of voting for any section of this legislation.

The Minister has just given us the most complete drivel that I have ever heard a Minister of the Crown give to this assembly. To suggest that he and officials of his department cannot meet with commodity groups to discuss the possibility of some income assurance or stabilization plan without the passage of this legislation is just nonsense. Complete, utter nonsense.

The Minister has said that he is now having discussions with two commodity groups and he hopes to be able to work out a plan. Mr. Chairman, when the Minister has completed those discussions and his officials have devised a commodity income stabilization or assurance plan, that's when he should be bringing the bill before the House. Then we will know of a specific plan that we are talking about and we will have some idea of the amount of money that

[ Page 726 ]

the people of this province will be obliged to pay in order to make that plan work.

The Minister said yesterday, and he said it again a few moments ago, that all this section 4 is designed to do is to say where the money's coming from. Mr. Chairman, there's never been any doubt where the money is coming from. The money is coming from the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I don't care how long we must repeat it; we can never be criticized for discussing fiscal wisdom in this House. And the Minister has not done so in any of his remarks. As a matter of fact, when he spoke yesterday he agreed with the position that we are presently taking. He said that the trouble with section 4 is that he didn't want to put in an amount which was too small, because that might disturb the commodity groups. In other words, having promised the farm community an income assurance plan, he didn't want to put in a sum of money which was a responsible amount because the farming community might believe it was being cheated. And that wouldn't be politic, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: That's right; that's the key.

MR. WILLIAMS: He went on to say, however, that he didn't want to make the amount too large because, and I'm quoting the Minister's words, "it would give the impression to the community totally that we were going too far with this programme."

That's why we're opposing section 4. It doesn't give any amount at all, so "too far" is limitless under section 4. Doesn't the Minister understand that? If he doesn't want to put in too large a sum because it would be going "too far," what does he think he's showing to the community totally when he puts no limits on expenditure at all? As far as the horizon; as far as the moon. That's what he's offering to the community totally with section 4.

The Minister said some other things. He promised that he would be coming back to this House with details of a programme. He said he hoped that there would be an opportunity to discuss programmes in this House. That's why we have opposed the bill every section. There's nothing in Bill 9, section 4, or any of the other sections, which in any way obliges that Minister to come back to this House and lay before us a programme for examination, or to allow us to question any programme which he may institute. There is no obligation on him to come back before this House and let us ever again debate whether the amount of money that he is spending on those programmes is too low or too high.

He and the cabinet in Bill 9 can run the whole show. He doesn't even make a commitment to this House. In his remarks yesterday he said he hoped he would be able to do it. Mr. Chairman, that means that he will only do it if the rest of his cabinet colleagues permit him.

If the Minister is sincere in his suggestion that he will come back before this House and allow us to examine the programmes that he and his department devised for commodity groups, if he is serious that he will permit us to examine the amounts of money which will support those programmes, then let him adjourn this committee and let him bring back amendments to Bill 9 which will provide specifically that he must bring any particular commodity income assurance programme accepted by the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council back before this House for report and examination and discussion. Let him provide in this section 4 that the only moneys that may be provided through the Minister of Finance in this fiscal year will be those made available by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and that any moneys available in a subsequent fiscal year, to support any programmes which are approved by this House, are moneys which are voted by an Act of this Legislature.

That's how we get responsibility. The Minister well knows, when he examines the legislation dealing with the expenditure of funds in this area, that in other parliaments there are limits and those limits may not be exceeded except by an Act of that parliament; and yet he will not give us that opportunity in British Columbia. And I ask why.

The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) spoke a moment ago as a farmer, and said we have never spent enough money on farmers in this province. I agree with him. But what assurance does he have that we're going to do it in this bill? What assurance does he have that, as a commodity producer, he or any of his colleagues in that same commodity group are ever going to have an opportunity to question the programme that that Minister establishes, either through his abilities to debate in this House or through the abilities of any other Member to debate in this House?

The Minister can provide the safeguards that we're asking for without hampering his opportunity to deal with each commodity group, as and when he wishes. He's under no deadline. But he can give us the assurances in this legislation by introducing the appropriate amendments which will make sure that it does come back to this House for those specific items of approval.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Well, Mr. Chairman, it's quite an experience to sit and listen to the Members of the opposition, all parties, debate this particular section of this particular bill. It's obvious when we listen to the official opposition that they forget what they said this afternoon, when I heard Members cry crocodile tears about a certain situation…

[ Page 727 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Don't lose your cool.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …a certain situation that has developed with regard to agriculture and vis-à-vis the transportation of food for the agriculture industry. I ask you to put a cash value on that situation, right now, which is part of the demand of this bill to provide farm income assurance. You can't do it. There's no way you could estimate what that will be. But there you were, wailing and weeping and gnashing your teeth, a sham show.

Here's the opportunity of guaranteeing to the people you were talking about this afternoon that they will have an income assurance to offset and overcome any damage that might be done through the effect or situation that develops in any other section of the Province of British Columbia. But there you are this evening opposing the kind of legislation that would assure these people of the kind of security that you were talking about this afternoon. So it's obvious you don't mean what you said this afternoon, or you don't mean what you said tonight, one or the other. You can make your choice.

The Liberals. What did they say? They said, "We can't trust the Minister to do this or do that. Why isn't it in the legislation? It has to be in the legislation before you can put it in your estimates next year within a few months to bring it into this House." But even more, I ask the Liberals to cast their minds back three years ago when I stood, about there somewhere, and talked about the measure of the insanity of our society because the federal Liberal government were paying farmers $7 an acre not to raise wheat. Was there any estimate of how much that programme was going to cost, and was it by legislation?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Yes, $100 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: $100 million by legislation?

MR. WILLIAMS: Spelled out in the legislation. You can go to the library and look at it….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How much did it cost? How close was that $100 million? You don't know, No, you don't know and you don't care, because it was an insane programme and that's the whole Liberal attitude toward agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: How much wheat did we lose?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and how much wheat did we lose? How much foodstuffs did Canada lose because of that insane Liberal programme?

But what concerns me is this feeling in this House tonight from the opposition that, as I look at these people across the way, every one of them reflecting the chamber of commerce, small-businessman attitude, they don't care about farmers. They are prepared to do anything for the business people who want a penurious rationing of help to the farmers of this province.

I suggest to you that if we believe and mean what we said about the necessity of maintaining agriculture in the Province of British Columbia, you've got to abandon that blindness attitude that you have toward agriculture. You've got to stand up and be counted. You are either for agriculture in this province or you're against agriculture in this province; and you vote for this or you vote against it.

If you are for it, you talk for it; if you are against it, you talk against it. Stand up and be counted. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we are for the right and respect and dignity of parliament.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: He suggests that they should ride roughshod over parliament in this historical function: the watchdog of the public purse. You have no respect whatsoever for parliament. You've displayed that very clearly with your harangue here tonight.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has indicated very clearly that they have no plan. He suggested that they must pass the legislation, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) brought to his attention that it was not necessary. Quite obviously it's not necessary; they are just starting to meet with commodity groups. In other words, there is no great rush to have this open-ended fund as is given in section 4.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Against the farmers. It's all right.

MR. CHABOT: Now they talk about the accounting of the expenditures. For the kind of dollars that are designated in section 4 we'll never hear any estimates. It will be spent by cabinet decree. That's how it will be spent. There will never be an accounting in this House where a Member will have an opportunity to question the Minister in the estimates.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That was in your day.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting that it's going to be in the estimates? This is not going to be in the

[ Page 728 ]

estimates. They will be spent willy-nilly in any way that the Minister or the cabinet feels it will be politically beneficial for that government. That's how it will be spent. Cheap politics. Cheap politics with the taxpayers' money on an open-ended expense account.

No, I want to say that when that government over there brings in this open-ended legislation, it is quite obvious that they have no respect for the tradition of parliament. They are prepared to abuse the role of parliament in bringing in these open-ended pieces of legislation.

I'll say this right now: if the government at this time — and I am sure that this is a reasonable suggestion that I'll put forward — that if the government will accept an amendment which I consider adequate, a simple amendment, limiting the expenditures to $10 million, we will support the legislation. I am sure that that is adequate.

In view of the fact that the Minister has no programme whatsoever…he is just in the process of meeting, he says, or will be meeting after the legislation has been given royal assent. If they will put an amendment here of $10 million, which, he's got to agree, is sufficient, between now and the next time we meet to vote additional dollars…at which time he will have an opportunity to justify the expenditures up to $10 million. We will support section 4 if a limit of $10 million is put in.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate this evening, the Premier gave us credit for at least being consistent with our principles and I thank him for that. I would go on into where he went on further and said that this seems to be a repetitive debate, that it seems to be that you can pull out a number or a letter and there is the subject.

All I would like to mention to him is that this is one of the few debates, perhaps, which narrow down on fairly clear issues — fairly clear issues of principles, principles embodied in section 4, as well, of course, as in section 2.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, all we are asking in this debate is that the principles we are talking about, the principles affecting these sections and the stand that we have taken, be at least understood by the government so that they know what they are doing.

It is easy to make fun of our criticisms of vague and sweeping power. It's easy to make fun of the criticisms of the unlimited amounts of money. But, really and truly, Mr. Chairman, these are points which are critical, we feel, to the passage of section 4 — of course, section 4 being the last section to the passage of the legislation as a whole.

Certainly it is easy to say that under the "V" you find "vagueness." Well, that unfortunately is the type of thing which should be an absolute bar to this legislation being passed in the Legislature. If that hasn't been understood, we have to repeat it. The necessity of repeating is, as I said, because this is a relatively clear and an extremely important question. How can we be asked to vote for a section which simply grants unlimited power to the Minister for plans that he has not determined and for plans that he has yet to discuss with the commodity groups.

We have had the statement by the Minister of Agriculture that he cannot begin to discuss these commodity group plans until he has this legislation. Well, anyone who has spent any time in any Legislature knows that to be the most patent and fallacious nonsense that any Minister of this government or any other has put forward. Obviously the government can't discuss programmes, future programmes, with interested parties.

Is the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) getting up in the Legislature to try to defend himself on some patently absurd grounds? No, he goes out and discusses with other people, perhaps not adequately — we'll criticize him for that — but he does discuss stumpage, for example, with the industry. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) makes a botch of it, but at least he goes to the municipalities and discusses with them the question of how much these new buses are going to cost. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has also made an effort to, at least, discuss prior to legislation coming forward.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says that he hasn't made a botch yet. Well, we are all waiting for him to fail in his efforts. I'm not here tonight to criticize the Minister. But the principle is that at least some Ministers have paid lip service to the principle of discussion. This makes absolute nonsense of the Minister of Agriculture's statement that this bill is essential before he could possibly discuss with the commodity groups what is going on.

If we are fed specious nonsense like that at this stage in the debate, it's no wonder that we must rise to our feet and be critical. The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) got up and, you know, it was really sad for me. When I was a younger person, when I was a student in this province, I used to come down to this Legislature. I admired the man. He sat in the opposition. He'd get smashed by our former Premier on the nose time after time. He would fall down and get up again and fight.

He was a man who consistently fought for principle. Now he is fighting for principle so distorted that I wonder whether it's the same man at all. He looks like a ghost of his previous self.

[ Page 729 ]

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps you would like me to quote a few statements of the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications which I have in front of me — what he said when he was an opposition Member.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do speak up. Your pip-squeak voice was referred to earlier….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to address the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't hear the squeaking from the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) very clearly.

In previous years, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) denounced absolute discretion in moneys.

He was called to order on page 899 of Hansard. "Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression I was speaking about the absolute discretion of the Minister and the money. It is the subject in the Act and regulations. The Minister may grant out of money appropriated to that person by the Legislature, social assistance and amounts…" and so on and so on. I am quoting him. "He has absolute discretion and he is the Minister and this is the Act."

Curiously, Mr. Chairman, he was just called up by the Speaker for his references to his predecessor's use of a rented jet. Now, of course, he has two of his own and I guess he is not so interested in departing from debates in that manner.

That was the Minister of Transport and Communications just less than two years ago: a man who stood for the principle and argued eloquently for the principle of having this Legislature grant restricted, clear amounts of money for specific purposes and having Ministers required by legislation to grant such money out — not by discretion, but by legislation. Now he has switched around 180 degrees. He flies his own aircraft just like his predecessor. He ignores these principles that he raised at this time.

All I can say when I see a man who previously, as I said, was a man that I think most people in the province of all political persuasions admired, is that the Hon. Minister is just simply a pale shadow of his former self. It is disappointing in the extreme.

He makes remarks about the Lower Inventories For Tomorrow programme, a clear programme, but totally fails to mention the purpose of the programme, which was to free up the storage facilities on the prairies — the elevators, of course, which were clogged with wheat and have been for three years. No mention of the purpose of the programme in his facetious remarks.

I would like to remind him of what was said in tonight's paper in Victoria here by a former CCF Member of Parliament, a man who ran for NDP nomination three years ago, Mr. Douglas Fisher. He was talking about this great group in Ottawa, the NDP, who keep this terrible government in power, the government that you seem to dislike so much, Mr. Minister. And Mr. Premier, whenever he can think of nothing else to say, follows his predecessor and waxes wrath about it. The NDP group in Ottawa: what does he say?

"Members with conspicuous leadership ambitions, Ed Broadbent, John Harney, Terry Grier, Bill Knight, even Lorne Nystrom and Doug Rowland, were not ready to upset the parliamentary boat. A few of the older salts in the caucus have become comfortable in dealing with the government. A few Members of the caucus may have been influenced by the fact that if they last as MPs until June, they would become eligible for a minimum lifetime pension of $390 a month."

What corruption! The NDP party here, of course, oh, they're all against the Ottawa government. They also realize it's the NDP which keeps the government they dislike so much in power. And, as suggested by Douglas Fisher, one of the reasons apparently is because they want to hold on long enough for their pensions. That, I say, is corruption.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to section 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are certainly no farther afield than those of the Hon. Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

It goes on, and this is, as I said, an NDP Member, a former Member of Parliament, as he says: "At the same time word spread in the party that eight or 10 caucus members were actively talking formal coalition with the government."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, it's unpleasant but it's relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, of course when the Premier or the Hon. Minister of Communications get off on anything affecting the federal….

[ Page 730 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, those remarks are not relevant to section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In order to preserve an atmosphere of goodwill in this debate, I would ask the Hon. Members to try to keep their remarks strictly relevant to section 4. That applies to both sides of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the truth certainly hurts and the Minister is reacting, I think, very obviously in this regard. The fact is…. You're on your feet — you'd like to say something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've been talking about section 4. 1 noticed the Minister was quick to get on his feet when the Premier gets off the subject or when the Minister of Communications gets off the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to address the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a schoolboy. Get back to grade 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: At least I haven't graduated to the point of corruption that you have, Mr. Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Take that back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you were going to stay in this House….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I demand you withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't you ever challenge my integrity.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll challenge your integrity any time you come in this House and make remarks as you have done tonight.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not challenging your integrity; I'm challenging your intelligence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister be seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if that offends the Minister, I will withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister be seated? I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Victoria to withdraw his statement.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if it offends the Minister and yourself, I will withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I've withdrawn those remarks at the request of the Hon. Member. I will ask him only to examine the record of this Legislature when he talked himself, when referring to the actions of the previous government, about unlimited discretion over monetary matters by the former Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Mr. Gaglardi).

If the Minister is offended by a reference to his previous remarks, let him consider that. But I say that he's changed his views. His attitude is different. And the reference I feel, the reference I made to the NDP, is of course to the party which supports the government which he thinks is so terrible, which he consistently parades before this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've been very lenient from the Chair in this debate, but I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to section 4 and to address his remarks to the Chair. I would request the other Members not to interrupt him while he finishes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the reason, perhaps, that this debate gets heated is that these are questions of very important principle. I apologize to the Hon. Member; I genuinely feel that I exceeded the limits of good taste in my remark.

But the reason we get heated on this debate is there are critical issues of real importance in section 4, just as there are in section 2 and other sections. If there is anything that a Legislature should do it is to grant moneys to the Crown grudgingly and grant powers to the Crown grudgingly, because in every other example in history where this has been done in a careless and a slipshod fashion we have found, Mr. Chairman, as the Hon. Premier mentioned last year, in quoting McRuer, the Chief Justice of Ontario, where he said that "unnecessary power conferred on public authorities corrupts and destroys democratic institutions and gives life to all forms of tyranny, some petty and some extreme."

[ Page 731 ]

Mr. Chairman, this debate may get heated, but it's because we're discussing issues of this nature and it's for just that reason that the debate in March of 1972 was heated.

We have here legislation which in its scope is totally unfettered with respect to moneys in section 4. We have here legislation on which we, the people's representatives, have no way of knowing what the Minister will do.

We even heard the Premier, before an election, say that he wouldn't become Minister of Finance. Why is it not possible for the Minister of Agriculture to change his mind about commodity groups, as he may well do once this legislation is passed? We've had the changes of mind before, and the only way we can get away from that is to put down in black and white in the legislation, where all Members can debate, what actually is going to take place.

That is the only way the farmers of my hon. friend from Shushwap (Mr. Lewis) can find what is in the legislation. They don't know now. They don't know what we are approving in this Legislature. They have no idea how it can affect them. They have no idea whether $5 is involved or $5 million or $50 million. They just don't know. There's no way that they can stand up and say they're so happy because they don't know what they're happy about. They just don't know the programme.

Unless we get the programmes put forward in this way, I just cannot see how this Legislature or any other Legislature can maintain the principle that we are the servants to the Crown and that we here grant moneys to the Crown. I realize that words I used previously were perhaps excessive, but to do otherwise completely demeans the whole meaning and purpose of a Legislature and demeans the meaning and purpose of our role in this Legislature.

MR. SMITH: The debate at times this evening has become quite heated. I think one of the reasons why it has done so is because of the fact that when we speak about the farmers and their economy all of us must admit that we're a little frustrated in trying to find the solutions to the problems. But that does not excuse the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) or the Members of his department or anyone else engaged in the field of agriculture from trying to come up with a solution.

Certainly the contemplated funds that would be approved under section 4 of this particular Act will be required for any farm income assistance plan. But farmers generally are a very proud lot and they don't ask for handouts. As a matter of fact, if they were as much inclined to become easily provoked as the members of labour unions generally, they would have taken out their wrath upon the people of the province who are non-farmers many, many years ago.

The simple fact of the farming economy is this: that for all the hours that he puts into his chosen profession, the result and the return for too many of them for too many years in a row is less than a subsistence income.

You know the Minister of Transport and Communications who has just left the floor here suggested that we have no respect for farmers. That's an unfortunate remark, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that's cheap political claptrap. Many people have respect for farmers, including every Member of this assembly, and I would hope that includes the Minister of Transport and Communications in this House.

On the other hand, you have to analyse what the Minister is really asking for in section 4. What he has really done is take a problem which he admits is a problem — the uneconomic level of farm income to certain classes of farmers and to certain people — and provide a bill which he hopes will be useful in providing a more adequate income. But the reason that the Minister does not wish to state an amount or place a dollar figure on that bill is because of the fact that it's a political game.

If the amount mentioned is too small, then he knows that all the farmers in the province will be angry. And if by chance the amount of the fund is too large in the minds of some people, then he's afraid that he'll offend the urban voters in the Province of British Columbia.

The suggestion that was made by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was a good suggestion. It was that the Minister of Agriculture could very well attach an upper dollar limit to the amount of funds that he would ask for under section 4 of this bill at this particular time. The suggestion was $10 million, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that the urban dwellers would argue with that, and I'm sure that the farmers would know that they were dealing with a Minister who was prepared to look at their problem, to analyse it, to work with them in good faith.

The fact that that amount of money might have to be increased is something that the Legislative Assembly would deal with at that particular time. But the thing that disturbs me most, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the Minister himself must know that if a figure of $10,000 was appropriated by this particular section of this bill….

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Ten thousand — that's not very much.

MR. SMITH: If I said $10,000 I stand corrected. Ten million. If the figure of $10 million was appropriated by this bill it is certainly adequate to get the programme off the ground, and there is no way that that amount of funds would be required before

[ Page 732 ]

we next sit in this Legislative Assembly. We're at the end of the year and the only way that anyone, including the members and the staff of his own department, will be able to determine the amount of money that is required is by asking farmers to file with the department a statement of the income that they received during the present year.

If he wants to use fiscal year — fine. This would mean that in all likelihood very few dollars would be expended before next January or February, which gets us into the next sitting of the Legislature, and we would have fulfilled our responsibility as elected Members of this Legislative Assembly with respect to the allocation of funds.

The matter of dealing with the budget is one thing and the matter of dealing with legislation of this sort is something quite different, particularly where we do not know at this time what the Minister has in mind.

It is an historical right, Mr. Chairman, of the elected Members of any Legislative Assembly to deal with funds, to approve the allocation of funds, be they for the budget or for specific purposes, and debate the particular matter that is in front of them on a detailed basis as provided by the bills that are before us and by the statements of the Minister who wishes funds to be provided.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to page 62 of May. This is the 18th edition, if you wish to get a copy and follow me, Mr. Chairman, because I'm going to invite you to rule on this. I would refer to page 62 of the 18th edition of May as to the principal powers of the Commons.

"The dominant influence enjoyed by the House of Commons within parliament may be ascribed principally to its statutes as an elected assembly, whose Members serve as the chosen representatives of the people. As such, the House of Commons possesses the most important powers vested in any branch of the Legislature: the right of imposing taxes upon the people…" and I repeat, "the right of imposing taxes upon the people and of voting money for the public service. The exercise of this right ensures the annual meeting of parliament for redress of grievances and it may also be said to give the Commons the chief authority in the state."

That. Is why we request that the Minister attach to section 4 of this bill the upper dollar figure he has in mind for this particular plan. We're not asking a great deal. I would ask you, Sir, to rule on whether that is not the principal objective and the principal responsibility of elected Members in this Legislative Assembly?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point on which I can rule unless there is a point of order raised. Otherwise it would have to be directed to the House on a matter of principle.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I make that particular request on a point of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this cannot be done in committee. If you wish this to be done then you must move that the Committee rise and report progress, and then raise the matter in the House or at the time that we reconvene.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

NAYS — 32

MR. CHABOT: On section 4, and I'm not going to repeat myself, I strongly believe that there should be a limit on the amount of dollars that are allocated under this section. I therefore move the following amendment: that section 4 be amended by adding a subsection 2 and renumbering. Accordingly, in 2, notwithstanding subsection 1, no amount authorized under subsection 1 shall in the aggregate exceed the sum of $10 million unless and until further appropriations in excess of that amount are approved by the Legislative Assembly.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You're all mixed up. I'm not suggesting that money be spent; I'm putting a limit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll declare the amendment in order. We are now speaking to the amendment.

[ Page 733 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm probably more than anybody else in this Legislature in favour of the principle of this particular bill. However, I realize that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Having a great deal of respect for the Minister of Agriculture, I want to relieve him of the responsibility that he is taking unto himself in this particular section. The Minister warned me the other day during the debate on this particular section….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am, certainly. The amendment is to the section — $10 million. The Minister stood in his place and he said, "I'll debate with the farmers in your riding whether you supported this particular section or not." You know, the thing, Mr. Chairman, and I mean this in all sincerity, is that what the Minister could do until we put a limit on this, under this amendment, is that the Minister could go into my riding and he could say to the farmers in my riding or the farmers in the chairman of agricultural committee's (Mr. G.H. Anderson's) riding, or he could say in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis's) riding, "I have unlimited power to spend the province's money in your particular riding on any project that you want."

You'd better believe it. Unless you accept this amendment this is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture could do. Today he sends out a memo that says that we're going to put in the Shuswap riding a chicken-plucking plant. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I don't want to invite any conflict of interest. This is the type of thing this Minister of Agriculture can do if we give him the powers that are given to him — unlimited under section 4. He could go into my riding under this power unlimited and say to the farmers in my riding, "You come with me, you vote for me, you vote for the NDP candidate that we're going to put up in the next election; and I want to tell you farmers….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Foulkes man is a little uptight tonight.

He could say to the farmers in my riding, "Listen, we passed a bill in the Legislature that gives me unlimited money. I've got a siphon hose right into that well, that money well, that the old Social Credit Party left for me, and if you really support our candidate I'll give a little suck on that siphon hose and I'll get a lot of money into your riding."

This is exactly what could happen. That's why I say that we have to put a limit on this thing. If the Minister doesn't accept this limit, we're returning to the pre-1952 order-in-council deal — back to taking the expenditures in this province away from the Legislature. If the Premier and Minister of Finance is conscientious in what he is trying to do in this province, he will stand up and he will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, all we want to do in this Legislature is to be fair. I want to tell you and I want to tell all the people in the galleries tonight and all the people of British Columbia, that a meeting of cabinet can expend unlimited funds on this particular bill.

I also want to ask you: do you know what a meeting of cabinet is? A meeting of cabinet can be a meeting of one. It can be a meeting of the Minister of Agriculture. Power corrupts, and the crushing majority that this government has, the overwhelming majority that this government has, is their weakness. I regret to see that. I really regret to see that.

I regret to see them trying to pass legislation here at this late hour, trying to force on the people of British Columbia legislation without meaning, giving them corrupt power. I know the Minister of Finance is a conscientious man and I'm sure he's going to support this amendment.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Would the Chairman show the Hon. Premier the amendment in case he would like to see it and see that it's signed? I know what the amendment's about. The ruling was already given, Mr. Premier; where have you been?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been?

MR. SMITH: That has to take the cake, Mr. Chairman. We're debating an amendment which has been ruled upon, it's been accepted and now the Premier comes along 15 minutes later and says, "Has anyone ruled on this amendment?" Where has he been when we're talking about the appropriation of funds under this particular section of the Act? Where has he been?

All we're suggesting by this amendment — and I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman — is this: that the amount of money suggested, namely $10 million, is certainly adequate to finance any programme that will come into effect that will be required between now and the next time this Legislative Assembly sits. As a matter of fact, it may be far beyond the next sitting of the Legislature before you have to ask for any particular amendments to this particular

[ Page 734 ]

sub amendment.

We think it's fair. The farmers of British Columbia will think it's fair; the urban population of British Columbia will think it's fair — and that will protect your image in those areas, Mr. Minister. Why won't you accept it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the government is not prepared to accept this amendment for reasons that I made clear in second reading; at least, I thought I did. I said then that the provincial government is negotiating and hopes to continue negotiating with the federal government with respect to this income assurance plan, and that it might very well include a funding arrangement.

Representatives of my department have met with federal officials in Ottawa since my visit to Ottawa and will be meeting again next week in the event that there is a requirement for a funding plan it might be necessary to provide something more than $10 million.

I don't know, I made that clear in second reading. With that in mind, and with in mind that the purpose of this is to protect farm income by an assurance plan, the government is not prepared to accept that amendment.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I regret very much the statements of the Minister, because if there's anything that would be beneficial in dealing with Ottawa, it would be the fact that you had in legislative form a set amount of dollars that you were prepared to expend, if necessary, upon the implementation of this particular plan.

You could also go to Ottawa with the assurance that in the legislation that had been passed, if the amount of money that we had set out in this assembly was not sufficient, then you could go back for an appropriation of further funds to finance the plan.

In my opinion there's nothing more fair, or nothing that would be more acceptable to a senior body of government than the fact that the Province of British Columbia had put their money where their mouth was, and said: "We're prepared to go at least this far. If you have a programme that we can participate in, or that you will share in, our $10 million could very well on a fifty-fifty basis provide $20 million of approved plans for the farmers of this province."

Interjections.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised at the Members of the opposition getting stampeded into this tragic position by virtue of the Liberals', at least they feel the Liberals' access to the law book of B.C.

They've suggested an amendment to this bill that naturally can't be acceptable to the Minister, by virtue of its restrictiveness. You know I would like to quote. When we were in opposition this is what one Member of the Legislature said. He said: "The day is not far off when most farmers in this province in B.C. will have to face bankruptcy."

"Most farmers will have to face bankruptcy" this Member said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right, what else did he have to say?

HON. MR. COCKE: One of the Members of the Legislature, Mr. Chairman. He said it on February 24, 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the debate on?

HON. MR. COCKE: During Cyril Shelford's — at that time the Minister of Agriculture's estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the old guard.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was his remedy, what did he suggest?

HON. MR. COCKE: His remedy was lots of money to be poured into the system. Lots of money to be poured in…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. "Something had to be done to improve this situation" that Member said. Yes, that's what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that so?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else did he have to say?

HON. MR. COCKE: He said "The gap between production costs and sale value of farm products was out of hand."

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, and now he wants to restrict it, Mr. Chairman, tonight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

[ Page 735 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). Yes, there he sits.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: You got taken, Mr. Member, by the Liberals. You represent a farming community despite the fact that you're an insurance man. Get with it and work for the farmers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The worst thing you can do is read his old speeches. (Laughter.)

AN HON MEMBER: It's better than listening to them.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's always interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear the Member for "New Westminster…."

HON. MR. COCKE: "Westminster." Please learn to pronounce it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister from New Westminster. (Laughter.) He sort of floats around these chambers every now and again like a swan. Then when he feels something to swoop down on, regardless of whether it's industrial development or finance, he sort of swoops down and tries to pluck up a little thing for his own riding, and then he fades off into oblivion again, he and Foulkes and Cockes and the whole issue. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: And look what he did to your suit. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member please confine himself to the amendment before us?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it isn't what he did to my suit, it's what he did to the Premier's pants.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know the amazing thing about this particular section that really got to me was the other day when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) stood in his place and he said: "You know we really don't want to put a limitation on the amount of moneys spent under this section, because we might have too little, but on the other hand we might have too much."

Now I would certainly like to walk into the bank and say: "Mr. Bank Manager, I'd like to borrow some money to do something with, but I don't really want to tell you how much money I want to borrow, because if I do it might ask you for too little, and on the other hand, I might ask you for too much."

What a tragic position the Minister of Agriculture finds himself in. He has created a situation for all the farmers in this area by bringing in Bill 42, making a promise while he brought in the bill that he would protect them.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're for building houses on farm land. Why don't you sit down. You said it and now sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: He said he would protect the farmers. He would make…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: He would make the agriculture Ministry in this province a viable industry. First of all he had to protect the farmer…

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got to get Jimmy baby.

MR. PHILLIPS: …and then he had to make agriculture a viable industry and in so doing the Minister of Agriculture is putting himself away out on the end of a limb. Not only is he out on the end of a limb, Mr. Chairman, but he's got the rest of the cabinet shaking that limb. So he's going to the rest of the cabinet and he's going to the Minister of Finance and he's saying: "Listen, I'm out on this limb. I'm in trouble, and you've got to protect me. I made a commitment. And Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), I don't know how much it's going to cost me. I don't want to ask you for any specific amount of money because if I do, I might look silly. I'm not really a businessman, I'm sort of new to the world of business…"

AN HON. MEMBER: You're new to everything.

MR. PHILLIPS: "…I really haven't figured out what I'm going to have to do. I don't want to look silly in the eyes of the farmers of British Columbia. I don't want to ask you for a certain specific sum of money, because if I ask you for too little I will have failed, and Mr. Minister of Finance, if I ask you for too much you'll say: 'Look Mr. Minister, you're a Chartered Accountant, you've overbudgeted. You've cost the taxpayers of British Columbia too much money.'"

The Minister of Finance says: "If I give you too much money you might spend it unwisely. You might go to certain areas of the province, certain producers, and say 'Look, I've got a whole bunch of money here the Minister of Finance gave me. Now you vote for us in the next election and we'll sort of treat you real

[ Page 736 ]

well.'"

It could be the poultry producers and it could be the hay farmers in the Peace River area. But what we as the conscience of this province, the real legislators of this province, want you to do is to run the government like a business. We don't want to take away and we don't want to give under the Minister of Agriculture such unlimited authority as he is asking for. So we have said in all sincerity: "Put a limit on this of $10 million — lots of money to start out with." All you've put on the other bills, one of them you put $10 million on, the other you put $20 million on. The Minister of Finance is up and he's about to give the Minister of Agriculture some definitions. He's going to teach him a lesson in accounting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Will the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly I'm refining my remarks to the amendment. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's getting pretty late, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly hope that the Minister of Finance has given his Minister of Agriculture some good advice. I support this amendment and I hope that every conscientious Member in this Legislature will support this amendment.

I don't want any more threatening from the Minister of Agriculture that he's going to go in my riding and say "You voted against this." I'm trying to protect the Minister of Agriculture from unlimited power which corrupts and corrupts absolutely.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Trying to help you out.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Members opposite, as far as I'm concerned, have made their position quite clear. We've tried to make our position clear on this side.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) did give me advice. He gave me good advice. He has assured me that when it comes to discussing this in cabinet, and in Treasury, I'll have his full support in not limiting the amount of money that is available in this legislation to protect the farmers. I have that advice and I have that assurance.

We'd welcome a vote on this section now and the Member opposite can vote as he sees fit in the interest or otherwise of the farmers in the province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, our party is going to vote against the amendment for the very simple reason that if we voted for the amendment it would still be a terrible bill.

We fail to see why we should support an attempt to tinker with a bill which is so bad in original concept and design that really we don't think it can be brought in with amendment, this amendment, in a way which could be adequate for the purpose of either this Legislature or for the farmers of the province.

Therefore we will vote against the amendment because we do not feel that the amendment in any way can make this an acceptable bill.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, we will be supporting the amendment for the very….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ask your caucus?

MR. WALLACE: We also caucused, yes. (Laughter.) It's a little easier than for most parties in this House.

The very simple reason, Mr. Chairman, is that you can always make a bad bill better and I find it unfortunate that there's been so much rhetoric attached to the debate because really, as I have often pointed out to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and he's agreed with me, the important thing in this House is for the Members on both sides to agree to disagree many times, to state your point and sit down as fast as you can.

We've had a lot of repetition tonight and all I'm saying on behalf of our party in regard to the amendment, is that it is weak in some respects. We don't know the kind of programmes by which you could spend $10 million before we have another session of the House.

I think that in that regard I have to admit to some reservations about supporting such a ballpark figure. I think one of the weaknesses of the Minister's argument has been a sense of urgency which to a degree does exist. But the degree of urgency which exists I don't think justifies such an all-encompassing bill when in fact we will be meeting here again within three or four months.

On that basis I regret the Minister's stand on this bill. But on the other hand, I do believe that it's a responsibility of opposition if it can make a bill a little better, even though it comes far short of what we, in this party, would have liked to see, I feel that it is our obligation to support this kind of amendment.

MR. CHABOT: I think, — Mr. Chairman, that the amendment was introduced in good faith and I think that it's a generous one as well. It's one that can look after the needs of any programme which the Minister might initiate between now and the next session of

[ Page 737 ]

the Legislature.

I think one only has to make a comparison of the kind of dollars that are presently spent in the field of agriculture in the province. Looking at the estimates that were presented in the Legislature just last spring, the Minister felt that there was ample money provided at that time to look after the needs of agriculture in the province. He voted a great variety of things: the Minister's office, general administration, production services, special services, milk board, experimental farms, crop insurance, farmers land clearing and domestic water assistance, pest control, Pound District Act, Grasshopper Control Act, Natural Products Marketing British Columbia Act, Agriculture Rehabilitation Development Act.

Those are all the functions of the Department of Agriculture, which totals in the estimates which just a few short months ago the Minister thought was adequate to look after the needs of the agricultural community in this province, totals $12 million.

We're talking, at this very moment, of almost doubling the kind of money which the Minister just a few months ago thought was adequate to look after the needs of the agriculture community for the current fiscal year. Here we are, we're asking, in a reasonable fashion, that the Minister double, virtually double, the amount of money that it has allocated for agriculture in the province for just the next few m months.

If he does utilize the $10 million, which I don't believe is conceivable to do between now and the next meeting of this Legislative Assembly, I would hope that in all fairness the Minister and the government would look at the bill and not attempt to abuse the intent with which it was presented.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 34

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee rise and report to the Speaker that this vote took place and ask leave of the House to record it at that time.

On section 4.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, speaking very briefly on section 4, it seems to me that in his well-intentioned haste to assist the agricultural community in the Province of British Columbia the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was not able to spell out in more detail precisely the kinds of moneys that he intends to spend for the balance of this fiscal year under the bill which is presently being debated.

I would like to say that on the basis of my observation, I have very high regard for the Minister's intentions with respect to agriculture and to assisting the farmer, the rancher, the people engaged in all aspects of agriculture. He has indicated informally, and I believe in this House and I think the records would show, that he is in a hurry. He has made reference on more than one occasion to the fact that he perhaps wouldn't be here very long — might not be here very long, I think is more correctly paraphrasing what he has said — and so that's an acceptable position for the Minister to take. He is obviously a man in a hurry attempting to correct some of the ills of the past and to assist the people whose activity falls within his jurisdiction as a Minister of the Crown.

I really think that, putting some of the heat aside, Mr. Chairman — some of the heat which has been generated this evening and some of which has been most unfortunate — we still come back to the inconsistency on the part of the party in power in this province today with respect to the position it has taken in the past on a number of occasions. I refer specifically to the record of the debates of the Legislative Assembly for February 10, 1971, where the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier of the Province was speaking, I admit, about public accounts, but I think that the quotation is most appropriate. He said in part:

Mr. Speaker, we have been elected by the people of British Columbia to supervise the expenditure of their money. To properly do this, we must have before us every single account, every single record, every single book that deals with the fiscal or monetary matters in terms of the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman, whether speaking of public accounts or speaking about a particular bill, such as No. 9, we simply cannot agree, within several lines, the granting of sweeping powers with no upper limit. It is just not acceptable, Mr. Chairman, no matter

[ Page 738 ]

how enthusiastic many of us may be about getting busy to assist the people engaged in this industry in B.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the remarks from the Member for Saanich and the Islands. I had the opportunity of travelling with this Member this summer on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. We had the opportunity of looking into many aspects of agriculture. Sincerely we brought in recommendations which we thought would assist the agricultural community. And I think this bill that is before us now overrides all of the sincere work that that committee did last summer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Section 4, Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Section 4. Yes, certainly. That is the whole crux of this bill, section 4. As the Member for Saanich and the Islands so ably put it — we do not want to give to the Minister — and I really don't think the Minister wants to take unto himself — the fantastic powers that he is trying to do in this bill.

This Legislature is here not to give blank-cheque legislation but to try and protect the rights of all of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I have to again say that I support wholeheartedly the remarks from the Member for Saanich and the Islands when he says that the Minister did not even show the remotest idea when he met with the committee this summer that he would take unto himself the unlimited powers that he is trying to do in this bill, Mr. Chairman.

I am disappointed in the Minister's attitude and I am disappointed in this type of legislation. I thought we were going to work together for the good, the common good, of all of the taxpayers in British Columbia and for the common good of all the agricultural committee and all the agricultural community. I am very disappointed and I certainly support the remarks of the Member for Saanich and the Islands.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 11

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, on rising, I ask that the committee advise Mr. Speaker that a division was taken on section 4 and ask leave to report the same in the Journals.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: 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 9, Farm Income Assurance Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

VETERINARY LABORATORIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A query on the definition of veterinary laboratory — "any facility or class of facility, upon which or in which diseases are diagnosed." I wonder whether the Minister would indicate whether labs where it is not just a question of diagnoses are included — where there may be, for instance, a lab set up for serum or something of that nature. For example, monkeys are used for certain serum; and I wonder whether or not this Act would apply in the case of monkeys being kept for serum purposes, or whether it is only in the case of diagnosis.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Well, the legislation is dealing with veterinary laboratories, so while it does read that way, we're dealing with veterinary laboratories in this section and we would not be concerned with serum analysis as you've described.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So it would only apply to

[ Page 739 ]

very few of them.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Very few of them.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, on section 2: I wonder if the Minister would indicate the reason that he has restricted the operations of veterinary laboratories to people who are registered veterinarians. There is no question that registered veterinarians may be qualified to operate a laboratory of this kind, to make the diagnoses and the tests that are carried out. But I'm sure that there are laboratory technicians equally as competent as veterinarians to carry on this responsibility. It seems to me unduly restrictive to give this only to those people who are licensed to carry on the practice of veterinary surgery and medicine in this province.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did have advance warning of that question from the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), I guess it was. In taking this up with the legislative counsel, while it is true that there might be technicians working and there may be someone other than a registered veterinarian who actually owns the lab or is running it, within the sort of facilities that are going to be licensed under this legislation we feel that it is necessary there be at least one veterinarian as such since we are dealing with diseases that affect farm livestock. That's the reason for having at least one veterinarian there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Question on section 2(2): could I ask why there is this restriction of 60 days? Why it would not be preferable to have the normal procedure for bringing a whole Act in?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Simply to give time for the facility to be inspected by staff to see that it does qualify to be licensed as a veterinary laboratory under this Act.

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I would just like to ask on section 7(b): why it is necessary to prescribe standards of construction for the lab? What is the significance of that particular requirement?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, in some instances live animals will be kept on these premises, and if so, then we will want to have certain standards of construction. Other material is going to be stored — and again standards of construction for maintaining certain specimens, if you like, so that they are in a position to be examined at that time or later on if there is some need for holding them for some time.

MR. MORRISON: I just wondered if there had been in the past people who hadn't followed that kind of practice which would require you to put it in the Act? Is this a common occurrence — that the labs don't have adequate construction and don't have presently adequate storage area? Is that the reason? Have you had a problem in the past or is this something you anticipate in the future?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, when we discussed this legislation in second reading we said it is new legislation; it is to make sure that the laboratory facilities that do exist in the province, or new ones that are established, will meet certain standards — that they will maintain records, that they will store specimens. And in connection with storing them, we want to make sure that they are stored under conditions that make possible examination at some future time meaningful — the fact that they are stored under if not ideal conditions at least standard conditions, that is, standard from one laboratory to another. So it's not so much that we've had trouble with any of this, but we just feel that these are reasonable controls to impose at this time in the life of agriculture in B.C.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further to the earlier question regarding section 2: wouldn't section 7 cover that fact? You have flexibility there which I would have thought would have covered it. I'm just wondering if there is any specific need for the extra 60 days in a separate section. It surprises me that it is there.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the only information that I have. It's there to provide time for people who are practising or for people that have these facilities right now. In section 7 we're thinking more about new ones that may be coming on line. It's the only impression I have on that.

Section 7 approved.

Section 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 740 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Veterinary Laboratories Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 44; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, while this bill provides more in the way of particularity than was the case in Bill 9, I am concerned in the definition of "farm operator". The scope is given to the Minister to decide who is or is not a farm operator, and before passing section 1, I would like to have some clear indication from the Minister to the parameters that he or his department may have in mind in prescribing the regulations which will give definition to who is a farm operator or likely to become one.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can say something as guidance. Under ALDA we would now restrict it to people who are earning less than $1,600 farm income, and we restrict it to people who are earning more than $25,000 family income off the farm. The Member will recall that when the Select Standing Committee discussed this very question there was disagreement within the committee.

They did arrive at a consensus by a majority vote, but there was disagreement on this question of defining a farm operator — that is in connection with section 2(1) because that's where the definition means something.

It's something that we want to be able to adjust from time to time — I think I'm repeating my remarks in second reading now — but want to be able to adjust from time to time as we see the needs of the agricultural industry changing. At the present time I am inclined in the direction of the definition under ALDA, but whether it will come out exactly in line with the terms of ALDA, I'm just not sure at this time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for that because the limits were certainly of great concern to the committee in our deliberations for presenting our report. However, what I was hoping the Minister might indicate was the person who intends to become a farmer.

It seems to me that when we are going to be extending credit without much definition in this bill to people who intend to engage in agriculture, that the Minister should have some pretty clear idea of the kind of qualifications that he would expect a person who intends to go into agriculture and borrow money from the fund for that purpose.

There are many people who have good intentions for going into farming, many young people that we would want to encourage to take up farming as an occupation. But there is no question that modern farming is becoming increasingly sophisticated and a great deal of knowledge is required in order to have any assurance that there will be success — knowledge, together with a tremendous interest in farming as an avocation.

Throughout the tours this summer it was obvious, I think, to all members of the committee that most people in farming today were of a very special breed and they were prepared to put up with the hardships, the long hours and difficult work in order to make their farms function. But as well as that they had to have extensive knowledge in farming economics and in the techniques of their particular commodity group.

It seems to me that some standard ought to be established by the Minister and his department for those who are approaching farming as an occupation and who are coming to this fund for loans.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the Members that we do hope to be participating with Ottawa on a special programme for young farmers, but whether or not that materializes, again I have to refer to section 2(2) and the end of it, where we say "with respect to farming operation intended to be carried on," and in that instance we are thinking about people who, while they may not have a history of farming income, would still not be ruled out if they are young people who want to become established in farming.

Although there would be some experience requirement it might be experience they would gain while they are getting into it, there might be some assistance in the meantime. But before they would be entrusted with a relatively large capital investment, there would have to be some requirement such as that.

But certainly the intent of the bill, in part at least, is to make it possible for young people with limited means to become established in farming.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't wish to prolong the debate on this particular section, but the intention aspect is also found directly in the definition of farm operator because a person who is likely to become a farm operator, and I'm sure that the Members are pleased to know that the Minister recognizes that

[ Page 741 ]

some experience is required.

But that's my question: what kind of tests are they going to provide? Will they be required to be graduates from the Department of Agriculture at University of British Columbia? I would hope that wouldn't be the requirement because it would be a very stringent one. But there is in Dawson Creek the farm vocational school. Obviously that kind of experience, I'm sure, would be satisfactory to the Minister. But there might be people who would gain experience in other ways.

As well as that, there must be a capital requirement. Surely we wouldn't be thinking of advancing any significant sums by way of loans from the fund unless the person who was going into farming was also bringing some of his or her capital as well. I wonder if the Minister has some indication to give to the committee as to what his standards in that respect might be?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not too much. You do mention the Dawson Creek School, and there was a committee recommendation that that be expanded more along farming lines, and this was a hope of the Department of Agriculture when that school was first established but they weren't able to persuade the previous government that this should be done. This government is looking very closely at that recommendation of the committee.

I recognize what you say, that you can't take someone with no experience and no capital and turn something over to them. There are different ways of getting experience and one way would be at a school such as the Dawson Creek School. Another way would even be at presently operated government farms, or by making some arrangement, and these are some of the things that we kicked around at staff meetings, even by making some arrangement with successful farmers who are operating now and giving them some on-farm experience and then letting them start on a farm that would be leased to them rather than one that would be purchased by them, at least initially.

So there are these ways of working into it. If they are young people you can afford to take a bit of time to make sure they are getting started on the right track, and that is certainly what we want to do, get them started on the right track.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister of Agriculture a couple of questions with regard to the same section the Member was just speaking about.

I've heard rumours that the agricultural course at the Dawson Creek Vocational School is going to be phased out in favour of the Fairview Agricultural Community College. This is entirely opposite to the recommendations of the agricultural committee report that a ranch be added to the Dawson Creek Vocational School farm. I just wonder if the Minister would assure me that this course, which is very popular in British Columbia, will be continued and that the agricultural school farm will be continued. Could he give me some assurance that the ranch which we recommended from the agricultural committee will be added to the vocational school farm? Because agriculture in British Columbia, particularly in the Peace River area, is where the future of the…well I sometimes call it the bread-basket of British Columbia, and I think it is. It's the future agricultural community of British Columbia and I think that it is very important that this be kept intact.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's the first rumour to that effect that I've heard. I don't know where you could have heard that. The only thing I've ever heard is the standing committee report.

I've visited the farm, as you know. I'd be very interested in doing exactly the sort of programme the select standing committee recommended rather than seeing anything…but that's something I want to talk about with my cabinet colleagues.

But when you say that it is very well supported, I think not well-enough supported, because there isn't an operating ranch in connection with it. So I would hope that it will be better supported and that it will be a much more active programme. But as I say, that is something I want to discuss with my cabinet colleagues.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've just got one short question. Maybe the Minister might answer my simple question on section 2.

Will the construction of a farm home be included in subsection 2(c), farm buildings? Does that include a family home?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As an ex-farmer, not so successful as the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), and as an accountant, I consider the farm home to be an essential part of the farm building complex.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 742 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 44, Agricultural Credit Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, Members have brought to my attention that the luncheon is scheduled for tomorrow. Will it be complete by 2 p.m.? Yes, and those who are not finished can take a doggy bag. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.