[ Page 509 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

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

Preservation of the Birks Building. Mr. Wallace — 510

Broiler permits in Okanagan. Mr. McClelland — 511

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

Can-Cel recovery plant. Mr. Curtis — 512

Civil service superannuation fund. Mr. Wallace — 512

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

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

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 513

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 513

Mr. Phillips — 513

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 515

Mr. Curtis — 516

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 517

Mrs. Jordan — 518

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 523

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 525

Mr. Curtis — 530

Mr. Fraser — 531

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 533

Mr. McGeer — 535

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 538

Mr. McClelland 539

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 540

Mr. Gardom — 540

Mr. Lewis — 541

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we start today I'd like to point out a practice that was followed, unfortunately, the other day. When the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) rose to table some further documents, he made the statement to the House:

"Mr. Speaker, I have no other recourse but to ask leave of the House to file additional information related to my statements in the House that leaks have been characteristic of the business initiative of this government."

Now, the Clerks are unable, without reading documents, to find out what they relate to when they are tabled. Therefore it's essential that Members state explicitly what the document is that they are tabling, so that it may be noted properly in the Journals of the House. I would ask Members to co-operate in that regard so we can do that. Thank you.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, sitting on the floor of the House is Mr. Kenneth Proposki, who is the MLA for Edmonton-Kingsway and the chairman of the Alberta government's task force dealing with health and welfare, and he introduced the concept in a bill regarding community health and social services. I met him last week when I was there. I'd like the House to welcome him.

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

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): In the gallery this afternoon are two members of the North Vancouver Teachers Association executive, who are over here today to see the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and myself. Their names are Cliff Boldt and Klaus Spikermann, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a couple from Grande Prairie, Alberta, Mr. and Mrs. Tachit. I understand that they're here to see if they could join with British Columbia. (Laughter.)

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Seated in the gallery are a group of tenants from the beautiful constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, and along with them is a Mr. Bolton who today is celebrating his 90th birthday. We live very long in Vancouver-Burrard. I'd like the House to join me in saying "Happy birthday" to him and welcome to the other members of his group.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the House today the skipper and the prominent crew man of the Western Warrior, two people who were very hospitable to the group from the Legislature and who took the Premier out fishing last summer. I'd like you to welcome them here today.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who isn't here, I'd like to welcome everyone who hasn't been welcomed.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

INCREASED QUOTAS FOR
OKANAGAN BROILER GROWERS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the Premier. With regard to broiler growing in the province — and I hope you enjoyed your bacon and eggs this morning, Mr. Premier — did you suggest or order that two broiler growers in the Okanagan area be given quotas of 20,000 birds per year and that a committee be struck to decide which two of the 11 producers in the Okanagan be given those increased quotas?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I did not order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers. There is dispute in this area, as there is in the egg-producing area. I met in my office with some MLAs, the Minister and some staff, and I said: "Gentlemen, please work out some solution to this problem." Earlier, as I reported to this House, I said that the Egg Marketing Board were acting like children. I've long ago given up marital counselling, and I regret that I attempted it again recently.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Anyway, I will not, of course, comment on that as a bachelor. May I ask the Premier whether he did direct or propose that a committee of three be appointed to allocate the broiler production permits for 11 producers in the Kamloops-Okanagan area in the amount of 20,000 birds per year?

[ Page 510 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was dealing with that particular problem.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the light of a statement sworn by affidavit by Mr. W.H.L. Brunsdon, and contained in this morning's paper, may I ask the Premier whether he stands by his statement to the House today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Hon. Member to look at page 148 of the rules that bind us hereto on parliamentary questions, where it says that you are not to impugn the accuracy of information conveyed to the House by a Minister, or that you are to refer to answers to questions of the current session, and you are doing just that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am in no way impugning that the Premier did not tell the truth to this House. My request was only whether, in the time that has passed since his previous reply to my question, there is any other information that has come to his knowledge. I only ask, Mr. Speaker, whether he stands by the statement, as stated by him yesterday, that the members of the Egg Marketing Board were not asked or ordered, or suggested to be ordered, to do anything. It's in no way a suggestion that any Minister in this House has said anything but the truth. I just asked whether or not new information is available.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wish to answer the question. The Member refers to an affidavit of which I do not have a copy. But I read the copy in this morning's paper, and after every section in the affidavit, it claims to have said that such and such was said, or words to that effect. Now, I cannot be responsible for what someone's opinion is of what was said or words to that effect.

I have conversations with many people. But I recall distinctly in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I made no order, or did not order any solution. I suggested that they were acting like children, and apparently they are continuing to act like children. I suggested that they get together with their lawyers and see if they could work out some solution. That is what they did. I did not order, as I said yesterday, any solution.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, I'd like to get back to the broiler growers for a moment. The Premier hasn't accused them of acting like children — as yet, anyway.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: But, Mr. Speaker, the question I'd like to ask is that during the meeting which the Premier refers to with the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and other Members of the Legislature — of the NDP caucus, at least — at any time was there any threat made to demand the resignation of the Agriculture Minister if you did not intervene personally to establish these new quotas?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with any threat to demand the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. I said at that meeting that I am not familiar with the subject — of agriculture, and because I pleaded ignorance at that meeting, I suggested that the Minister go back to his office and try to work out some solution for this problem.

MR. McCLELLAND: You never intervened directly, then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I did not, I have not and I will not order any solution to the egg and chicken war in the Province of British Columbia.

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

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

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

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

In view of the contradiction in the sworn testimony, may I ask the Premier whether he intends to take action for the libelous remarks that have been printed in the Vancouver Province this morning, also last week, and further whether he intends to take legal action against the people concerned.

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

PRESERVATION OF THE BIRKS BUILDING

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, if I could change the subject, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary whether he has given any consideration to using the provisions of the historic sites protection Act to preserve the Birks Building in Vancouver?

[ Page 511 ]

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

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Could I inquire if the Minister has received any communication from Vancouver City Council on this subject?

HON. MR. HALL: Not recently, Mr. Member, as my memory serves me, but I'll certainly look into it. I remember having something, oh, it must be 18 months ago now, from a committee, In fact one or two of my colleagues were, I think, pictured next to the clock. But I'll certainly look into my correspondence of the last couple of days.

ICBC HANDLING OF DAMAGED VEHICLES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications: Is the Minister now in a position to announce plans with respect to handling of damaged vehicles after March 1 — with that deadline less than three days away.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I haven't got the details with me, but there are claims centres, there are phone numbers and so on, that I understood we were going to start publicizing about today. As I say, I haven't got them with me here.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the Minister's intention to use in any way the motor vehicle testing stations which are established in some parts of British Columbia on an interim basis for this purpose?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm trying to recollect. It seems to me there's one motor vehicle testing station — I can't remember which one — which is on the cards for being used. But only the one; I think the rest are completely separate sites.

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

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

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

BROILER PERMITS IN OKANAGAN

MR. McCLELLAND: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the Minister advise the House if he approved a policy outlining the establishment of 11 new growers in the Okanagan with initial permits for 5,000 broilers in the first year to be increased by 5,000 per year for 5 years? Was that policy approved by you and your department?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): The policy was discussed by me and my department with the broiler board and the broiler board agreed to adopt that policy, except the figure is not 5, it's 8; 11 permits at 8,000 for production and then secondary permits of a further 5 when the processing plant becomes ready for process.

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

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

MR. McCLELLAND: By your department?

HON. MR. STUPICH: My department has no authority to approve or disapprove. My department does have the authority to talk to the board, to discuss with them the advisability of increasing production in various areas of the province where there is some production or where there is no production. We certainly have the authority to discuss this with them, but as far as approving the policy or even arriving at the specific policy, this is still the prerogative of the board.

MR. McClelland: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Is it not true that either you or your department sent a telegram to the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board on December 22, telling them that those established figures were cancelled, and ordering new quotas for the industry?

HON. MR. STUPICH: My department, as I recall, did send a telegram asking them to hold back on certain orders they had issued until we had an opportunity to discuss with them the possibility of establishing a broiler production industry in the Interior of the province. I don't recall the wording of the telegram, but I do know that word did go to the broiler board that we wanted them to withhold issuing further permits in the Fraser Valley until we had an opportunity to discuss the Interior production.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one further short supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I just want to ask the Minister if he had any intervention from the Premier or the Premier's office on this question — ordering that telegram or any other action with regard to quotas in the Interior?

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

[ Page 512 ]

question. I know it's a question that came up in the fall session — several questions were raised about it then. I know then I indicated to the House it was departmental policy and government policy, indeed, that there should be broiler production in the Interior of the province.

When we discussed with the broiler producers the processing plant, when we were talking about a processing plant in the Interior, we realized there would have to be production in the Interior. I don't recall the Premier being involved in any way in December. I'm not denying there was some discussion, but I just don't recall any discussion with the Premier at that time.

CHEQUE FROM SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: may I ask whether the latest rental cheque from Seattle City Light for Skagit Valley land rental has been cashed?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it has not been cashed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, whether the British Columbia government is holding this cheque; whether it's been returned to the State of Washington officials or Seattle City Light officials, or whether it's been placed in some trust account?

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

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the previous question. Could the Minister outline what steps have been taken to terminate the contract, what legal steps, either working with Seattle City Light or with Ottawa?

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

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think public statements in the past have indicated the position of the government. I don't think that's changed in any substantial way.

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

CAN-CEL RECOVERY PLANT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: The question of the recovery plant at the Can-Cel operation in Prince Rupert, could he indicate when this work will be completed and the recovery plant in operation?

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

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask the Minister of Finance, in light of recent purchase of further B.C. Telephone Company shares, has the civil service superannuation fund made any representations to achieve position on the board of directors of B.C. Tel?

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

B.C. HYDRO ASSETS

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) whether he's had time yet to check into the problem with regard to disposal of surplus B.C. Hydro assets, whether he's come up with any solutions? The question stands that we want to have the contract called off if possible and the bids go out to tender.

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

B.C. FISHERMEN UNDER PROVINCIAL
JURISDICTION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to have the British Columbia fishermen taken under the British Columbia law with respect to labour disputes and in particular ex-parte injunctions.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Well, Mr. Speaker, the fishermen are not excluded from the provincial labour code and it's a matter of federal jurisdiction in that instance. If the United Fishermen and Allied Workers are prepared to petition the federal government to give jurisdiction to the province, then the province would be prepared to support that petition.

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

[ Page 513 ]

he himself and the government has initiated, has taken no steps or initiated any action to bring these people under British Columbia legislation?

HON. MR. KING: This is a matter for federal government policy rather than provincial government policy. We are prepared as a government to support the inclusion of the fishermen under provincial jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction now resides with the federal government. If the union seeks to have the federal government transfer jurisdiction, then certainly we are prepared to support that move.

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

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: Approximately two weeks ago, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) took as notice a question I asked regarding the supplying of newsprint to The Victoria Express. I'm just wondering how much longer I would have to wait before that Minister would be able to give me an answer, or should he hire some more executive assistants to assist him with his work?

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Just continue looking hopeful.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I ask the Members to address themselves to the form in which the Agriculture estimates are being presented this year. It is the only department that is approaching it this way, and we are doing it as an experiment. Other jurisdictions are experimenting with this form; if the House finds it useful, then, of course, we will slowly change into that direction. If the House doesn't find it useful, we will not change. I ask the House to go along with the experiment with this Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and this new form.

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

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

Just perhaps a little further on the form...the idea is to try to make the vote more appropriate to the subject under discussion, to try to channel the discussion in more with particular votes rather than having everything under one special vote.

The actual number of votes has been reduced. If there are any questions in the minds of the Members as to which or where last year's votes are in this year's estimates, I would be quite pleased to answer those.

If you turn to page N26 of the estimates — it is actually the last sheet of the estimates — it will give you a detailed description of the votes and the codes. At the heading of each of the votes, of course, there is a general description as to what is included in each one of these particular votes. I think with that I will leave it to respond to the questions raised by the Members.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I appreciate the Minister's remarks with regard to the form, but he didn't explain to me the meaning of what was happening on page N18, where there is no breakdown in salaries in the Minister's office.

The cost of the Minister's office has been increased by some 35 per cent, but I'm not sure just who's getting what. The Minister's salary is not broken down as it is in all other departments, nor is the salary of the executive assistant or the salaries of any clerks. If this is going to be the form throughout that is going to be adopted, I don't think that I could support it. However, maybe the Minister will answer that question when he has the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, during the last spring session of the Legislature and, indeed, again last fall, we heard a tremendous amount of talk about the agricultural industry in the Province of British Columbia. If you will recall, in the spring session one year ago there was a great bill brought into this House: the infamous Bill 42, the purpose of which was to preserve farmland for the agricultural industry.

At that time the Minister of Agriculture said, first of all, that to preserve the agricultural industry we must preserve agricultural land; so we are going to tie the farmer to his land and we are going to see that the land is not alienated for any other use.

Then the Minister went on to say that "in the fall session of the Legislature we will bring in legislation which will make..." I don't wish to misquote him but I think he said something to the effect that, "Now that we have preserved the land for agriculture, we will make agriculture a viable economic industry in the Province of British Columbia, which will give as much return to the farmer as if he had a similar investment in any other industry."

So last fall we had legislation which was

[ Page 514 ]

introduced, supposedly, to do that. Some of the legislation was brought in because of recommendations by the agricultural committee which travelled throughout the province checking into the industry, talking to various segments of the industry.

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

When this Legislature passed these three pieces of legislation, they actually gave the Minister of Agriculture the power to do just about anything that he desired to do to help the agricultural industry — to spend any amount of money. There were no shackles put on him.

I remember arguing this in the fall session that there should be some limitations put on the amount of money. However, as I look at the budget, I find that maybe that wasn't necessary after all. The Minister of Agriculture seems to have changed his mind sometime between the end of the fall session and the bringing down of the budget.

Actually, we gave the Minister of Agriculture the keys to the vault — right into the Minister of Finance's office without even knocking — and the right to take any amount of money to support this industry in this province that he desires.

Now when the budget came down, I noticed that there was very little said in the budget about the agricultural industry, very little indeed. There was a little bit on page 15 and another paragraph on page 16. But the total for the entire agricultural industry, including two special amounts of money of $10 million apiece, which were not in the regular budget or in the regular estimate (it's to be taken out of surplus), a total for the agricultural industry in British Columbia — a total! — of $35 million, 1.6 per cent of the entire budget, including the special appropriations.

I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, with all of the talk and all of the legislation that was passed in the spring and fall sessions of the Legislature, that this government would have put some money into the agricultural industry. But I guess that I am going to be left with the feeling, unless the Minister can change it, that it was all a great deal of talk.

Just how much has this government that was going to do so much...just how much has it done for agriculture? Ten million dollars — not really in the budget, but a special appropriation — $10 million for farm income assurance.

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

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

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

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

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

Does the government have another method of stabilizing these industries?

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, indeed, to answer me: does he plan on stepping in and partially taking over these industries like he is doing with the broiler industry? Is this the intention of the government? Of course, if he does that, you really don't have to come to the Legislature; you just make an announcement outside that you are going to set up a business, go into business with some of the growers. You are going to look after processing their product, and you are in business.

Another $10 million in the budget for the industry improvement fund; $2.5 million of this is going to pan-ready poultry. Maybe it will be Colonel Sanders next.

There is $1.5 million going to be required for the alfalfa dehy plant in the Peace River area. My understanding is that there will be at least three more plants needed, which would cost another $4.5 million.

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

Where is the money going to come from for the rapeseed processing plants that are recommended to be established in the Peace River area?

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

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to give credit where credit is due, and that's a small start. It was nothing like we anticipated because of all of the talk and all of the promises, but we passed another bill last fall. That other bill was one that would have really done something for the individual farmer, and I refer to the Agricultural Credit Act.

What, indeed, did the Minister of Agriculture say when this Act was being passed through the Legislature? I would just like to refresh the memory of some of you who were in the House when this very important piece of legislation, known as Bill 44, was being passed.

Before I quote some of the Minister's remarks, I would like to point out to the House why I feel this is probably one of the most important pieces of agriculture legislation that was passed last fall. It is the one piece of legislation that would allow a farmer to become more independent. The application of the

[ Page 515 ]

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

"relating to the purchase of livestock; or the clearing, breaking, irrigating, draining, dyking, or fencing of land; or the construction, alteration, or improvement of farm buildings; or the purchase of agricultural implements and farm machinery."

Another very important one is the

"consolidation or other rearrangement of debts or liabilities; or the purchase of lands or buildings; or the development of a water supply; or such other purposes, including the purchase of plant materials and supplies, the purchase of production quotas, and the acquisition of working capital, relating to the establishment, development, or operation of farms as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe."

Now, this is the one piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, that would allow a farmer who had previously been having trouble to become established, to become independent, and to assure production of future foodstuffs in this province. Yet I have gone through the estimates time and time again and I can find no money for this very important Act.

So I must be left with the thought that maybe this government is not interested in making the farmer independent. It is not interested in the farmer purchasing land or buildings. Through the other Acts, the government is going to have their fingers into the operation, but the very piece of legislation that would help the individual farmer to become more independent, to improve his own operation, receives not one red nickel.

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

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

By the Minister's own words, he has said that there were more requests for this particular piece of legislation than any of the other bills that he brought into the House. Now tell me, Mr. Chairman, why there is no money made available for this very, very important piece of legislation.

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

"The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."

The Hon. Member may refer to legislation in discussing the administrative aspects, but he should not discuss the legislation itself, nor reflect upon it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's quite a ruling, but we are discussing, as far as I am concerned, the Minister of Agriculture's estimates. I want to know why there is no money in the budget to look after this very, very important piece of legislation which, in the Minister's own words, was one that he received more requests for than any other piece of legislation brought in!

The purposes of the bill are very, very clear-cut. I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to offer some explanation because there are, in the province today, many farmers who need assistance in the form of low-interest, long-term money to make their operation more viable.

The reason for this, Mr. Chairman, is quite simple. The price of farm products, and the return from farm operations in this province and, indeed, in Canada has been at an all-time low for the last 10 years. Farmers are not able to go to the regular credit sources to obtain this money. The whole purpose of the legislation was to allow the farmers to get some long-term, low-interest money to improve their farming operations.

There certainly is a need, and it certainly is a good piece of legislation, one of the best pieces of legislation that has been passed, and yet there is no money for it — no money in the budget, no money in the estimates.

I know right now, Mr. Chairman, of people in the cattle industry, particularly in my area, who are having to sell off their cattle at reduced prices in order to keep their farms going. They have been told by the Department of Agriculture to go to the bank and get short-term money and high-interest rates. Why pass legislation if you are not going to back it up with some dollars?

I am not at this time going to go into anything further in the departmental estimates until the Minister has had an opportunity to advise me and advise the House why there is no money for this very, very important piece of legislation.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Perhaps I can just answer the one question. The Member's remarks might better have been directed to votes, except that in this case he didn't find the right vote, apparently. To comment first on the total amount allocated to Agriculture, you might throw percentages around and say that there isn't much increase. As I look at the figures, there was $11

[ Page 516 ]

million last year and $35 this year, which is a substantial increase in the period of one year. So you might say it is 1.6 per cent of something — I'm not sure of what — but from $11 million up to $35 million is a substantial increase in the period of one year.

I think to ask the department to try to gear itself up to spend more than that in the course of one year would be to ask the department to spend money simply for the sake of convincing people that we are spending more, rather than trying to do a job for agriculture.

Very briefly, on the agricultural income programme, I just want to correct the Member's phraseology, if you like. It is certainly not the way I phrased it, and not the way I hope he's phrasing it in discussing it when he talked about stabilizing prices.

There has been too much stability of prices when it comes to selling farmers' products, and not enough stability of net income. Then again, the Act itself was called the Agricultural Income Stabilization Act, with reference in the discussion of it to net income. We don't want to stabilize prices, we don't want to fix prices, we want to improve the farmers' net income position.

With respect to the amount of money available under the Agricultural Credit Act for direct lending, and we will discuss this perhaps when we get to the vote, there is some money in vote 7. You will recall that the legislation itself did call for guarantees as well as direct lending. Without getting further into it now, the policy, at least in the first year of operation, will be more for guaranteeing than direct lending. But there is the amount in vote 7 — $2.5 million available for direct lending.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, with respect to the vote before us now, I would like, through you, to assure the Minister of Agriculture that this party will not do as it did approximately one year ago — that is, move a motion of non-confidence in the Minister and to reduce his salary to $1.

AN HON. MEMBER: $1.49.

MR. CURTIS: A number of us have had an opportunity, through the agriculture committee — I'm prejudiced, I realize — which I believe has been one of the more active committees of this Legislature since prorogation last spring, to see the Minister show a very genuine concern for individuals engaged in various aspects of agriculture. As far as his schedule would permit, he certainly attended the committee hearings and the committee tours whenever and wherever that was possible.

He travelled into Washington state with the agriculture committee just a matter of a few weeks ago to examine the tree fruits industry in the Yakima and Wenatchee areas.

I have the feeling that in terms of a Minister assigned a specific task — in this case agriculture — a number of men and women engaged in the field, whatever it may be — in ranching, in tree fruits, in vegetables, in dairying and so on — are under the impression that the Minister is genuinely interested in their problems. He is approaching those problems and attempting to find solutions to the problems to the best of his ability, and he is also encouraging his department to get involved in a similar thrust.

I think that the Minister has put together a pretty good departmental staff. Certainly when we travelled we met a number of men and women — mainly men — who were attached to various sections of the Minister's department. They seemed to be enthusiastic; they seemed to be willing to try innovative programmes....

Interjection.

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

You inherited a good staff and you are building on that good staff. However, I think that it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, at this point to question the Minister...

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

MR. CURTIS: ...with respect to his executive assistant, Mr. Alex McLellan, particularly with regard to a statement which he made in Prince George some time just prior to November 24 of last year. It was reported in the daily press in Victoria on November 24, 1973. I'll quote it in part or, if you permit, in its entirety. It's a fairly brief article.

The headline is "No One Should Own Land."

"The executive assistant to Agriculture Minister Dave Stupich says no one should have the right to own land in British Columbia. Alex McLellan was greeted with boos Thursday when he told a farmers' meeting of the chamber of commerce here that, in his opinion, nobody should own land. A retired appliance dealer from Nanaimo, McLellan was appointed in May.

"McLellan said that when Bill 42, the Land Commission Act, was introduced to preserve farmland, people were upset. 'I don't think there is anyone today who is against Bill 42.' He was again booed by the predominantly farmer-rancher audience.

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

[ Page 517 ]

want to get into the business."

I hope the Minister will take as much time as is permitted and necessary this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to tell us if that reflects his opinion or the opinion of his government. Or does he disassociate himself from the reported remarks of Mr. McLellan?

I would like to know whether the Minister was aware in advance that such a statement would be made by Mr. McLellan anywhere in the province. Did the Minister discuss the statement, or reported statement, with Mr. McLellan after November 22? And was Mr. McLellan reprimanded or in anyway corrected after he made that reported statement?

It's interesting to note that on orders of the day for February 4, when I asked in a written question about Mr. McLellan "Was Mr. McLellan selected as an executive assistant from among a group of applicants or candidates?" the Minister replied in writing, "No."

"If the answer to number one is yes, did the Minister conduct interviews with any other applicants or candidates prior to the appointment of Mr. McLellan?" The answers to (2) and (3) were "No."

"What is Mr. McLellan's previous experience or background in agriculture or related activities?" And the answer from the Minister in orders of the day, "Nil."

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, through you, that while the professional staff, the career staff, of the Department of Agriculture is doing a generally commendable job, and in some instances doing an outstanding job, this kind of reported statement from a newly engaged executive assistant will not help the Minister in developing faith and good relationships between the people engaged in agriculture, in all its facets, and the Minister and his department.

I also hope that the Minister will talk to us briefly, if he can, about what I sense is a conflict between his department and one, if not two, other departments of government. It may be that this is an historic conflict — that it is something which has not developed since September of 1972; but I am concerned about the relationship between the Minister's department and the Department of Recreation and Conservation and the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I wonder if the Minister is getting the kind of cabinet understanding and support for a number of the programmes in which he believes — and which many people involved in agriculture in this province believe — are vital if the industry is to flourish and grow.

I suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of the vital departments of government in any province, and particularly in British Columbia. We are eating more than we produce; that is well known. I would hope the Minister would agree that the food crisis in years to come could make the energy crisis look like a passing minor irritant. But if this government and succeeding governments and succeeding Ministers of Agriculture are to assist the industry and to make sure that it is producing more, then we need the assurance that he is winning these battles which inevitably must occur with those who would conserve large tracts of land for wildlife purposes, the parks people, who feel that large areas should be set aside for wilderness parks and that domestic animals, as an example, should be kept out.

I'm concerned about the battle between grazing and park use. I'm concerned about the wildlife preserves in parts of the province, and the fact that those bottom lands in many instances could be put to extremely productive use in terms of producing more food for British Columbians and others nearby.

There may be some other comments a little later on as we deal with these estimates. But I do want to again emphasize that while there is general satisfaction with the man doing the job, there is concern about the conflicts he may be encountering within his cabinet, and there is most certainly very, very serious concern about statements from his executive assistant such as the one I cited a few moments ago.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think perhaps there's more concern in the mind of the Hon. Member for Saanich than in anyone else's mind. I almost forgot it until he raised it on the order paper. I answered it immediately, thinking it might settle that matter for the time being.

I didn't know in advance what Mr. McLellan was going to say in answer to a question from the floor, when he was asked not to give party opinion, or the Minister's opinion, but to give his personal opinion about a particular situation. I had no way of knowing in advance and perhaps lie didn't know himself, not being able to anticipate.

No reprimand was required under the circumstances. I would not reprimand anyone for having a personal opinion, or for giving that personal opinion when the situation calls for it.

Correction: I would not attempt to correct anyone's personal opinion of anything. I might try to persuade them otherwise. But in this particular instance he was not speaking for the government; he was not giving government policy; he was not giving my policy. He was simply giving his own answer to a question as he was asked to do under those particular circumstances.

I'll remind the Member that he is not a member of the professional or career staff, as he described the others. He is the Minister's assistant, and his job is to assist the Minister in ways that the Minister wants that assistance and that is precisely his responsibility and there it ends. And of course, the Minister is responsible for everything that is done or said by that member. I think that's about all I can say on that.

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

[ Page 518 ]

which was described by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) ; the fact that we have been able to get this legislation introduced and passed in the fall session; the fact that substantial moneys have been set aside in this year's estimates waiting for House approval right now — the fact that we've been able to do all that; the fact that we have embarked on an income assurance programme with respect to one commodity group and are seriously discussing it with another, I think these are examples of tangible evidence that the Minister does have cabinet support for everything he's trying to do on behalf of the agricultural industry. There are areas of conflict; there are bound to be. There are limited resources. I've forgotten now who it was who said with respect to land that they aren't making any more of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will Rogers.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There are bound to be conflicts for these limited resources. There are bound to be discussions in cabinet as to whether a particular area should best be used by wildlife, by agriculture or for forests.

We are a mature people; we are discussing these conflicts. We have task forces in some areas looking into these areas of conflict. In some cases, no doubt, we'll arrive at a decision that they should be entirely for one resource user, in other cases, combined. But we are looking at these things. We're studying them and trying to arrive at a logical conclusion with respect to each one of these questions rather than simply flying by the seat of our pants or letting it be decided on the basis of which Minister has most cabinet support for whatever he wants to do.

Let's look at the areas of conflict. Let's try to decide them in the interests of the people of the province as a whole, today's and tomorrow's, and decide what is the best thing to do with these resources. That's the way we are trying to work at it, and every one of these committees will be looking into things. There are representatives from the various departments that are involved; the various resources users are on all of these committees. They're looking at them; they're recommending them. The environment and land use committee of cabinet will be considering all these programmes and recommendations. And cabinet itself may be called upon to make the final decisions in some cases, or possibly the Legislature will be required to legislate. But in any case, we're trying to look at them sensibly and come up with answers that we believe are sensible answers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister's comments. I would just add that while we appreciate you are trying to come to, through discussions, logical conclusions in all areas of your agricultural policy, I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the concern of the public and the concern of the producer is that while you're busy trying to come to logical conclusions, it's the producer who is paying the shot. It is the producer who is caught in the squeeze between what you have said you want to do and these logical conclusions that you're going to come to — in terms of dollars and cents and frustration in what his future is and insecurity in his own industry. Perhaps the Minister, during his estimates, will be prepared to tell us some of the logical conclusions to which he has come.

The Premier asked on behalf of the Minister about the format that is used for the Department of Agriculture estimates this year. I've looked through them very carefully, Mr. Minister. In discussing these with my colleagues and also with people in the agricultural industry I would suggest that it might be an accountant's dream, but it's an agriculturist's nightmare, and it's a legislator's nightmare.

There has been concern with your government about the number of orders-in-council it is passing, but with its continual programme of removing authority for spending, and programming outside the Legislature, if you were to adopt this format as a regular procedure, I would suggest this would just compound the concern.

It's very difficult to examine this. For example, in areas where you're increasing your staff, the type of staff that you're hiring. For example, there's an obvious need for more highly qualified research people in your department, and more funds for research in the agricultural industry. Yet it's difficult to decide of your new staff whether this commitment and need is being fulfilled.

I would suggest that the explanatory notes are very interesting. Perhaps they are very helpful. I myself would like to see you go to a more detailed breakdown of your spending next year and also include the explanatory notes.

Mr. Minister — and I would invite your comment back on this suggestion — one of the other concerns that I would like to elaborate on is the amount of money that appears to be or not to be allotted to your various Acts which are to be a boost to agriculture in British Columbia. We're not concerned that your voice isn't heard in cabinet, but what we are concerned about is whether or not you have told your cabinet colleagues and the Minister of Finance the potential cost of many of these programmes that the government is committed to — many of which are very good programmes.

I would speak, for example, in terms of credit loans — the Agricultural Credit Act — for which I believe you have put $2 million this year. Yet, Mr. Minister, you know and I know that in your office, some of which are from my own area, you have an

[ Page 519 ]

abundance of applications to take advantage of that Act, which in themselves...the one I'm holding right now is worth $400,000. There is no way that the money allotted to you for the carrying out of this Act and the potential good that this Act can do will meet even the most meagre means and requests.

The one I have here is for a dairy industry. Two families in their 30s, aggressive, experienced in the dairy industry — and with their farm buildings, et cetera, they'll need $200,000. Their livestock and dairy herd will be $50,000; their production quota will be $70,000; their improvements on their farm buildings and facilities will be $45,000; their contingency working capital will be $ 10,000. So even if they had $100,000, which would be one-quarter of the required capital on their own, I would suggest that you can only handle a maximum of eight of these applications. Yet you have applications for developing in the fruit industry, and you have applications in the vegetable industry and many other areas.

So I would ask whether you have intentions to go back to the Minister of Finance and have an increase of at least another $10 million added to this fund.

Another complication which I wonder if you are aware of is that while you have basically been talking about this credit assistance to help people to get into the agricultural industry or to expand their operations, there's been no action forthcoming. What is happening is that many people are becoming interested in agriculture. They're taking options on land, they're looking at viable operations.... When the Minister's finished waving to his friends in the gallery, I wonder if he would listen to what I have to say.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I hope, Mr. Minister, that we get some action because what's happening on this issue is that you, through your discussion of this Act and your failure to produce the money of the Act, are creating an inflationary reaction on agricultural land.

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

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

This very project that I'm talking about, and it's before your department, had an option on land which had to lapse because there was no indication from the department as to whether it would be accepted or not. Now the developers are in bidding on the land, another farmer is in bidding on the land, and this farming group wants to have the land.

This long period of delay that you've allowed to happen has put farmers in a competitive position with each other, which is great for the fellow who is trading over the land, but has done nothing for agriculture in terms of helping new people get into the agricultural industry or expanding their present holdings. I would ask the Minister: on that line are you prepared to adjust what would be your original acceptance of a loan in light of this inflation that your own words have helped create?

Mr. Minister, I'd like to talk a little bit about the fruit industry in the Okanagan. An industry that you've expressed a great deal of interest in and which, again, in spite of your efforts, or your attempted efforts, is suffering because of indecision on your part or else, in fact, lack of support from your cabinet colleagues.

You, Mr. Minister, entered into a dialogue for the construction of controlled-atmosphere storage which appears to be a very desirable aspect for the industry. But you didn't give the industry any opportunity or any assurance that, in fact, you would be participating as a government in this programme.

And what we had happen at this year's convention.... Incidentally, Mr. Minister, on the convention, I was asked to express their extreme disappointment that you did not see fit to be there. This is a very sensitive industry in which you have laid down some very strong regulations to which they are reacting very strongly. They felt that the least you would have done would have to be there to answer some of their concern. Maybe the Minister would like to explain to us why he wasn't there.

But back to the convention: what happened was that your staff and the board were put in a most embarrassing position. They had to go before a convention of delegates from the fruit industry with this type of proposal, discussing the controlled-atmosphere storage.

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

"The estimated cost of controlled atmosphere expansion in Kelowna, which is to be located adjacent to the existing facility, will cost an estimated $1,361,700; the estimated cost of the proposed expansion of the location is $886,000 — a total estimated cost of expanding both facilities of $2,247,700.

"The industry has filed applications with the federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) for financial assistance under the Produce Storage Construction Grant. This assistance programme, which was initiated in 1973, provides assistance of one-third of the total cost of construction or $500,000, whichever is the lowest. Purchase of lands, sites, development, engineers' fees, grading and handling equipment and excess roadways or rail

[ Page 520 ]

spur lines may be included in the total cost. We would expect that government acceptance of the two applications would result in a total grant of approximately $750,000."

Fair enough.

"The federal department has not officially allocated a grant but there is reason to believe that our applications will be favourably received."

Now that's from the federal government, Mr. Minister. They had figures with which they could deal. While they had no commitment from the federal government in fact, they had a strong indication that they could work on these figures and what assistance would be involved and where the assistance would apply.

What did they have to say about the provincial government?

"The provincial government has also been contacted for financial assistance on our proposed CA expansion. Although there has been no firm commitment from the provincial government, the industry will make an application under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. "

That's all, Mr. Minister, and your own staff had to get up and answer questions which you were unwilling to give and which they were unable to give. You should further know, because you weren't at the convention, Mr. Minister, and I want to read this for your information:

"The industry officials represented on the board of directors of B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd., and the executive of BCFGA, in the interest of time have authorized B.C. Tree Fruits to assign an engineering firm to develop the working drawings for the CA expansion. Accordingly, Food Industries Research and Engineering of Yakima, Washington, were engaged last fall to develop the working drawings."

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

"The plan of action should approve for the CA expansion, be received by the BCFGA convention, and would be as follows: working drawings starting November 15, 1973, completion, January 15, 1974; tendering, starting January 18, 1974; site clearance, starting January 18, 1974, completed by January 31, 1974; site preparation and foundations, starting March 1, 1974; storage building completion, July 1, 1974; equipment installed and tested, completion, August, '74; facility completed, September 20, 1974."

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

They went on to say:

"This is a very tight schedule for construction of such large facilities" — which it is — "and it will be necessary to take advantage of all the time that is available between now and harvest to complete construction.

"We therefore propose that the industry's controlled-atmosphere facilities at Kelowna and Oliver be expanded to provide additional capacity of approximately 30,000 bins, making use of the best financial arrangements possible."

Making use of the best financial arrangements possible.

Mr. Minister, what you did by not giving any directions to that board or to your own staff was, in fact, to get the growers to vote for a pig in a poke. If they follow the programme as outlined here, without any assistance from the provincial government, then they must finance on a 10- to 12-year basis, and they will have to finance at a higher interest rate. But if you are involved, Mr. Minister, and there is a grant from the provincial government, then it's presumable that they can finance on a 20-year basis.

The problem here is that no delegate who is truly cognizant of his responsibilities as to what he is voting for and how he should be voting could in clear justification vote for a project like this that was so bare in figures and facts. If the Minister had just indicated to the board, so that they could indicate publicly that there is likely to be a capital grant in terms of one-third of the capital cost and what would be included in the way of cost-sharing actions, or whether it would be a long-term interest loan, then those delegates could have voted with a much clearer conscience.

What they've had to do, Mr. Minister, is vote for, as I say, a pig in a poke — an embarrassment to them when they go back to their own locals to try and explain what they voted for. They can't give any estimates on what that's going to cost per pound of apples to each grower. There are no figures which a producer can work with. All he's got is a generality that they have to have CA storage, and it may cost this or it may cost that.

The other matter that concerns them, Mr. Minister, is that you have not come to final agreement, or hadn't to my last knowledge, on the income assistance programme. What they want to know is: are you going to use a loan for the CA storage as a club over their heads? Are you going to use this loan as a club over their heads on income assistance? Are you going to use it as a club over their heads when it comes to possible amalgamation of packing houses?

That's just one concrete example, Mr. Minister, of where your concern expressed a year ago, which has not been followed by action, has left them in a more confused and insecure state than ever.

[ Page 521 ]

They know, Mr. Minister, what the situation is in terms of marketing their own products and the increasing competition that's coming from other sectors. Why couldn't you have indicated to them? You had no hesitation in announcing your participation in the chicken factory, you had no hesitation in announcing your participation in the alfalfa-cubing plant. Why did you hesitate for a group of producers in the fruit industry?

Another matter, Mr. Minister, that came out of that discussion which they'd like to know is: if this controlled-atmosphere storage plant, or the plants, are developed with provincial funds, if they are forthcoming — and I would like to recommend to you on that subject, by the way — will you accept a capital grant rather than a long-term loan? Give them one-third of the capital cost and don't burden them with more loans. They're already burdened with so many loans they don't know which way to turn. Give them a capital grant; then let them assume the operating costs.

But because they're receiving government money, are those plants going to be required to operate under the Fair Employment Practices Act? And will they be required to hire only union labour? On this subject, when it comes to income assistance assurance, because it's government funds, are farmers eventually going to be forced into the position where they have to hire unionized labour only?

If this is the long-term intention of the government, then it should be clearly spelled out now, so that the right of choice is theirs. If the producers want to participate, then they know the ground rules of the game. But don't encourage them to involve themselves in government assistance if the ground rules are going to be changed.

I'd like to ask the Minister his views on one aspect at this time of the Hudson report, and that is in relation to the amalgamation of the packing houses, or packing services. I'd like to know the Minister's view as to how this should be brought about. I recognize there's a committee studying this, but we have got a record now from this government of committee recommendations being thrown out and the committee being sacked for not sharing the philosophy of the Minister. We certainly hope that this is not going to happen here, and we hope the Minister will give that assurance this afternoon.

But, Mr. Minister, what do you propose to do in terms of amalgamation? What type of a settlement do you propose to consider for those packing houses that have less capital debt than others? The Minister must surely be aware that there are a number of packing houses in the Okanagan which are free of capital debt, but because of this they have been paying their own producers less over a period of years where they were amortizing that capital debt, and that there are other packing houses which in fact are paying their producers more in terms of direct returns to the pound, but in fact are carrying a heavier debt load. I'd like to know, and I'm sure the industry would like to know — not just the executives, but the producers would like to know — how the Minister intends to equalize this situation.

When the final report is in from the directors of the committee studying the potential amalgamation of packing houses, is the Minister going to do as he was recommended by Allied Growers? He has a letter on this. Is there going to be a vote of the members of each packing house? Is there going to be a vote on an industry-wide basis?

If there is an amalgamation of certain packing houses, is the Minister going to make funds available so that a concerted study can be done of each facility to find out whether the present facilities and which present facilities are capable of renovation and expansion? Or is he going to embark on a programme of major new construction?

What is he prepared to do if he finds that these current buildings, if that is his approach, that are capable of renovation and addition, are gathered in one central area? Is he prepared to recommend to the industry that producers truck their fruit as far as perhaps 60 miles? If so, is he prepared to compensate for that type of extra cost to those producers? Or must it be borne by the industry itself?

Another matter of concern is the management of packing houses. I would ask the Minister if he has considered — and if he hasn't, I would recommend that he consider incentives to encourage young, qualified people or potentially qualified people to specialize, if you can specialize in the area of packing-house management. I believe that such a programme on a reciprocal basis could be carried out with the University of Washington, that the government should make these arrangements, and that the government should make available scholarships to anyone of a reasonable age who has a background in the fruit industry and in marketing, or in any of these areas, to take such a programme of training, and perhaps have experience in some of the packing houses, so that they would be available, and we could upgrade the future management in our packing houses.

Speaking of packing houses and the fruit industry, I would like to know the Minister's views on the Dr. Hudson report in relation to the restructuring of the industry.

One point of interest would be the full-time government-appointee chairman. I'm asking the Minister's assurance today for the industry itself, that this chairman, if he is a government appointee, basically be someone recognized by the industry as an acceptable individual on the basis of ability, in the terms of management, in terms of chairman ability, and in terms of knowledge of the industry, and that it

[ Page 522 ]

have no relation to any political affiliation.

I bring this up because the Minister stated quite clearly under the Land Commission Act that he would be appointing political people to that board because he felt it was essential that the Land Commission directors be philosophically compatible with the objectives of the government. I caution you, Mr. Minister. I warn you, that if you try any hanky-panky in the way of political appointments in the food industry you will live to regret the day, and you will have the MLAs from the North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), Central Okanagan and South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) to contend with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Central Okanagan?

MRS. JORDAN: That's a threat.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Where are they now?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, they want to know why you weren't at the interior vegetable growers' convention, and they want to know why you weren't at the B.C. fruit growers' convention. What were you doing, Mr. Minister? Tell us. You're so vitally concerned about this industry.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I would repeat that we don't care what the political affiliations of the individuals involved are in terms of their own private affairs, but don't you meddle in this industry with political affiliations of a partisan nature.

As I say, I have a lot of questions, but I would like to hear the Minister's own views on this recommendation, and I would also on this point ask the Minister if he doesn't think it just a little bit irrelevant that the agriculture committee, which has basically been a good committee, should be at this time passing judgment on the one-desk selling agency when, in fact, the members of the industry have already had a vote. If that isn't getting you confused in the chicken-and-egg warfare, I don't know what is. I recommend, Mr. Minister, that you delete that from the terms of reference, because that committee has no business adjudicating this marketing system immediately after it has been voted on by the members of the industry.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The referendum, yes.

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

MRS. JORDAN: I think you should delete the point on passing adjudication on the selling agency, in view of the fact that the democratic process has already taken place.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A retroactive amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, judging by your answers, I can only assume, and those in the industry can only assume, that you are trying to play both sides of the fence.

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

MRS. JORDAN: They had a vote on whether or not they would support the one-desk selling agency, and now you are trying to ask the committee of the Legislature to adjudicate this. I suggest you should get off the fence.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, how could I miss you? Mr. Minister, I have a number of other questions, but I'll ask them later, except for one point, and this is in relation to the point brought up by the Hon. Member and apple eater for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), when he referred to your executive assistant.

I would assure you, Mr. Minister, and ask you for assurance in return, that there is considerable concern, as I mentioned, not only whether or not your colleagues are fully aware of the overall potential cost of the programmes you are embarking on, but also, Mr. Minister, as to who really is speaking for your department. There is continual complaint from various delegations that visit with you that in fact you, yourself, are not making commitments. In fact you, yourself, are not talking. One person suggested that you have become the Charlie McCarthy of the agricultural industry, and that Edgar Bergen may well be your executive assistant. This is causing considerable concern.

They want to know whether or not you are prepared to adjust assessments on leased Crown lands for agricultural purposes, as one example. We want to know what your policy is in terms of assessment of agricultural land — not as you say it, but as you are being supported in the cabinet.

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

[ Page 523 ]

have you changed the policy when major agricultural representatives come to their annual cabinet hearing, not to be heard by the full cabinet? I would recommend to you that in fact they should be heard by the full cabinet.

Four Ministers are not enough. Agriculture encompasses nearly every department of this government from Consumer Services to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and if ever one industry should have a full hearing by the cabinet at this crucial time, it is the agricultural industry. I hope the Minister will not give us some excuse of why it wasn't a full cabinet, but will give this House assurance today that in future they will be heard by the full cabinet.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister can answer some of those questions and give us some reasonable explanations, and also help allay some of the concerns that I have expressed, and I will wish to ask some more questions in the future.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Do you want to answer those questions first?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, go ahead. I'll get some reasonable ones first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You may have to wait a long time.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I might have to wait beyond you, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, you might have to wait a long time.

Mr. Chairman, we have here the vote 3 of the Minister's office, and there are a number of things which I am interested in on that very page itself — page N-18 — as well as some more general remarks I would like to make with reference to the whole question of agriculture in the province.

First, there is an increase of $19,548 with just one increase in staff positions, and I congratulate the Minister that he has only got one increase. Most of his colleagues are far more extravagant in hiring new staff. I would like to know whether that extra amount of money is directly for that extra person, whether that person is Mr. Alex McLellan or not, and if not, precisely who it is.

The reason I'm asking this is because this is the first Minister we've had to question, and it seems to me there may well be built into some of these estimates possible increases in salary scales in the future. If there are I would like to know, because it makes our analysis of last year, as opposed to this year, a little different if we realize they have already worked in salary increases.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll answer that one.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'll answer that one. That's reasonable? Okay.

I wonder whether the Minister also — and I know this is not the first time it has been requested — would like to comment on the commodity group negotiations. We passed legislation which, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and as the Minister also knows, we in this party opposed because it was essentially blank-cheque legislation. I'm not going into the aspects of this again, but the fact of the matter was that there was unlimited financial power under that bill. There were unlimited powers to make agreements with commodity groups. As yet we have seen very little in terms of success in working out arrangements with the commodity groups.

Now, I'm quite sure that the Minister's staff is working hard, arguing hard, and I'm quite sure the commodity group people are doing precisely the same thing, but the reason given by the Minister time after time for getting that legislation in such a sweeping and absolute form — what we even felt was anti-democratic form — was that he had to have the opportunity to move quickly, he needed total power, total money, total everything else so that he could get going. And we haven't seen any results.

I would like him to report on what results there have been, because our only hope of comments on this type of legislation, our only hope of legislative control, is if the Minister at this particular time of the year, once a year, makes a real, sincere and honest effort to give the full information on what's happening.

If we don't get it at this time, the Legislature, as far as a control mechanism goes, as far as a forum for the people to discuss how their money is being spent goes, just simply ceases to exist.

Mr. Chairman, the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture presented a brief to the cabinet, or at least to a cabinet committee, on December 17 of last year. I was pleased to see that the first point they mentioned was the question of the relation between agriculture and energy. We have an energy crisis of some sort or another in existence in the world at the present time. While B.C. Is in the fortunate position of being virtually excluded from any effects so far, this will not continue in the future.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture requested that the government give every consideration to the needs of the agricultural industry in relation to energy and, to this end, that agriculture be given top priority.

I thought the Minister might comment on that in

[ Page 524 ]

his opening remarks; but as he has not, I would simply ask if he would indicate to this House what steps he has taken since the last session, and since the energy crisis became a crisis, to deal with this particular point.

On this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to digress for a couple of minutes — and I'm sure the Minister will listen with close attention — and read a few lines from a letter I received, and a few lines from an article that accompanies that letter, dealing with food production and the energy crisis. There is no question that there are going to be real changes in store for British Columbia in agriculture as well as for British Columbia industry generally because of shortages of fossil fuels in the future. This letter reads

"Dear Sir.

"I am enclosing a copy of an article in a recent edition of the American Journal of Science, which you may find of interest. The article, which is a patient and detailed examination of energy costs of modern agricultural practice, with special reference to growing corn, is a good example of the result of importing environmental costing into the economic description of a conventional practice."

He goes on to say:

"I think it has not yet been realized at all just how devastating will be the change of attitude and resource allocation decisions when these costs, energy costs and environmental costs, are fully appreciated and quantified."

He goes on:

"I request that you read it through and consider whether it is not the time that environmental costing be introduced into the cost-benefit ratios of the chemical bombers who proliferate in the Department of Agriculture."

Clearly he has a bias there.

But the article is not particularly biased, as I see it. It's an article which describes the tremendous use, in North American agricultural practices, of energy, and the tremendous dislocation that will result, far more so that in fact any other country, if energy costs increase.

It's great for us in North America, Mr. Chairman, to talk about the productivity of agriculture per man. But it's almost entirely based on energy sources and the use of fuels, fossil fuels in particular, which makes it possible to have fewer men and more machinery. If you create a situation where the cost structures are thrown out of whack — which is occurring at the present time — there is no way in the world we are going to be able to proceed with our present agricultural practices.

The very interesting remarks of many people in the agricultural industry, talking about the need for greater efficiency — which is essentially cutting down on labour costs — will be rather outdated and altered if we have substantial prices in agricultural energy. I think that if the Minister has got some information on this and if he could indicate to the House what studies are going on on this particular point, it would be of value to us.

There is no way that we can continue the general trend of cutting down on manpower in agriculture and increasing the use of mechanization and automation if we are going to be faced with energy costs which simply wipe out the cost savings, or, indeed, reverse the cost savings and turn them into cost liabilities, because of the increased energy costs.

There is no question — and I am referring to this article at this stage:

"There is no question that the most important element in the great yields in North American agriculture are simply because of energy use, and in the country (it's the United States they are talking of) energy use has doubled during the past 20 years. In some types of agricultural production the rate of energy use has increased more than threefold during the same period."

He talks about the energy required to create the raw product, the actual tractors, the energy used in fertilizers — creating them as well as distributing them. But then he goes on to say, "Large amounts of energy are consumed as the raw product is transported to centres to be processed, when they are frozen, canned, dehydrated, ground, baked and so forth. Farmers process little of their own food, and are dependent themselves upon the food-processing wholesaling and retailing industries."

The farm support in the food-processing industries may use more energy than farming itself.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the Minister to have a look at this thing and to indicate to us whether he has people in his department considering this particular point. It is really of little value for the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and ourselves in this House to talk about whether or not $3 million is going into rural electrification programmes on an annual basis, as they have in their brief, if at the same time the whole structure of energy and its relationship to agricultural production is undergoing fundamental changes.

I would most strongly urge that the Minister indicate to the House precisely what steps he's taking: first, in the short run to protect our agriculture from too fast, too severe dislocations; and secondly, in the long run to adapt our agriculture to the new type of energy and agricultural community which has been indicated in articles such as the one I read and, of course, a good number of others as well.

Returning, Mr. Chairman, to the brief of the federation, it strikes me as curious that at this stage

[ Page 525 ]

they have to have a lengthy passage in their brief on rustling. There is no question that this is a crime; there is no question that this is theft. When you think of the number of relatively marginal producers in dollar terms in the cattle industry, and you think of the fact that any cattle lost through rustling is just straight off-the-top profit lost to those people, you realize it's a serious matter.

I understand, from discussions with members of the industry, that the RCMP unit is to be reorganized. One man is retiring, two are going to other jobs, and it's going to be a little while, perhaps, before they are as effective as they even are now. But I would like to know what the Minister has been doing on this and what his department feels can be done, and where he feels improvements can be made. Clearly, it's pretty heart-breaking for ranchers in the Interior to work and sweat away to produce beef and then to find it simply stolen from them shortly before they would have taken it to market.

Mr. Minister, you did not say anything earlier about the elimination of the leases on Crown land, the Crown grazing leases. We know that the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture has indicated that these should be eliminated. But perhaps your own views are more important than those of the committee. I think perhaps it's time that you gave them not only to the Members of the committee who are in this room, but also to the industry itself.

How can a man plan? How can he improve his own ranch? How can he improve the property, buildings, equipment when he is at the present time ranching on Crown leased land as well as his own, and when he does not know, on a year-to-year basis, whether he's going to be able to continue that practice?

Obviously he's going to put up his improvements on his own property. But if he's relying upon lands in the future for cattle grazing, he is going to be reluctant to put up major improvements when he simply does not know what's going to happen. I wonder whether the Minister would like to give us a few words on that, because it's a matter of considerable concern. One way or another, it should be settled as soon as possible.

The Minister has often heard me in this House complaining bitterly about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the lack of certainty in his legislation and in his proposals. We have had exactly the same problem here. The industry simply doesn't know what the Minister's views are. And it's about time they did.

They don't know whether the committee views are going to prevail, whether the previous practices are going to prevail, or whether we are going to have something completely different.

I'd like to say a word, Mr. Chairman, on the new farms that are being purchased. I am thinking in particular of the farms down in the valley, down near the Boundary Bay Airport. We saw in the paper that something over half-a-million dollars was spent on the purchase of agricultural land in that area.

I'd like to know how this new agricultural land which the government is taking over is going to be handled. Is it going to be leases based on, say, a 10-year tenure, or will it be a shorter period? Will it be perhaps on a straight tenancy basis under the management of the Department of Agriculture, or will they perhaps run it themselves? Who knows what this will be? At the present time I understand the previous owners are still on the land. It's about time we decided how we're going to handle land which is acquired — agricultural land — by this government.

I should quickly point out that there's plenty of other land in that category — all the reserves, the industrial reserves, the back-up of Roberts Bank. The discussions we had on that in this Legislature indicate there is plenty of other land as well. It's time we had some clear policy statements, which I hope will come forward in the next day on how the government intends to handle the agricultural land which it owns at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder also whether the Minister would like to comment at this stage about the recommendation of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the request of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture with respect to the Mineral Land Tax Act and the minerals under agricultural land. It's an obvious problem for the agricultural community. They've made their views clear on this. I realize that the legislation is there, I realize it's quite clear what the government intends to do, but if there's to be any changes in this, I think that once again we should know just as soon as possible. It's quite possible, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, for the government to confiscate land by way of taxation. It's perfectly possible to slap on tax after tax after tax and to make sure that it's impossible for a person to continue to own land. We feel that this objective of taxing land for the purposes of forcing people to sell, which is behind some of our assessment changes, we understand, according to the assessors, which may well be behind this Mineral Land Tax Act should be settled one way or another by some sort of statement of policy by the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have other comments on the line by line of the Minister's department, but perhaps he would like to comment on the points that I have raised.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll touch first on the question of salary that the Hon. Member raised, and it was also raised by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). There's certainly no change. You could look at the other departments and get the answer, but the Minister's salary will be, as in other cases, $24,000. The executive assistant will be,

[ Page 526 ]

as for other Ministers, $17,628. The balance of $23,388 are for the secretary and clerical staff. As you say, the total of the three was last year's total as well.

However, there was substantial upgrading in these positions that took place just about the time of last year's estimates, after estimates were printed, and there was just no time to reflect them in the estimates. There's the reason for the substantially larger total.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, at this time of year there's always a provision for salaries to be negotiated.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, is there anticipation in the figures we're given here? In other words, have you added on a few dollars?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's no anticipation in this figure. But as you know, negotiations are probably underway right now and there is a vote under the Finance Minister for that provision.

The question of the income programme. Again, this really would come under vote 7. I think it's fairly widely known that we have gone far enough with the dairy plan. It's in operation and applications have gone out and some may even be in by now. At least there's been time, I think, if they replied by return mail, for some of them to be back in. Some meetings have been held where an opportunity has been available for the dairymen to meet with members of their own organization and with members of the staff to discuss the details of the programme.

The applications have gone out, applications will be coming in and we hope that in the first week in March at the latest the payments for December, already negotiated, will go out to the dairymen. Of course, the figures change slightly. I don't have the figures here, but I could get them. The figures for January and February are higher than they were for December because certain costs have gone up and we've been renegotiating these costs as we've been going along. So the dairy is in effect, and by order-in-council — I'm sure that the Members know about these things, as they're public — some $3.75 million has been provided for the first three months of the programme, December, January and February.

As far as the fruit industry is concerned, discussions have been going on. There are several meetings here in Victoria, with the next meeting scheduled for March 8 in Kelowna. A good deal of progress has been made, but a good deal is still to be made. I understand there has been substantial agreement on the actual cost figures except in one area, that of labour which, of course, involves how much one man or one family can look after efficiently. That's one question.

Another is how the packing costs and the selling costs and all these will be apportioned to the various grades of fruit. There are still two areas that have to be worked on in the fruit.

I'll just say that we anticipated earlier that the fruit would be the first one on line, and I know that the people involved in the fruit industry expected they would be first. Likely they would have been, had not there been sort of a runaway situation in the dairy industry with respect to cost. It just snowballed in the fall, and the effect of that was that the formula that provided for increases in producer prices fell badly behind.

When costs were going up gradually it was something the farmers could live with. When costs were going up very rapidly, as they were from summer on, it just became an impossible situation — almost a desperate situation in the dairy industry. Milk production was going down in the province, something that had never happened before, so it became necessary to concentrate the department activities on not only the income programme, as opposed to the farm credit plan.

The Member for South Peace River asked why we had fallen behind so badly on implementation of the farm credit programme. Now, the farm credit programme was my top priority. I don't think there's any question about it and I think the Members of the select standing committee would have agreed with the remarks that were quoted by the Hon. Member for South Peace River. The most important thing to get going on was the farm credit programme. However, this emergency did develop. The income assurance programme was something new, so it meant that pretty well all of the senior members of staff had to pull themselves out of everything else they were doing and concentrate on this one programme. Having got one programme under our belt and moving, we were then in a better position and we had some idea of how to go with the others. But it did mean a terrific concentration of the top members in staff and it stalled everything else in the department.

Later on in the estimates you'll note that in some areas there's been substantial increase in staff. The total increase in staff for the department is 41 proposed, but in some areas it's a very substantial increase and it's for new programmes such as this.

The fruit is being very seriously discussed at the next meeting on March 8. There has been some discussion with representatives of the hog industry. There has been correspondence with the vegetable producers. That's the extent of our negotiations so far.

If I could just say something more about the urgency for the legislative programme that I

[ Page 527 ]

introduced last fall — and I did also say then that we wanted to be able to fit in with whatever programme the federal government came up with — at that time I had reason to hope that I would know what the federal government was going to do before the spring session of the Legislature. As time went on, it was obvious that we weren't going to find out.

The latest word from the federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) and this came — I'm not sure when we had our last conference with them — last September, I guess was the last one. No, it was January. Just immediately prior to the House opening there was the Outlook Conference. At that time the Minister promised us that very early in the new session of parliament — the new session that's to start tomorrow, I understand — there would be two pieces of legislation introduced that would be of great importance to the farmers all over the country and two pieces that B.C. had been pressing for. One was something in the way of an income assurance programme, and the other was something in the way of farm credit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Okay, but in his speeches he certainly indicates that what he's thinking about is net income. Those are the two areas and he told us that this legislation would be down early in the session. Once we see that legislation, we'll have a better idea of how far we can move, how fast we can move, and exactly what direction we will be moving.

MRS. JORDAN: You said in the last session you were prepared to go it alone.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We are alone. I'm not sure if the Member was listening. We are alone right now in the dairy programme. We're hoping the federal government will come in with it. We're a long way along the road with the fruit discussions. We've started discussions with the hog, and we've had correspondence with the vegetable.

For a long time in this session we missed the sort of sweet bitterness from the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). It's sort of back to normal today. She's back to her usual style and it makes it all seem....

MRS. JORDAN: Don't be so paranoid about women. I ask the Minister to withdraw those comments. If he is not prepared to answer questions that the industry is concerned about, then he should not indulge in personal insults. I don't give a hoot what he thinks of me personally, but I do care about the industry and I do care that he assume his responsibilities and commitments as a Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Member asked me if I'm not prepared to answer questions. I am prepared to answer questions and I am proceeding to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Members first of all that we restore our usual spirit of goodwill in the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's estimate time!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Secondly, when individual members have questions that they would like to put to the Members, I would ask that they don't put them just out of the clear blue while sitting in their seats, because it confuses the Hansard staff when they're trying to record these things. I would ask them to wait until the Minister is finished and put their questions. I would ask the Hon. Minister to proceed.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have asked the Hon. Members to return to their normal spirit of goodwill. That, I trust, will be done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Did you not base it on my willingness to answer questions? I am willing to answer, so if that's the case there's no need to

On the energy crisis, I think the Member was getting a bit far removed from my particular responsibility as Minister of Agriculture when he starts talking about the long-range policy with respect to energy. I'm informed by someone who isn't here, my Associate Deputy Minister, that as far as agriculture is concerned we are a very efficient user of energy in Canada.

Relative to other industries, we use eight per cent of the energy used, the fossil fuel energy in this country. But we're very efficient compared to many other industries.

I know that's not answering the question; I know we've got problems; I know everybody in the world is having problems now with energy. All I'm saying is that as far as this year is concerned, we know we can handle our problems. But they're not just the problems you discussed. They're the problems of all the supplies.

When you're talking about energy, you're also talking about fertilizer; and this is a much more pressing concern this year than the availability of fossil fuels to run the tractors, for example. We've had a good deal of correspondence on this subject with the federal Minister. We've urged them on occasion to divert supplies from munitions manufacture to fertilizer manufacture. We've asked

[ Page 528 ]

them not to export nitrogen to the extent that they have been exporting it. They say, "Well, we have to maintain our nitrogen exports, our commitments, in order to maintain our phosphate import."

It's a problem; it's something that we're very much aware of. We've had representations from many Members in the House and from many sections in the industry about this concern about fertilizer. On top of all this, of course, everybody wants to use more of it. Everybody recognizes the need for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, golly, when you see all the things that are happening in the States these days, it's not hard to imagine that we'd be much better than them.

The question of rustling: really, I wish, as Minister of Agriculture, I could do something about rustling. It's to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), I suppose, that you should be directing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members if they would be a little more formal in their procedures. It is confusing to the Hansard staff.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's not be too formal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not too formal...at least formal enough that we can be understood.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I know, especially this year, that with higher meat prices there has been a lot more rustling than there has been in the past. I know one producer, for example, who told me his losses were in excess of $50,000. Even for a fellow than can afford it, that's a terrific....

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Why didn't you pay him for it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appreciate it if only one person would speak at a time.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as the leasing programme is concerned, leasing of land for the cattle industry, and the possible difference in opinion between the select standing committee and myself, I think what the select standing committee recommended was misunderstood quite generally.

As I understand the recommendation coming from that committee, it was not that we go to a simple one-year permit throughout. What they were trying to say was that there should be a review.... They called it permit, that's true. What they were talking about was that there should be security in tenure, but that the security depends upon good husbandry of the land that was being leased. I think that's the message they were trying to get across.

They didn't sell it too well from a PR point of view, because there was concern out there. For example, at the meeting I attended in Quesnel there was real concern that we might be going this route and that the livestock people would not be able to plan any more than one year in advance. So that concern is out there.

I tried to convince the people there, for example, that, in the first place, the committee didn't mean that and, in the second place, we weren't going to go that route. We know that you can't possibly build up a cattle industry — and there is need to do that in this province — if you can't plan any more than a matter of months — that is, within a year — ahead as to what range you're going to have. So certainly that is not the answer.

There has to be sufficient security of tenure so that the ranchers will be induced to improve the grazing, so that it will be more productive. That's the direction in which we're working, the resource committee. As I suggested earlier, we're working on this and that's the goal that we want. We want to identify the areas of the province where there should be ranching, either by itself or in conjunction with other resource users. But we want to take some areas of the province where we can increase the productivity so that we can increase our cattle production in this province.

Mines: I think I'll let you ask your question of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) when his turn comes. He wasn't here when you raised that — perhaps when his estimates come up.

Land purchased by the Land Commission: the method of handling land purchased by the Land Commission may vary. At the present time land purchased by the Land Commission, if it's agricultural land, will be administered by the Department of Agriculture. The proposal at the moment, our thinking at the moment, is that it will be out on long-enough-term leases so that the people operating it will be able to plan, will be able to build buildings where this is necessary. But certainly they will be able to plan to use the property properly from the point of view of long-range agricultural production.

We have no intention of getting involved in farming — relatively small farms. That was one of your concerns, I believe.

If I could get back to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who is back now — research staff not included: I think she realizes that to a very great extent, research in the province is conducted and has been accepted as the responsibility of the federal government, They've fallen down badly on the job. We've been urging them to increase their

[ Page 529 ]

research facilities, personnel and everything else in the province, hoping that they would. And we've been laying some plans for doing more of it ourselves. Our concern is that if we move into that field, the federal government may move out quicker than ever.

However, it may be necessary to do that, and certainly that is being considered very strongly right now.

The other thing is that we're increasing our co-operation with the university. We are making more money available for specific programmes of research.

As for the estimates themselves, your comment on the estimates, I think if you look.... Well, just take vote 5, for example: under "activity" there isn't any sort of breakdown to indicate what kind of staff we're talking about. But when you get down to the expenditure classification, then there is an indication of the sort of employees we have in mind. For example, under vote 5, under expenditure classification, we show that six of the people employed will be executive and senior management, but then when they get into professional and technical, it's 234.

In presenting the estimates in this form, it's my opinion that it matters little to the people opposite and adds little in the way of information as to whether they're agriculture 4,5 or 6. The fact that they are in this grouping and the fact that there are executive and senior management people involved with them, I think, is the concept that we're trying to sell in presenting the estimates in this form. It will indicate what they'll be doing and indicate how many they will be. We'll try that on and see how that form of presentation works.

Credit — not enough money: I thought I had answered that when I was answering the questions from the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips). There are $2.5 million in the estimates, not the $2 million figure that you suggested. But beyond that, the main thrust will be guarantee rather than direct lending. We've already had discussions about this with established lending agencies. We're going the route that by giving a guarantee we will be able to get long-term lower interest; and beyond that, we propose to give the borrowers a lower effective rate even than they can get by simply guaranteeing it.

The actual rate I have not gone to cabinet with up to this point. I can't give you that information because I don't have it. But I am proposing, and have already had some discussions about this with cabinet, that it will be a lower rate than they can get even with a government guarantee from an established lending agency. So as far as the amount of money available is concerned, that's not the important thing if we're going the guarantee route as opposed to direct lending. In some instances, direct lending may be the route.

Re CA storage: what have we done? We've indicated from the beginning that we've agreed that this programme had to go ahead. At the convention.... I make no apologies for not attending the BCFG convention.

I'm not complaining about the fact that I arrive regularly in my office at 7:45 in the morning, and leave very late regularly. I enjoy it. I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't like it. I'm not complaining that I'm there on most weekends, and I wouldn't do it if I didn't like it. I don't think the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) should be complaining too much if I take a 13-day holiday in the course of a year.

With respect to the BCFG convention, when I was invited to that convention, I told them that I had already had reservations to take a holiday at that particular time. I received a letter back from the president of the organization asking whether or not it would be possible for my Deputy to attend since I wasn't going to be there, and saying also that, in view of the circumstances, he didn't think it was that necessary that I attend this year. He certainly understood that I was in need, as he put it, of a much-deserved rest. So he doesn't agree entirely with the point of view taken by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I didn't hear what you said. Try again, and I'll try and take a longer breath.

As far as the cold storage facilities were concerned, I had written a letter to them expressing my support for this programme, which, while it wasn't a cabinet commitment, certainly indicated to them that there would be assistance available under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act — guaranteed loans at relatively low interest.

They've discussed it with me since and they said, "We have to know that the interest rate is before we can calculate our costs, in the event that it is going to be all borrowed money." I recommended to them that, while I haven't gone to cabinet on this yet, they calculate it on a rate of something around 8 per cent — just a little less than 8 per cent — and they used that for calculation purposes. They went back home happy. They used that figure of 8 per cent in their calculations.

Certainly as I get the reports back, and from the conversations I had with the people in the fruit industry, they were pleased to get that letter, which they read out at the convention.

There was a good response at this convention from this report, Pretty well all the senior members of my department were in attendance at that convention. This is the first time that anyone has complained to me about my not being in attendance at that convention personally.

[ Page 530 ]

The Hudson Report: will there be a vote by members of each house? The Member knows, I think, that each one of the houses is owned by the producers who are members of the organization that owns that house. I think there are four privately owned houses. The other 24 are co-operatively owned. Before anyone can do anything with the physical facilities, the members owning that plant would have to take part in the decision. That answers the question of whether or not they would vote. It doesn't answer the total overall thing.

There might be a vote upsetting the whole thing, I don't know. I am not sure what the report is going to be, but I do know that there is a committee working on it and I am not going to try to undo or undercut or forecast what that committee is going to do by telling him at this time what my reaction will be in the event that they come in with a report, one way or the other.

I am satisfied that the committee is trying to do a good report on behalf of the industry, and I am quite prepared to wait until that report comes in and discuss it with the industry when the report is available. I think the industry feels some confidence that when they bring that report in, we do want to move in a way that will help the industry generally. I feel that the industry has that confidence, even though the Member opposite me may not have that confidence.

As far as packing house managers are concerned, right now we have 28 too many and generally too-small packing houses. I certainly hope we will — and I predict we will — end up with a few, if not one — at least a small number of relatively large and efficient organizations. When you have that type of organization, then you are very likely to command good managers.

When you have 24 small organizations, you can't get good managers. The good managers will be available. I think we won't have to wait for a government bursary programme to train these managers, because I hope we will need them much sooner than a government programme to train them could possibly make them available.

The matter of a government chairman: I have had no discussions with the industry about this except from some individuals who say that they are not really enamoured of this idea of there being a government chairman. Frankly, neither am I at this point. I am not ruling it out, but I am not particularly inclined towards that solution.

Am I prepared to amend assessments? Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the question should be asked of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). I have no authority to amend assessments. I did give people advice, and that advice has been reported and has been used in advertisements. But I have no way of amending assessments as Minister of Agriculture; that's beyond him.

I think that answers all the questions that I made note of. If I have missed any, try them again.

MR. CURTIS: I would like to explore just a couple of things a little further with the Minister, particularly the conflict between cattle and wildlife. In spite of his earlier reassurances, Mr. Chairman, I'm not at all satisfied that he can win that battle in the cabinet, or perhaps in the caucus, although I would suspect that he would have more difficulty in the cabinet.

I admit and understand that the cabinet has supported a number of programmes dealing with the financing of various aspects of the agriculture industry. But when it comes down to the crunch as to whether this land is most suitable for cattle, or most suitable for wildlife, for open space, untouched, uninterfered with, I don't have the assurance that he is going to win.

I think that the lobby on the other side, if I may put it that way — the lobby from the conservationists, the lobby from the people who like to get out and hike or ride, or whatever it might be — will exercise a greater degree of strength than the relatively small number of people in B.C. who are engaged in ranching.

I submit that this conflict can best be handled through the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Department of Recreation and Conservation and the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I think, again, we saw that there can be more than single use of a given piece of land, particularly in the Kamloops area. We saw that irrefutably, and surely that could be pointed out as an example to those people who would have us believe that a particular piece of ground must be set aside for wildlife and nothing else. We saw a happy marriage, I think, between the forest and ranching industry in the area north of Kamloops, and I would like the Minister to take us just a little further on that particular point.

Also, in spite of the fact that there are programmes to assist the dairy industry, I think it would be regrettable today if we did not ask the Minister to comment specifically on the Vancouver Island dairy industry, which is of concern to a good number of people who believe that this industry, which has been here for many, many years, is deserving of staying in operation, deserving of all the help and support it can get.

At a meeting in Duncan very late last year, sometime in November, the president of the Vancouver Island Farmers' Institute said that unless the government takes immediate action to improve the situation, this will be the death of the Vancouver Island dairy industry. A little further on there is a quote: "I am beginning to wonder about our

[ Page 531 ]

situation, and while milking my cows I think about such things. Does the government intend to keep the farmer as a slave to the land so there will be cheap food for the consumer, or is it really interested in helping the farmer?"

Now I say this realizing that dairy programmes are in existence. But surely the Vancouver Island industry, faced with some pretty massive competition from the Fraser Valley area of the province, is in need of all the help, all the expertise, all the initiative that can possibly be given to one particular segment of a very important industry.

Again, the question to which I'm sure the Minister has addressed himself in the past: I would hope that he would comment on the business of getting younger men and women to the farm or, in some cases, back to the farm. We've heard in our committee travels and heard in our individual contracts that the average age of persons engaged in agriculture is very high, and younger people just don't seem to have the interest in agriculture for a variety of reasons — not least of which, of course, is economic.

The Minister will perhaps remember the appearance before the agriculture committee in Cloverdale on December 4 of a Mr. Szembratovics, who is a hog producer. He gave us a very careful outline of the situation that he faces in terms of the hog industry and lack of support for the industry.

With respect to wages he said in part:

" On the other hand the wages, the income...myself and most farmers feel very bad, feel shame, when we have paid $2 or $2.50 for labour, and at the same time.... In my case I have full-time help and I pay him $2.75 today. His younger brother in Safeway is getting $5 an hour just for sweeping the floor and carrying out packages. I don't know. It makes me feel bad because if his brother is worth $5 an hour, he's worth $7 or $8 an hour. And I even have to borrow this $2.75 to pay him."

So may we hear from the Minister on those three points: the conflict on land use, the Vancouver Island dairy industry and, again, the means he has in mind to attract younger people either to the farms or back to the farms?

MR. FRASER: As the Member for Cariboo, I am interested in agriculture because we have quite a bit of it, but the largest is the beef production. In the Cariboo, William's Lake, for instance, is known as the bull-shipper capital of the world, and the Premier knows this from being there last summer. I don't think he'll ever come back, by the way, and do what he did.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I didn't get an invitation.

MR. FRASER: That's right. I'd like to comment, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister about the layout of his department's estimates. I don't like it one little bit. I like the old form. You know, we are not all chartered accountants, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to see it go back there. I'll probably be ruled out of order for some of the things I bring up here, in view of the fact of the way they are laid out, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to try.

Bill 42: I want to mention some of the effects of it. It has progressed along; it's law. The reserves that were set up... I understand the maps that were used, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, were 15 and 20 years old, and these are causing a lot of problems in the Cariboo riding, in view of the fact that subdivisions actually exist where the agricultural land reserve is.

Also the agricultural land reserve has been placed on gravel pits and so forth. It's really difficult for the citizens there to sort out where they're at. Also as the MLA I'm not worried about that, but it's hard to keep track and to follow up: it was in the environment and land use committee, it's now in a process of going over to the B.C. Land Commission, and eventually to the cabinet. I only hope that this....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Minister, I don't believe it has. I believe it has left the Cariboo...to the B.C. but nothing has been done about it.

I was interested in the remarks on Bill 42, Mr. Chairman, of the Minister of Industrial Development Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) when he's quoted in a prior press release that it wasn't really for the preservation of all the farmland. I refer to the problem that he has with the Tilburg Island situation. That's very interesting.

Another observation I have referring to the cattle industry and in reference to grazing which I want to have a bit to say about to the Minister is this task force that's presently operating now to look into grazing: there isn't one farmer on it. They are all public servants on there and, I think, of high calibre. But you mean to say that you are going to accept this. I realize it isn't your department, but this is effecting the Agriculture department, believe me. If they come in with recommendations on grazing.... We've had no input; apparently it isn't public. I think that somebody has really made a mistake, and it's probably the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) who's done it. But I think the Minister of Agriculture should have picked that up when that task force was set up and made sure that some agricultural people were on it.

Regarding cattle — and I'm referring to beef cattle now — and the environmentalists: this is a discussion going on and it will for a long time. But I want to tell

[ Page 532 ]

you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, what has actually happened in the year of 1974, February 1974. The Gang Ranch, one of the largest cattle ranches in the western world, have just got through hauling 2,000 head of cattle, reducing their basic herd from 9,000 to 7,000 head. And do you know why Mr. Chairman? Because they cannot get the range for this cattle. This is what happens when you get a headline in a paper and you get a reporter — in this case Moira Farrow — who flies out there in a helicopter and lands on one swamp where a few cattle were, and then everybody gets all up in arms. So when you're interested in agriculture, Mr. Minister, you better watch what's going on here with that fellow who sits behind you, he'll stab you in the back — the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) because we aren't going to have any beef industry if we allow these things to happen.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I repeat those cattle are now out of there because there is no range to turn them out on this spring. So again up goes the cost of our beef because we have a shortage. We are not now producing the beef that we consume in this province, and this just further complicates the thing.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is chiming in here a bit. I'm glad to hear he is. I'd like to hear what he's got to say about that reserve that that Minister behind there announced the other day — in your riding. And he tried to tell me the other day it was Cariboo riding; it's your riding, and you'll hear about that because that means that no cows can graze there, or anything else as I understand it.

So away it goes again. You'd better be careful, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Agriculture. Just listening to all these pressure groups, where are we going?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That's not multi use; that's single use.

MR. FRASER: That's correct. That's not multi use; that's single use. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to mention about rural power electrification. I consider that....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Oh, no, but I think again you've been short here on not getting the message. The Premier...certainly Hydro comes under him, but he's always leaning on somebody. Now, I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture do some leaning in the opposite direction and lean on the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

Regarding the subsidy of power: $3 million this Legislature votes each year for a rural power electrification. And that's good. But I can say, Mr. Chairman, this year that it won't even be used. I think this is disgraceful that that vote will not be used. And why that it won't be used is because of the red-tape B.C. Hydro bureaucrats; that's why it won't be used.

But in relation to agriculture, last fall in the Chilcotin because of the local citizens, not because of government or B.C. Hydro or anybody else, they got off their butts and they made a 65-mile power extension. Believe me, they helped themselves and then government came along, of course, and helped. But they want three-phase power, Mr. Chairman. They want help for three-phase power because they can use it for irrigation, and double or triple the production of the hay crop and, hopefully, in turn, if the Minister of Recreation keeps his fingers out of the pie, they'll get some more range for them too.

But three-phase power is the big issue now. I believe that funds are available now, but I'd like to hear from the Minister. I believe he's aware of this request for three-phase power — and what help does he recommend for people who want three-phase power. The line has been extended; it is single phase and it's still of no help in irrigation purposes.

Don't come back with the answer that they can buy some kind of a motor to downgrade or upgrade from one- to three-phase because that costs them a lot of money.

Regarding leases or grazing permits, whichever you want to call it, Mr. Chairman. I realize again that this is not the Minister of Agriculture's department, but it's having a great affect on agriculture, namely beef production. I agree with the Minister's remarks earlier when he said that the select standing committee's report has been misinterpreted out in the public. I agree completely that that's right.

What the beef producing industry really wants is tenure of these leases so they know where they're at.

Mr. Chairman, last year the Interior beef producers turn-out date was June 1. On June I they still hadn't heard from the Forestry department whether they could turn out. I say this is ridiculous to have men with millions of dollars invested waiting on one public servant's whim as to when they can get their cattle turned out. This is no good at all.

I have heard the length of tenure they want, but it's in the brief that you got from the B.C. federation. But this is a real big problem that's got to be resolved. Again, I don't know what the task force will recommend on it, but we certainly have had enough input on all this to realize this is a real problem that

[ Page 533 ]

has to be resolved and resolved soon. These people are entitled to and should get tenure for grazing — and a lot longer length of time than they've had in the past.

Again, as I think it has affected the agricultural industry in this province I want to deal with Crown lands and agricultural leases.

Crown land is the only form of land at the present time that can be acquired by the lease-purchase route. And it's a good plan. In other words, you lease 160 acres from the Crown and if you do certain development work on it for five years then you can proceed to title. I see nothing wrong with it.

I'd like to hear from the Minister if, in view of their other policies, they intend throwing this policy out the window. There are rumours around that this is going to happen, I'd like to know. But I would urge the Minister of Agriculture.... Again it is tied up with the Lands department, but I say it's certainly agriculture, and I think this would be a bad, bad mistake.

We are concerned about the agriculture industry — specifically young people getting on the land. There's no cheaper way for them to get on the land than through the lease-purchase arrangement. It is my opinion that young people will not take out Crown land for agricultural purposes if they can't eventually get title to that land.

I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture would lean on his colleague in the cabinet, the Minister of Lands, that if he is thinking of changing this agricultural lease-purchase policy that he have second thoughts about it.

Just a couple more points then I'll sit down. Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, the hay subsidy: that's a good programme. I'm sorry I've got to turn around here and say something about my colleagues from the Peace River, but hay is $90 a ton, and that's where the hay is coming from in the Cariboo. But some if it's manure, Mr. Minister. It shouldn't even be put on the truck in the first place. Some of it is good and some of it isn't. But the problem is that you — and this is a good programme — are subsidizing at $15 a ton. As recently as two weeks ago not one red cent in subsidy has been paid, Mr. Minister.

We have small dairy farms and small cattle ranchers who have got hundreds and hundreds of dollars involved in the $15 subsidy. I know one dairy farmer who has submitted his application seven times. Do you know what happened, Mr. Chairman? It's gone back because there isn't an "i" or a "t" dotted by some public servant here in Victoria. This little fellow could go broke waiting for the refund, and I don't think that is right.

You mentioned here earlier that you got 41 new staff. Well, it sounds to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister may be getting 50 or 55 new staff, because obviously someone is overworked and can't process this paper. There's real trouble at the other end when they can't get the money. The bank won't advance them any money, because they don't believe they're ever going to get it.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): That's boxcars.

MR. FRASER: Right. But I would like the Minister to look into that.

While I'm on the subject of the hay subsidy, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, it is my understanding that that expires on February 28. If I'm wrong that's fine, but I would request that they extend it, because right at the present time in some areas of the Cariboo there's six feet of snow on the level. They have to buy feed, and I don't think it's the time to take off the subsidy of $15 a ton. As a matter of fact the heavy buying of hay will really only start now in relation to the beef industry, because they have had enough feed up till now. So if the government has any opinion about withdrawing it effective at the end of February, I would request that you continue that on.

I think I've asked enough questions for now, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to hear the Minister's answers.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the question was raised by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) about conflict over range. I don't really know how much further I can go with that. To some extent, as far as agriculture is concerned, it's our opinion that the existing range should be improved in quality rather than simply trying to hang on to acres that we have, or trying to extend our acreage. I think that already there has been some improvement in the position in that in some forest areas, for example, where the foresters were very reluctant to allow the cattle to graze on areas of recent new growth, they are now changing their policy and letting cattle in.

Beyond that, I think the emphasis has to be on selecting, as I tried to indicate earlier, those areas where we can get more production and then working to get that greater production there. I'm going to say a little more about that later on in response to some of the questions from the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser).

As far as the Vancouver Island dairy industry is concerned, as a Vancouver Island person myself, and as one who has been exposed to some questions, if not pressure, from Vancouver Island dairymen, I recognize the particular position of the Vancouver Island dairymen, I recognize that costs are higher, and the programme recognizes that as well, to the extent that I think the price that's available under the income assurance programme is about 60 cents higher for Vancouver Island dairymen than it is in the valley,

[ Page 534 ]

because costs are that much higher on the Island.

To get young men on the farm, there are several programmes. The federal government has a programme of its own. It's co-operating with us on another programme. There is a farm vacation programme that we will be rolling on next summer that will give young people an opportunity to get some experience.

MR. CURTIS: What does that mean?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Vacation, not vocation. It is a programme that will be available next summer and that we hope will give young people good experience rather than something that will frighten them away

Beyond that, we are considering in our regulations that we are going to present with respect to the Agricultural Credit Act that there will be something special for young farmers. And we anticipate from what Eugene Whelan has had to say on this subject that the legislation he is planning to introduce in the federal House will also have something special in it for potential young farmers.

The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) mentioned Bill 42. It came up again; I thought nobody was really going to mention that: You say the maps were 15 to 20 years old. I've had a lot of complaints about the maps. I have had a personal experience in only a relatively small area, and it did a lot to reassure me that although there may be some problems with maps — they're not 15 or 20 years old, because I don't think Canada Land inventory has been going 20 years. They're much more recent than that.

I don't doubt that what there have been mistakes in some areas, but there is one small area with which I am personally very familiar. When I happened to see the map for that area — not in connection with agricultural capability at all, but simply looking at a question in trying to get rid of some beaver — and when I saw what the classifications were, when I saw the areas that were marked stony, and I knew were stony because I walked over them with my bare feet, and when I saw the areas that were number three but with irrigation would be number one, and I knew that I had personally pulled weeds and harvested crops from those lands, it did a lot to increase my faith in the work that had gone into those maps.

I recognize that there are problems, and I recognize that there are going to have to be changes. In the areas that you mentioned in particular, I hope you've made representations, or I hope representations have been made with respect to those specific areas to the Land Commission so that they can adjust their maps. It's going to take a lot of work; there's no doubt about that. But I do feel we've gone a long way towards the goal that I think everyone supports, although there's some question about the methods, and some question about the way it's working out. But I think everyone agrees that it was necessary to do something to save agricultural land in this province.

With regard to the grazing task force, I think you said "Hear, hear!" That was your contribution to the question about the grazing task force. You were probably reassured to know that perhaps the chief architect of my department of Bill 42 is a member of that grazing task force, and the general manager of the Land Commission is also a member of that grazing task force. So we do have some agricultural people in it, if not farmers. We certainly have some people in there who are trained in agriculture.

The Gang Ranch reduced from 9,000 to 7,000.... And this is where I want to come back to the question of productivity. In the Gang Ranch — and I talked to the owner and the general manager of it — there was an excellent opportunity there to increase markedly the production of forage, both for silage and for alfalfa. But they were a little bit concerned about what might happen to their total ranch picture so they failed to move.

I just feel that if they had gone ahead and done something substantially — they were talking about something like 1,200 acres that could have gone into silage and irrigated alfalfa — it would certainly have improved their position when they came to discuss with the government the question of the leases, or permits, or whatever they are operating on. I think there was an opportunity for them to prove that they really wanted to make the land more productive — an opportunity that so far they have not acted on. I know that from their point maybe it was a gamble where they didn't know what might happen.

But just to emphasize the thing that I say, some of the ranchland could be made a good deal more productive, and that's what we want to do. I tried to encourage them, although I couldn't really give them anything in the way of concrete....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, he outweighs me, but I've got more grey hair.

On rural power electrification, you say perhaps the $3 million won't be used. Unfortunately I don't have public accounts with me, so I don't know what happened last year. You may be one up on me — you may have yours with you. But I think if the $3 million isn't enough, then that's a good case for you to make when we come to the estimates of the Finance department, and urge not only that we spend all this money, but that the programme be speeded up. I've had these letters, and I've made representations on behalf of those areas where they do need — I didn't say want, I said need — three-phase power.

Lease tenures. Well, we've talked about this. I

[ Page 535 ]

agree they have to have the sort of tenure that will encourage them to improve their range, but I feel that sometimes perhaps if they started improving it first it might help them in bargaining for better lease tenure.

The hay subsidy. You say that none of the money has been received yet, and you question the ability of some of the bureaucrats who are handling it. I wouldn't accept that criticism of anyone in my own department. If anyone is at fault, well then it must be me. It's my responsibility here.

As far as handling of the hay forage, I feel it's being handled very efficiently in my department. Sometimes people just won't read forms, and won't fill them out properly. But then it doesn't finish, in my department. Once my department has dealt with it, it goes to another department and sometimes it takes them a little longer to deal with it than it should. I've already taken steps to try to speed up consideration there.

However, I talked to a farmer on the weekend — as a matter of fact it was at an opening of a Sikh Temple in Nanaimo — who told me that he had received just recently a substantial cheque for hay subsidy. He told me also that he got excellent alfalfa hay from the Taylor area in the Peace River delivered in Cassidy at $60 a ton.

MR. PHILLIPS: Stolen.

HON. MR. STUPICH: This is the point I want to make and this was what we were trying to do with that programme — he did it by getting it last August. He did it by working through the Department of Agriculture, through John Zacharias, who went up there on a trip to try to locate supplies of good quality hay.

We were trying to encourage with that programme people to commit their supplies and to arrange for their supplies early in the programme so that they wouldn't be scrambling at the last minute to find it, so that they wouldn't be scrambling at the last minute to try to get transportation for it. Some did. Now, he's one of the good ones. He arranged it and got excellent hay at a real good price. You say he stole it. He didn't steal it when he got it in August. If he were buying it today, he would have.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, that's because they waited too long and they didn't work through my department; they chose to go it alone. Next time go through my department.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no leadership in the riding.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, perhaps I'm jumping the gun a little bit, but I anticipate that the Lieutenant-Governor will approve. In cabinet this morning I asked them to approve extending the programme for another month, and they did.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I know the House is always anxious to hear the problems of the farmers in Point Grey. (Laughter.) But I want to deal with some matters that were raised generally in the Province of British Columbia this past weekend.

In the City of Duncan on February 24 an affidavit was sworn before Michael G. Coleman by the former egg board chairman, William Brunsdon. He alleged interference by the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture in matters that were within the board's jurisdiction. The Minister may not have become aware of that affidavit and I would like to refresh his memory of what is in it, if I may, and ask him a few questions about the details.

The Minister is going to relieve himself. The affidavit was relieving the member of the egg board who, obviously, was disturbed by decisions forced on him by the provincial government — the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture. He said:

"I, William Henry Laurence Brunsdon, egg producer of Shawnigan Lake, British Columbia, hereby make oath and say as follows:

"l) THAT from the 1st day of January, 1972, until the month of November, 1972, I was a member of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board.

"2) THAT on or about the 26th day of October, 1972, I attended a meeting in the office of the Hon. David Barrett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia, at Victoria, B.C.

"3) THAT present with me at the said meeting were William Janzen, John Unger, Jake Wall and Ed Morgan, vice-chairman, member, member and manager respectively of the said B.C. Egg Marketing Board, and the Hon. Premier Barrett and the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture, Mr. S.B. Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Maurice King, Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Harry Pope, provincial Poultry Commissioner, and Mr. M.M. Gilchrist, Markets Commissioner."

I'd like to pause at this point and ask the Minister two questions. Was he present at that meeting, as the affidavit alleges, and were the people listed in that affidavit, to his recollection, also present at that meeting? We are going back to the affidavit now, Mr. Chairman.

"4) THAT I was personally aware on the day of the said meeting that a court action had earlier been commenced by the said marketing board against S. Kovachich for recovery of

[ Page 536 ]

marketing board charges from Mr. Kovachich in the approximate amount of $2 1,000.

"5) THAT at the meeting aforesaid I was informed by Mr. Barrett in the following words that: 'There will be no court case against Sy Kovachich,' or similar words to that effect."

I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he recalls the Premier making that statement.

"6) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that: 'The charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and if these charges are not reduced you will break him,' or similar words to the same effect."

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he recalls the Premier making that statement.

"7) THAT the board then and there asked Mr. Barrett if his order was a precedent that would apply to other B.C. egg producers.

"8) THAT Mr. Barrett then and there informed me in the following words that: 'No, just this one instance. If any other producers get out of line, step on them,' or similar words to the same effect.

"9) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that the said marketing board was to forthwith draft an agreement for reduced charges against Mr. Kovachich and that the Premier added in the following words: 'It has to be done today. Is there any office they can use?', or similar words to the same effect."

I would like to ask the Minister, does he recall the Premier making that statement?

"11) THAT Ed Morgan asked Mr. Barrett in the following words: 'Mr. Premier, what assurance does the board have that Sy will abide by the agreement?' or similar words to the same effect.

"12) THAT Mr. Barrett replied in the following words: (I'm not going to use all of them. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to censor them a little bit.) 'If he does not abide by this part of the agreement, I will kick the (censored) out of him, and if the egg board does not abide by their part of the agreement I will kick the (censored) out of you,  or similar words to the same effect."

I would like to ask the Minister, does he recall the censored word?

"13) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett in the following words: 'If you don't toe the line I will make a law to cover it,' or similar words to the same effect."

I would like to ask the Minister if he recalls the Premier saying that, and if it would have been his responsibility to bring such a law in. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the Premier was ordering the Minister to bring in a law in the event that the Egg Marketing Board did not buckle to his demands.

"14) THAT the Premier stated in the following words: 'I don't want to see you again until you have problems with Ottawa, and I will help you,' or similar words to the same effect." Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask whether the Egg Marketing Board did have problems with Ottawa; and therefore, was the provincial government able to give them any help?

" 15) THAT I was informed by the Premier in the following words that: 'If anything is said outside this office I will deny every word I said,' or similar words to the same effect."

I would like to ask the Minister if he recalls the Premier making that statement.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): That's nonsense.

MR. McGEER: Or would the Minister be in the same position as the members of the Egg Marketing Board if he were to reveal what went on in that meeting? If the Minister said so, would the Premier deny what the Minister says?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your question?

MR. McGEER: It's a question, Mr. Chairman, and I think the Minister should be prepared to answer.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): If he answers that question the Premier will kick the "censored" out of him.

MR.McGEER:

" 16) THAT the egg board members then and there left the Premier's office and went to a room in the Department of Agriculture and then and there prepared a proposal reducing the claimed charges against Sy Kovachich that were ordered by the Premier, and the board members present agreed to reduce the said charges from $21,000 to $15,000."

I would like to ask the Minister: (1) did he provide the office for the members of the Egg Marketing Board — and (2) how was it that the members of the Egg Marketing Board didn't get the message right the first time? Because they proposed, apparently, that the amount only be reduced against this NDP supporter from $21,000 to $15,000.

"17) THAT on or about 7 o'clock in the afternoon on the same day, Harry Pope attended at the board's room at the Strathcona Hotel, Victoria, B. C."

I'd like to ask the Minister: did he instruct Mr. Pope to attend the board's room at the Strathcona Hotel, or did Mr. Pope go entirely on his own

[ Page 537 ]

initiative?

"18) THAT Mr. Pope then and there informed the board that the settlement that the board had prepared earlier to the Department of Agriculture was not satisfactory."

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister: was Mr. Pope in making that statement acting on the orders of the Minister of Agriculture, or was it Mr. Pope's idea that the $15,000 proposal was unsatisfactory?

" 19) THAT Mr. Pope informed the board in the following words: 'The agreement is not satisfactory to the Minister. The amount is too high,' or similar words to the same effect."

I'd like to ask the Minister: did he give Mr. Pope instructions that a figure of $15,000 was too high?

"20) THAT the board then ask Mr. Pope what amount the assessment against Mr. Kovachich should be."

Mr. Chairman, if I may interject again: It was clear that the board was slow in getting the message.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or there wasn't a message.

MR.McGEER:

"21) THAT Mr. Pope replied: 'It is not up to me; you are the board,' or similar words to the same effect."

Mr. Chairman, I think the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) ought to read this very carefully and he should be asking some questions too — if not on the floor of the House, in caucus.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Put him to his own chair.

MR.McGEER:

"22) THAT the board asked Mr. Pope that if $15,000 was not satisfactory, what amount would be acceptable to be levied against Mr. Kovachich.

"23) THAT Mr. Pope told the board in the following words: 'About half,' or similar words to the same effect.

"24) THAT Mr. Pope then left the board's hotel room.

"25) THAT the board then and there amended the proposed settlement in the amount of $7,500 to be levied against Mr. Kovachich.

"26) THAT Mr. Pope then returned to the board's hotel room, read the amended proposal in the presence of the board and said in the following words: 'This is better. I can take this back to the Minister,' or similar words to the same effect.

"27) THAT Mr. Pope then left the board's hotel room taking with him a copy of the amended proposal."

I'd like to ask the Minister if Mr. Pope then and there reported back to the Minister, saying that he had a satisfactory proposal from the board?

"28) THAT on the 27th day of October 1972, on or about the hour of 9 o'clock in the forenoon, I attended the office of the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Dave Stupich.

"29) THAT present at the said office were: William Janzen, Jake Wall, both members of the Egg Marketing Board; Ed Morgan, manager of the said board; Mr. Stupich; and S.B. Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture."

I'd like to ask the Minister: does he recall that meeting? Were the members stated in this affidavit present at that meeting?

"31) THAT Mr. Stupich informed me in the following words: 'I have read the agreement and it is now satisfactory,' or similar words to the same effect.

I'd like to ask the Minister if he did so inform the Egg Marketing Board that the proposal was now satisfactory.

"34) THAT the board then and there asked Mr. Stupich if he would release the said terms if the board was pressed...by other egg producers."

I'd like to ask the Minister if he recalls being asked that question, and if he realized at that time that the Egg Marketing Board was being placed in an impossible position: they would have to carry the can for the Premier's and the Minister of Agriculture's pressure on behalf of a friend of the NDP.

"35) THAT Mr. Stupich told me in the following words: 'I will do it if necessary but I hope it will not be necessary,' or similar words to the same effect.

"36) THAT the board members went on the same aforementioned day to a Victoria lawyer to have the agreement that involved Mr. Sy Kovachich drawn up in the terms here and before set forth."

Mr. Chairman, I've asked a series of questions of the Minister; I don't know if he recalls them all in order. But of course they represent, if they are true, the kind of improper interference, of a political kind, with an independent board that requires the resignation of the Minister. Of course, if they're not true then the Minister should so state: giving us in detail those areas where the recollections of Mr. Brunsdon were incorrect; to explain to us, if he can, how it is proper and appropriate for a Minister to participate in the reduction of a levy against a man that would be inexcusable to justify if he were totally independent, but as a known supporter of the NDP, of course, it raises the shadow of favouritism to friends.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, if these allegations are

[ Page 538 ]

untrue then we will naturally ask for an apology from the man who placed this affidavit. Possibly he should be called before the bar of the House. But if he is correct and if that can be corroborated, then we must ask for the resignation of the Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Probably on the same subject, eh?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Not exactly, Mr. Minister — broiler growers, which is a little different subject. But I would like to....

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Well, maybe we'll deal with them separately if you would like to finish this.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether it's because my head is emptier than most or because it's full of other things, but in no way am I going to try to have the ability of recall what that person quoted in this article purports to have.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

To recall in such detail something that happened a year and a half ago — not just one incident but a number of incidents totalling something like 36. Now, in no way can I try to say that any one of those is correct, is correct in part, is incorrect in part, or is totally incorrect. And no way do I intend to stand on the floor today and say that he is wrong in part, he is wrong totally, or anything else about it. I'm not really interested in the affidavit as such, where a person is quoting something that he says was said, or words to that effect.

Perhaps if the Member really wants some information about what happened, maybe I can do that and it might reassure him, if it is reassurance he wants.

For those relatively new Members of the House — they were treated to something today that used to be fairly common practice in a way and that is: the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).... We used to, on occasion when things didn't quite go right in the House, read his speeches in The Vancouver Sun before he stood up in the House and gave them. Today he's moved to the right and he's now reading his speech in the Vancouver Province that came out a little while ago. But I guess perhaps it's not all that much of a change.

In any case, when I arrived in office there had been a quarrel going on between the egg board — the board that represents the poultry industry in this province, some 400 producers — and a number of producers, two in particular, who were involved in the situation described here.

Certainly, there were some meetings in the Premier's office, one at least; certainly, there were some meetings in my office. As Minister of Agriculture I was responsible not so much with the plight of the board or the plight of any two members, but with the situation in the whole poultry industry in this province. At that time we were looking forward to B.C. Joining the national plan which, as Minister of Agriculture, I felt was very important for the development of our own industry in the Province of British Columbia, and was very anxious that we do proceed to join the national plan just as promptly as we could work out what we felt was a reasonable deal on behalf of the egg producers in the Province of British Columbia.

Certainly before we could do that we had to set our own house in order. Everyone wanted that. The egg board wanted it. The egg producers wanted it.

There was this situation that is described in some detail here. Again I'm saying that I don't know that it was exactly the way it is here and I'm not going to say that it was or wasn't. I'm not really concerned about that. But there was this situation where the board had levied fines totalling substantial amounts' of money against two producers in particular.

They knew these amounts couldn't be collected and they were looking for a way out just as much as the producers involved were looking for a way out, because those producers wanted the egg production industry in the province to survive and they wanted the board to survive. Sometimes they questioned this, some of them, but in the long run they will all have to agree that it's to our advantage, our collective advantage, in the poultry production industry in the province to belong to the national plan.

They wanted some kind of a compromise but they needed assistance in arriving at a compromise like that because neither group could save face and be the one that would offer the terms of the compromise.

Certainly I was called in to many meetings to discuss how this could be resolved. Certainly my staff were called in. Whether any of these meetings took place in the way they're described here, I don't know. But I do know that, personally and staff members, we were involved in trying to arrive at a compromise between the one position — the extreme position adopted by the board which they had mathematically arrived at — and the other position where the producers were upset about something that had happened long before the present administration came to office, but something that the previous administration had declined to deal with, something that the current administration was determined to have resolved.

Because we were determined to have it resolved, we did in some cases initiate discussions; one-sided discussions first and then discussions bringing the two groups together. As a result of that initiation by the present administration a compromise was arrived at.

[ Page 539 ]

As far as the exact terms, the terms were not accepted by anyone — I'm speaking now politically — at least were not accepted by myself until the lawyers from both sides had agreed on the final terms of the agreement and they were signed by the participating parties. And at that point I would have said, "Well, this is acceptable, everybody has signed it." And I have a copy of the signed agreement. I could not have said at any point up to then that it was acceptable or that it wasn't acceptable.

The government had no authority to interfere at any time. We certainly did have an obligation, I think, to try and sort out the problems. We had an obligation to try to invite the people to discuss. We had an obligation, I think, on behalf of the whole poultry industry to try to bring the two parties together and then try to arrive at an agreement. But we had no authority other than the one authority, and that is to wipe out the scheme, not by passing legislation. And one of the quotes here accuses someone of saying, "We'll bring in a law to change it." We didn't need a law. An order-in-council established the scheme and an order-in-council could have disbanded the scheme — a simple order-in-council at any time.

But it's interesting to note, I think, that nowhere in the affidavit and nowhere in any of the recent publicity attendant upon this has anyone quoted anyone as saying that if you don't do what you're told to do, there will be an order-in-council introduced to wreck the scheme — do away with the scheme. Now, that is the one thing we could have done. No one has suggested yet that that threat was ever made, and any other threat would have been meaningless. We had no authority to do anything else. So no law was necessary.

MR. McCLELLAND: What's this order-in-council if it's not law?

HON. MR. STUPICH: A law is something that's passed in here. An order-in-council is something that's passed in the executive chamber down the hall. There's a difference.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I've tried to tell the Member what happened as I recall it. I'm not going to try to recall the details that he read us so patiently out of the morning's issue of the paper which I hadn't bothered reading until this point.

I'm not going to try to deny them; I'm not really interested in them. But I say this: we took the initiative; we were responsible by having taken that initiative for having a compromise worked out that was acceptable to both parties and for bringing that particular problem to a solution.

I think rather than trying to rake up something now that happened a year-and-a-half ago, the Members opposite could perhaps be doing something more meaningful for the agricultural industry in the province if they voted for vote 3 and let it go through.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about broiler growers. It's nonsense for the Minister to suggest that they don't have the ultimate control over what the broiler growers or the egg marketers or anybody else does, because all they need to do is start to apply the muscle as they've been doing and they'll either toe the line or else. That's all there is to it. And to suggest that passing an order-in-council in cabinet isn't the same as passing the law...it has the same effect. So that threat that is quoted in there may be very valid.

I don't want to go over the whole area that was covered in the paper again, Mr. Minister, but there is a question I understand — and perhaps you can clear it up, through you, Mr. Chairman — about our standing with the Canadian Egg marketing Association. I hear there's some doubt as to the legality of the contract we have with them. Is there such a doubt? Is there a problem with regard to the Attorney-General's department? I'm told that the egg marketers aren't sure that we're legally in the national association. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

But the basic point that I'm making with regard to the broiler growers is that that kind of political muscle has been laid on with these people, and it's political interference of the worst kind — from the Minister's office and from the Premier's office.

I'd like the Minister to answer a question of the Premier's involvement in this whole area. Have any memos passed between your department and the Premier's department with regard to quotas in the broiler industry? Did you meet with the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) this month to talk about numbers of birds for quotas for the Interior industry? Has any Member of this Legislature or large egg producer, if they happen to be the same person...has any Member threatened or demanded your resignation if these quotas aren't increased in the Interior?

I'd just like to read briefly from an item called the Victoria Commentary by the Member for Shuswap talking about the meeting with the broiler grower people in Vernon recently in which the Member says:

"I am certainly not pleased with the recent snow job handed the Interior regarding the establishment of a broiler industry here. All those I've talked to from the Interior who attended the meeting in Vernon were utterly shocked to think that anything like this could happen in a democratic society."

This is a very serious public charge and I think the

[ Page 540 ]

Minister should respond to it. It goes on to say:

"Somewhere between the Minister and the representatives from the government attending that meeting there are lies and contradictions."

That's a very serious public charge that was made by the Member for Shuswap.

I would like to have the Minister respond to that because it seems to me that's what all this — the questioning during the question period and again this afternoon in the House — is all about.

What is going on? Who is running the Department of Agriculture? Is the Premier interfering directly in the operation of the department? How much muscle is the department and the Premier prepared to lay onto the broiler growers and to the egg marketers in this province? Because regardless of what the Minister says, Mr. Chairman, he holds the ultimate authority. He's the guy who has that muscle, and it's being flexed on the people who are involved in the broiler industry in British Columbia right now.

I think it's very serious when the Minister says he couldn't care less about some of the things that were said in those statements. I think it is a very serious question that has arisen. I think it requires some serious answers from the Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I can clear up that question of couldn't care less. I cannot care less, really, about something that somebody purports to have taken place a year-and-a-half ago. I'm more concerned about today and tomorrow than I am about something that may have....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, the affidavit refers to October 1972, doesn't it? Well, it was something that was said, or "something like that", or "words to that effect."

The national egg agency. To the best of my knowledge the legal question has been cleared up. There was a second order-in-council. Apparently something was deficient in the first one — you should talk to the lawyers and find out what it was. There was very little change, but I'm satisfied now that it has been cleared up.

Was there a memo to the Premier any time this month? Yes, there was a memo to the Premier, I believe about a week ago, in that he was involved in the meetings. There has never been any denial of a meeting in his office to discuss this question. It is a question that was discussed to quite an extent in the fall session of the Legislature in the House. There was a discussion in his house as to what was happening about broiler production in the Interior of the province. I reported to him as to what had happened, because not until that point was everything agreed to.

Did I meet with the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)? I meet often with the Member for Shuswap. I met often with the Member for Shuswap and with many others discussing this whole question of getting poultry meat production and egg production out of the Fraser Valley and into the Interior of the province. I met many times with him and likely will meet often with him and with many other MLAs again. I haven't met with you on this question, but then we really don't want any more egg production in your area.

Did anyone demand my resignation? Well, other than the hypothetical demand, based on "if" something had happened, from the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), no one to the best of my knowledge has demanded my resignation.

Lies and contradictions — I'm not sure why I wrote that down — I don't know what I was referring to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fowl play.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, yes. Well, that's his quotation. I suggest you ask him about that. As far as I'm concerned, the report that I had from staff about what went on in that meeting is satisfactory to me. I have no reason to question the reports that I have, and that's my position.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, the Minister, with every respect, is skating around this thing.

HON. MR. STUPICH: When he says "with every respect," you know he means no respect.

MR. GARDOM: That's not correct. I think that's most unfair. The Hon. Minister is making light of this. I suppose in his position it's his last leg of defence, but there are very serious charges raised in this affidavit, Mr. Minister, of government interference and government pressures — pressure by a Premier, and pressure by a Minister of the Crown, yourself, by acquiescence, if by nothing else.

I think the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was not asking you for total recall. He was asking you this question, Mr. Minister: is not the substance of this affidavit under oath — which could be used in evidence in the court of law, which could be subject to the laws of perjury, if it is incorrect — is not the substance of the overall version in this affidavit correct? I ask the Minister — yes or no? Is the substance of this affidavit correct, or is it incorrect?

Did the Premier lean on the board? Did he use influence? Did he use the pressure of his office against the board or against this man to bring about a reduction in this levy?

What remedies were open to the board and to the

[ Page 541 ]

man outside of political pressure? Was the assessment subject to review? Was the assessment subject to appeal? Has an audit been taken by the government or by the board?

Was it a correct levy? Was it a correct levy according to law? If it was a correct levy according to law — and the Minister and the Premier of this province are supposed to operate under the law, like every other citizen — then why was it reduced?

Is there a discretion there to permit such reductions, or was this discretion a thing of the moment? What are the grounds of the alleged reductions?

I don't think it's something that really and truly has disappeared from the Minister's mind. There certainly seems to be a very heavy group of people present at these particular meetings, and there are very strong statements attributed to people.

I have not noticed any affidavits of the Hon. Minister, or any affidavits of the Hon. Premier, or any affidavits of the other people who are alleged to be present at this meeting coming forth and denying these statements. Is the Minister intending to put his comments into oaths — yes or no? The other individual is.

He says in paragraph 13: "I was further informed by Mr. Barrett in the following words: 'If you don't toe, the line, I will make a law to cover it,' or similar words to the same effect." How does the general public read that? It reads like pressure. Was there or was there not pressure? The Hon. Member up here used the word "muscle."

MR. PHILLIPS: Muscle. Strong-arm man.

MR. GARDOM: This is the way the thing is being interpreted. We're not expecting total recall, Mr. Minister; we're expecting you to stand up as an Hon. Minister of the Crown to inform this House what the substance of that conversation was. Mr. Minister of the Crown, there's no way that anybody in this House can accept the fact that you don't remember the overall substance of the discussion and the overall tenor of what happened during those meetings at that particular period of time.

You were a new Minister, this was a very hot situation, it involved a lot of money, it involved an independent board which is not allowed to be independent, it involved, apparently, a claim of a gentleman who considered it was far, far too high against him, and it involved parties who were not reaching common meeting grounds.

Indeed, if this is correct, do you remember taking the position, Mr. Minister, that it should be swept under the rug? Yes or no? It says here: "Mr. Stupich told me that: 'There is no need to divulge these terms; they can be kept within these four walls,' or similar words to the same effect."

Can you remember your attitude in that regard over a period of time, Mr. Minister? We appreciate that you've had many duties, and you've seen many people. But this doesn't seem to me to be just a little casual kind of occurrence; this seems to be something of very, very great substance in the mind of Mr. William Henry Lawrence Brunsdon for him to put his position under oath. I think it's high time the Hon. Minister and all of the other people at that meeting did the same thing.

I would ask the Hon. Minister to please respond to the questions I've asked him.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a little background on this whole story. Possibly the Members sitting in the opposition down there may have to stop and reconsider their positions. If people know where marketing boards originated and how they originated they may start asking some questions of the past government.

You realize that there is an Hon. Member in this House who also, as you say, "interfered." At that time he was Minister of Agriculture — the Hon. Frank Richter. Quotas were being established for this province for egg production, and they were qualifying on their production over the past three years, if I can remember right. While this was being done, the people situated in large egg production units, primarily in the Fraser Valley, were aware of what could happen if value came on quota.

During a six-month period after they had set up the initial structure of the board, farmers were building poultry barns like they were going out of style. The reason for this was because they could see the dollar ahead of them. They built large production units and filled those with birds. I've even been told the story that some farmers went across the border into Washington state and bought eggs so that they could use those for receipts to qualify for a larger quota.

With the structure of the board they realized they were going to have a little problem in being able to market these eggs. So 60-odd farmers came to Victoria and met with the then Hon. Frank Richter and put their case forward to him saying that they must have a chance to qualify for all these new birds that they had in their barns. They had now built their barns and wanted a chance to be able to have a quota for them.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: It would be in 1968, possibly 1967. The Minister then overruled the interim board that was set up and said that you must advance your qualifying date until November. If that isn't interference, I don't know what is.

I think we have to touch on some of the injustices

[ Page 542 ]

that happened from the time these boards were initially established. Farmers throughout the province, the lower mainland, Vancouver Island and the Interior were assured that in the future when you consumption grows, your quotas would also grow. In other words, the farmers would have a chance to supply the local consumption.

This was touched on by Mr. Garrish in his report. Maybe many of us here aren't even aware that the past government, after many, many objections by farmers throughout the province, including myself, ordered an inquiry into the Egg Marketing Board structure.

MR. CHABOT: Are you arguing in self-interest right now?

MR. LEWIS: No, I'm not dealing with self-interest, my friend.

MR. CHABOT: What's your quota?

MR. LEWIS: What's my quota? My quota is 140 cases. It's worth $42,000 and I'm darned well ashamed of it. Any time when a farmer has to make a living by selling his quota instead of selling his product, there's something wrong with our system.

I'd like to give you some names of the members that were named to this committee that was to tour the province and find out what they felt was going on. One of them is Mr. Garrish, who's now on the Land Commission. Let me remind you that he was appointed to this egg survey by the past government, so don't start saying it's political. Mr. Garrish is presently on the Land Commission, so he had respect from both Ministers, the past and the present.

There were two lawyers totally removed from egg production in this province.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Not lawyers!

MR. LEWIS: Yes, yes. They're honest too — Mr. Hutchinson, from Victoria, and Mr. Achtem from Victoria. Now I'd like to just touch on a few of the recommendations, some of the points that they covered in their hearings. I think every MLA in this House should get a copy of this report and read it. It starts out:

"Several of the 12 points laid down in the terms of reference evoked little or no comment during the hearings; hence were given detailed study. Three areas of the board's policies and activities provoked the most criticism and discussion, and in my opinion these criticisms have a solid basis. These three areas are as follows: the trafficking in quota contrary to the provisions of the scheme...."

As you may not know, the scheme that the egg marketing board was structured under said there shall be no market value to quota. It was laid out and there was no misunderstanding there. But the board in its wisdom got around this. They said, "Well, we'll sell the chicken; we're not selling the quota." So they would take a bird that had laid out its period of lay, that was no good for anything other than boiling meat, and would sell that bird for $3 and $3.25. So this was really circumventing the laws of the board.

The second was:

"The dumping of quota pool eggs at distressed prices into the Kootenays and the Peace River."

Now I think that some of you recall that little battle that went on there. The two growers that the Members here are insinuating got preferential treatment from the government were in an area where they were told that they would be able to grow with their markets when the board was established.

MR. GARDOM: How do you know?

MR. LEWIS: How do I know? I happened to attend meetings where this was quoted. You can read the report, and Mr. Garrish says there was no doubt in his mind that this was said.

MR. GARDOM: It wasn't an unkind question. I always think well of you.

MR. LEWIS: Okay. What? That's a change.

Once the board was in operation, they reversed their decision and said: "From this point hence, the whole of the province will have to grow." It's too bad that when we qualify for quota, we've got about 3,000 or 4,000 more cases more than we can sell, but the rest of the province is frozen until such time as we can sell those eggs.

The members in Prince George and Terrace, the ones referred to, were operating in good faith on what the board had said. So they became rebellious and started producing eggs over and above their quota. Hence came the $21,000 fine that was going to be levied against a gentleman in Prince George and a $60,000 fine against a gentleman in Terrace. Now where in this world do you ever hear of anybody being penalized to this extent for producing too much food? There's something wrong with our system when this type of thing has to happen.

I'd like to go on in this report a little bit further. I'd like to deal with the assurance to increase with this market. This is Mr. Garrish's report. He says:

"Throughout all the hearings in the Interior and also on Vancouver Island, the statement was made by producer after producer that they were assured, when the board was being established, that they would be given an opportunity to grow with their markets. Apart

[ Page 543 ]

from the additional quota issued to some Interior producers in the spring of 1968, this has not been honoured. Instead they are now told by the egg board that if they wish to increase production to meet their market requirements, they must purchase additional quota at a going price of $350."

Now I might remind you that a producer just sold 600-and-some-odd cases of egg quota in the Fraser Valley in the last month or two. It doesn't take any genius to figure out how many dollars he made off the system — somewhere between $180,000 and $200,000, for which he never paid one bean. He had that quota allocated to him in the beginning. I'm not saying he was one of the offenders in qualifying for quota which he didn't have coming, but it's very possible.

"Some have purchased quota from other producers going out of business. Some have purchased quota in the Fraser Valley and transferred it to the Interior. Some have succeeded in obtaining permits from the board to increase their markets on the understanding that they would purchase further quota as it became available. Some have just gone ahead and marketed their eggs without buying additional quota or obtaining permits."

And these two gentlemen referred to are two of them.

"The repeated statements by producers that they were given the assurances of being issued additional quota so that they could grow with their markets had the ring of truth about them and I believed them. Whether or not the people who gave these assurances had any real authority to do so is another matter. People promoting marketing schemes are invariably optimistic and expect more than any scheme can provide. If assurances of this sort would help get support for the plebiscite, then they were undoubtedly given, particularly as they were both reasonable and logical...be the reasons for the tremendous concentration of B.C. egg production in the Fraser Valley area at the present time, long-term thinking more assuredly concedes that it is distribution of production more in line with market requirements which results in a better service to the wholesaler, to the retailer, and a fresher product to the consumer. In my view, the consumer, the retailer, throughout this province has a right to expect that."

Now we have to remember that this is an independent report. It's not one that I wrote up on my own.

"The whole question of using quota now and in the future to encourage production on a regional basis or to reflect existing market requirements is a very large one, and certainly in the time available to it the survey group did not arrive at a final answer. It would be sheer conceit to pretend it has. One thing appears certain. If present board policies are unaltered, and in view of the almost total control which the Fraser Valley producers have over the egg marketing board, they're Valley producers have over the Egg Marketing Board, they're will continue to be concentrated in the Fraser Valley until questions such as pollution control, zoning and so on force a change in the economic status. It should not be impossible to devise a formula whereby expansion of production in the deficit areas cannot only be permitted but encouraged."

There's another little short piece here I'd like to read. It says:

"Any changes to the quota system will require much more study than the survey group was able to give, but unless changes are instituted and provisions made for future expansion in the deficit areas, the egg board will continue to have a stormy career. Changes that are found by further study to be necessary should be introduced in a gradual manner. If it is politically unacceptable to make any general reduction of quota to bring it more in line with the market, varying the percentage of quota permitted to the fresh market by areas would accomplish the same thing. Unless the board can be brought back to the original concept, that quotas are the property of the board with no monetary value attached thereto, it is not going to be able to use the quota system with maximum flexibility, and the quota system is basic to the successful operation of the Egg Marketing Board."

Mr. Chairman, I contend that the value on quotas is the thing that has caused this whole hassle. It has caused greed among people; it has caused neighbour to fight with neighbour, and farmer to fight with farmer. I know it's very hard to have a controlled marketing system without this type of thing happening, but surely people who are supposed to be as smart as we are on the North America continent can come around with some answer to this problem.

"Next to the importance of the public hearings was the composition of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board itself. The composition of the board only became an issue because of the controversy which developed over board policies and the possibility for either the Interior or Vancouver Island to alter board policy under present circumstances."

I may clarify this by saying that the lower mainland had three members on the board: one representative from the Interior and one from

[ Page 544 ]

Vancouver Island. So regardless of what was happening to the two outlying areas, there was no way that they could change this. I really find it intriguing that the opposition, the Socred Members, will come in here and talk about us using force to get changes in the system.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because you did.

MR. LEWIS: I would like to remind you, my friend, that I was voted in by my riding to represent those people. And if policies of marketing boards and policies of government are not to the betterment of the whole province, then I have an obligation to the people who I represent to put as much pressure as I can on to see that fairness is taking place in this province.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about all the chicken growers in Salmon Arm?

MR. LEWIS: "At the present time with three members representing the lower mainland, one representing Vancouver Island, and one representing the whole of the Interior, there can be no question that the board is quite effectively controlled by producers from the lower mainland. They, of course, having 80 per cent of the total production, regard this as only right and proper, and cannot conceive that they should in any way allow control of the board to be diluted by further representation from other areas. On the other hand, the Island and the Interior people have recognized that when the chips are down, the control as to the board policy and the carrying out of the board policy is completely out of their hands. To give equal representation on the board to all three areas, as was proposed at several of the public hearings, would be to ignore the fact that at the present time the bulk of the production of eggs is in one of the three areas. The two other areas with the much less volume of production could effectively dictate policy.

"On the other hand, if the present situation is allowed to remain, inevitably the board's policies will reflect the views and the wishes of the majority of the producers presently concentrated in the lower mainland. If a change is to be brought about, it will certainly have to be a result of policy decisions at some higher level than the Egg Marketing Board."

Now, isn't that strange that a man who is conducting this survey recommended that a higher level may have to interfere. I contend that the Department of Agriculture, that the government of this province has a responsibility to interfere if one part of the province is being affected.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: It's not interference, my friend.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I am not aware of anybody interfering. I attended meetings with the Minister, and I'll tell you right now, I put my case very strong, and I'll continue to make my case very strongly.

MR. CHABOT: Have you talked to the Premier?

MR. LEWIS: I've talked to every MLA in my caucus about it. Every one of them is aware of the situation.

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

MR. LEWIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to remind the Hon. Members from that end that I doubt if any of them ever got in to see the Premier, let alone talk to him.

The changes to be brought about will certainly have to be the result of policy decision at a higher level. In practical terms there is no way that I can see of the Egg Marketing Board being able to institute policies that are in any way at variance with the interests of producers in the lower mainland. I would like to just read you his summation of it.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about your charges that he lied?

MR. LEWIS: I didn't say that he lied, but it is possibly so. Finally:

"...to put things in the proper perspective, it is generally agreed that the board has done a very creditable job in stabilizing egg marketing in British Columbia. It has put money in the pocket of the producers. The value of orderly marketing, based on a quota system, has been demonstrated. And the evidence presented at the hearings generally confirms this. Unfortunately the policies of the board in certain areas have aroused such fierce antagonism and hostility as to jeopardize the continued existence of the board unless resolved.

"It is of paramount importance to resolve these problems, and I am confident that it can be done.

"The job of the survey group was primarily to identify the major causes of the controversy

[ Page 545 ]

surrounding the egg board, and this I feel has been accomplished. To recommend definitive answers ready to put into operation would require more than the money that was allotted to the survey. Some of these matters, and particularly the problems affecting the outlying groups, could well be the subject of further study with a view to bringing about a compromise between the contending factions.

"It may require some degree of intervention by the government to achieve the necessary changes."

That's a recommendation of a completely impartial board.

"If this is so there should be no hesitation by the government to act. Continuation of a programme of orderly marketing in the egg industry justifies it."

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to carry on in regard to broiler production in the Interior. I think I have stated in this House before that the broiler board was set up with total domination in the lower mainland–Vancouver Island area. There was no production whatsoever in the Interior. There was no way that anybody in the Interior of the province could have a say in regard to the whole structure of the board throughout the province.

There was a man in the Salmon Arm area who was interested in constructing a killing plant about five years ago. At that time he could have received a $40,000 grant under the federal incentives plan to construct that plant. Due to decisions by the board, because they absolutely refused production anywhere other than in the lower mainland, in view of this decision the $40,000 grant was lost to the Interior of the province, lost to prospective farmers in the area. I'll admit that I have been pressuring; I frightened the last government. I sent letters to every MLA in this House at that time. I sent letters to every chamber of commerce in the province in regard to what was happening to farming in the province. But did we get any action from the past government? We got no action whatsoever on the broiler board. The only way we got action on the egg survey was that we had to threaten that we were going to block theTrans-Canada Highway. That is the only way we got any action — even after this type of report came out.

Now, maybe some of the Hon. Members here will say I am a rebel, but I fight for what I believe in. I fight for what I believe is right in this province: that agriculture throughout this province must have a right to grow. But nobody in this province in one centrally located area has the God-given right to supply farm products to all the province.

Sure I've had meetings with the Minister, and I've made representations many times; and if it is not resolved, I'll be making as many representations as in the past. But you have to remember that the Minister is under a heavy load, and I have every confidence in the Minister that things will be done to rectify it. I don't think it will be interference on his part; it will be him carrying out his responsibility to the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close and say that it is a shame that farming in this province has to be dragged so low in this chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: I don't think the Members have the interests of the farming community at heart; they just are looking at the next election and saying that we will go to every means we can to get back here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly files the answer to question 143.

Hon. Ms. Young files the answer to question 5.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.