[ Page 647 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Fraser — 647

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 649

Mr. Gardom — 650

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 650

Hon. Mr. Radford — 651

Mr. Gibson — 652

Mr. Phillips — 652

Mr. Smith — 653

Mrs. Jordan — 656

Mr. Curtis — 659

Mr. McGeer — 659

Mr. Fraser — 660

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 661

Mr. Phillips — 661

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 662

Mr. Phillips — 662

Mr. L.A. Williams — 663

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 665

Mr. Phillips — 667

Mr. Schroeder — 669

Mr. Dent — 670

Mr. Morrison — 671

Mr. Gibson — 671

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 671

Mr. McClelland — 672

Mr. McGeer — 673

Erratum — 674

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a few points I'd like to raise here. First of all, I don't know why, Mr. Chairman, you don't get the vacuum in here to sweep up all these chicken feathers on the floor.

If there's going to be quotas apportioned out by the government, I think that some of them should come to the Interior. The Cariboo is just as capable as my friends from Langley, Chilliwack, Sorrento or Blind Bay. We'd sure like to get in on the action.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Tell us about the chicken pluckers in the Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that. I've got news for you. But apart from all the chicken problems and egg problems and so on, I think, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich), that there are a lot of other problems in agriculture.

There is one that has just come up. I don't know whether the Minister is aware of it, but my cousin over there, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), is aware of it. I don't think that he's done anything about it, as usual. I want to bring it to the Minister of Agriculture to see if he'll lean on the Minister of Transport and Communications about this.

In my riding of Cariboo there was an arrangement made last fall for a private trucking firm to haul plywood to Calgary and haul feed grain back. This individual has invested $50,000 in this unit, and had contracts with the plywood company and the grain company, and permits from the British Columbia Motor Carrier Commission and the Province of Alberta. The other day he was stopped at the boundary of B.C. and Alberta and told he no longer had a permit in Alberta. Consequently tonight, Mr. Chairman, in the 100 Mile House area of my riding of Cariboo, there are animals going hungry.

I'd like to know if the Minister of Agriculture knows anything about this and what he's going to do about it, because there's something radically wrong here. I think that the Minister of Agriculture can help on this score in again leaning on the Minister of Transport and Communications to find out why this permit that he had was cancelled, causing a lot of pain and anguish to the agriculture industry in the 100 Mile area. As I repeat, they have no feed tonight because of this arrangement being broken, and I think this is not good at all.

Another item that I would like to bring up tonight that I don't think, Mr. Chairman, has been brought up before is what the Minister of Agriculture is going to do about the high cost of farm trucks and tractor insurance. Farm truck insurance has gone up in the Interior; I don't know about the coast, but there aren't any farmers there anyway. The other point is tractor insurance where a farmer has to cross a public highway. I understand that their insurance has gone up 100 per cent. Again I ask the Minister of Agriculture: Does he know about this? What's he going to do about it? — to this same Minister, the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Well, that's fine. I'm asking the Minister.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I hate to see you leave because this fellow here will rule against me every chance he gets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tomorrow.

MR. FRASER: Tomorrow, yes.

The Minister of Agriculture was in my home town the other day at a public gathering, and he made a lot of statements there. He didn't give too many answers to this public meeting sponsored by the NDP on a Sunday night. We're all good churchgoers up there, and we resent Sunday meetings. Anyway, the Minister of Agriculture was there and the chap that I defeated in the last election was there by the name of Mr. Ron Anderson. As a matter of fact, he was here today in the gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your back! Watch your back!

MR. FRASER: I want to know if this chap, this defeated candidate that I defeated in the 1972 election — and I take great pleasure in saying that — is on the payroll of the Department of Agriculture. I want to know, because in a press release up there he said: "I'll find out the answers." And the Minister of Agriculture said: "You just give all your problems to Ron Anderson and he'll get the answers for you."

[ Page 648 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: The Minister is putting over the proposition that this man's the MLA, and he's already been refuted by the public of Cariboo. I'd like to know what he's getting paid for this, because this man was, I repeat, defeated. I'm coming to you — don't smile there, Mr. Minister of Recreation and Conservation, (Hon. Mr. Radford). I'm coming to the grizzly bear steaks in a minute. But who is the MLA? I'd like the Minister of Agriculture to answer that question.

I think that this man is on the payroll, because Ron is a great guy and all the rest of it, but he quit his job in December in the Cariboo, and I don't think he's living on the Minister of Human Resources. I don't think that he's getting his income from there. I'll give him more credit than that, but where is he getting his income from? He's now the nominated candidate for Kamloops-Cariboo. But I'd like to know if he's getting any public funds from this socialist enterprise that we have operating here in Victoria.

Now I want to get on to the things that really count — Bill 42, Mr. Chairman. I would really like to know if the Minister who is responsible for this bill knows what is actually going on. He certainly didn't when the debate was on for two weeks last year, because the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and I wish he was here.... He's not here but he was calling all the shots. But now we're progressing on this bill, and it's become quite serious. For over a year now it's gone on and all development is at a stop.

The Minister of Agriculture was asked this question at this famous meeting in Quesnel, and he referred all the questions to somebody else. I don't think this is right. I think he has some of the answers and I'd like to know when he's going to give some of them.

One particular thing I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture is whether he has, as Minister, brought this to the attention of his appointed Land Commission. In the Cariboo we have a lot of family ranches. They're not farms, they're ranches. We don't believe in farms in the Cariboo, they're called ranches, but they're now at their second, or third, or fourth generation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vote 8.

MR. FRASER: I know, but I want to get this in here, too, as well as 8.

If your farmland is rightly in Bill 42, there is no way, when the second generation, as an example, wants to turn over to the third generation, that the second generation can get a place to retire on that parcel of property. I would like to know from the Minister of Agriculture whether he has passed on these requests to the B.C. Land Commission. I'm sure he's had them. I have, and I consider it very important that some provision should be made by the B.C. Land Commission such that they provide for, say, the second generation to be able to subdivide a portion of the land that has gone on to the third generation so they can still live on the property.

I have two or three families where the farm has always been in the family name for longer than British Columbia's been a province — about 110 years. They now find that when the second generation, as an example, wants to retire, they want to retire on that farm. But they want title, say, to five acres for their home.

Of course, under Bill 42 they're not allowed to subdivide and that's the end of that. They have to probably move to some other area and, family tradition being what it is, it's just not right.

A lot of the old Cariboo ranchers, they're all locked in under Bill 42, even if they've got gravel pits on there. I can't see why provision can't be made. It certainly can be if the Minister of Agriculture would consider asking the B.C. Land Commission to look into this and make provision for the third or the fourth generation, or' whatever it is, to dedicate a parcel of the complete family unit so that the retiring family can have their five acres or a small parcel of land.

I don't think you're going to create a real estate rip-off or anything like it. I think it's a small request, and I'm sure the Minister will consider it.

I want to go back to rangeland, Mr. Chairman, as related to the Agriculture department. I wasn't at all satisfied the other day when I spoke and used as an example the Gang Ranch, which is in my riding. I believe it is the largest cattle ranch in the British Empire. They were forced to reduce the herd....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I don't want to hear from you, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). You won't even build a road up to the Gang Ranch. They're pulling through there tonight with tractors to get the cows out of there. Your government dictated they had to get out because you wouldn't give them a range permit. They're in there tonight pulling them out with their own crawler-tractors — there are no Highways people there helping them resolve this problem.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, get in your own seat and I can get after you.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, getting back to the Gang Ranch, I wasn't happy with the fuzzy answer I

[ Page 649 ]

got from the Minister of Agriculture the other day. He said the Gang Ranch made a wrong decision in not cultivating the land they had. They'd have cultivated thousands of acres if they could have been assured that they would have got range in the summertime.

Is the Minister of Agriculture suggesting that they feed their cattle the year round? Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Agriculture, you know how uneconomic that is. But the facts of life are, regarding that ranch and many others — the Gang is only the first one that this government has moved on — they've asked them to cut down. The Minister of Agriculture hasn't done this, but I'm bringing it to his attention.

That Minister of wood chips over there that's never in the House, dictated through the forestry division, the grazing division, that they would have a permit this year for 2,000 less head of cattle.

I think the Minister of Agriculture should lean on that Minister and tell him he's wrong, completely wrong. They can raise all the feed they want to raise, but they also want Crown range.

I'm going to close here very shortly, Mr. Chairman. I want to get at this Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and relate to the Minister of Agriculture how he's getting a shafting from that Minister.

Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that that Minister is going to put the whole province into park reserves or wildlife reserves and we're going to end up in British Columbia here in five years eating porcupine pie? All there'll be left to eat are porcupines and grizzly bears.

I suggest to you that the citizens of this province don't want to eat porcupine pie because the quills will stick in the mouth — in the roof of their mouth — and they'll really scream about that from your riding, Mr. Chairman, and his riding, Vancouver South.

But from the direction we're going, that's what's going to happen. All there'll be left to eat in this province, unless the Minister of Agriculture not only leans on him but stomps on him.... There's no range for the cattle; the ranges are all left for the grizzly bears and the porcupines. We're going to end up eating grizzly bear and porcupine.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this province want to eat beef. They don't want to eat porcupine and grizzly bear.

At the point in time we are at now, Mr. Chairman, that Minister of Recreation is going to have the whole country in a porcupine and grizzly bear reserve. (Laughter.) I attended a meeting....

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Yes, I'm just getting them on now. I attended a meeting of the agriculture committee last summer in the great town of Williams Lake, and one of those environment kooks that's paid by the Department of Recreation got up there, and do you know what he said to the cattlemen? Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, what he said to the agriculture committee. He said, "If your cows arc getting bothered by the grizzly bears, get the cows the hell out of that range." That's what he said.

Well, how ridiculous can we get, Mr. Chairman? (Laughter.)

So, I leave you on that, Mr. Chairman. If you want porcupine pie and grizzly steaks — and I've eaten both, in lieu of beef — if this Minister of Agriculture doesn't get up and whomp that Minister of Recreation and that woods sawdust Minister over there, the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams), that's what we're going to be eating.

Thank you for listening.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reassure the Hon. Member for Cariboo that Mrs. McQuiston's chickens at 100 Mile House will not be going hungry tonight. It has been brought to the attention of the poultry commissioner who has made available alternate sources of supply. So the chickens are fed tonight, you needn't worry about that.

The farm, truck and tractor insurance costs — I'm sure now that the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has heard your remarks and it's likely he'll take this into account. Perhaps you'll have an opportunity to ask him yourself later in the debate.

It's true, when I was asked in your riding by people who said they had some difficulty in communicating their questions to you in getting some kind of a reply, that they could write to me as the Minister, or they could contact Ron Anderson locally. Your question was: is he on the payroll? He is not on the payroll. Your second question was: how is he living? That's his business. I should not be asked to answer that question.

This advice is not all that unique. I have a newspaper report here of one MLA for Victoria, Newell Morrison, referring to himself as the only Vancouver Island Social Credit Member in the Legislature and urging particularly the people in the Cowichan-Malahat constituency to write him or phone him considering government policy questions — that they'll get better answers presumably from him than they would from their own MLA. Now they may feel that way....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: In any case, the question only came up when your constituents said they were having some difficulty in getting reasonable service from you. I suggested, well, that there are alternatives to consider.

Questions with respect to Bill 42 I have noted and will reply to when we get to vote 8. Questions with respect to rangeland I have already commented on,

[ Page 650 ]

and no doubt you'll have an opportunity to put them again as well to the Minister in charge of grazing.

MR. FRASER: I intend to.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, it's difficult to follow the Marshal and Chester, Mr. Chairman. However, I see from the British Columbia Department of Agriculture immediate news release of January 23, 1974, that,

"The bull-testing programme at the B.C. Beef Cattle Test Station at Tranquille is now back to normal after an unusually troublesome initial period, says B.C. livestock commissioner, Al Pelter.

"The programme consists of a 28-day adjustment period followed by a 140-day test. The test is generally broken down into five periods of 28 days apiece."

And it continues.

"During the first of these periods in this year's tests, which started in October, a respiratory problem appeared in the test animals and seriously affected their rate of gain."

I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if he is sure that this was really and truly a respiratory problem, and if so, how did it come about?

Secondly, I notice in the British Columbia Gazette, dated February 19, which was delivered on my desk this afternoon, that the government has apparently entered into a guarantee with a company known as South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., and Lakeview Credit Union, and wherein the government — the Minister it refers to — proposes to become a shareholder of that company and to buy some 277 preferred shares. And apparently the government will be guaranteeing $1.5 million for the purpose of a plant and facilities of this company in Dawson Creek. I'm asking the Hon. Minister: what exactly is the business of this company? Have there been any economic projections taken by the department as to the viability or otherwise of this proposed project? What is the financial reason, or other reason, for this commitment of the government for this project?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect: bull testing, vote 5; South Peace dehy, vote 7.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think the Hon. Minister can answer these now — there is the possibility that he might be out to lunch, or down the street, or doing other things in the hall during these particular votes. There's no reason why you can't answer that question now.

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

MR. GARDOM: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is not on his feet, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You sat down once. I thought you were finished.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I was still speaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to continue?

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue.

MR. GARDOM: Thanks very much. I'd like to. Jack, we'll be with you in a jiffy, okay? (Laughter.) Alex didn't mean everything he said. (Laughter.)

Well, I can ask the Hon. Minister these questions and he can answer these questions right now. You know, the Hon. Minister has put off for three days questions on other matters that are extremely more serious, going to the very root of the government process. I think that perhaps we are going to have to have answers to those questions before his vote goes through, and I think it would be a good thing if he answered these too. You can't rely on Hansard for this one, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The general conduct of the department is answered under the Minister's salary, and that's what I have been trying to do for the last three days. Specific questions with respect to specific programmes are more properly handled under the specific votes for the department.

MR. GARDOM: But you are refusing to answer tonight, is that it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not refusing to answer tonight.

MR. GARDOM: Well then, answer.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No. I am simply saying let's get on with it tonight.

MR. GARDOM: Why don't you answer the question then?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's get on with it tonight.

MR. GARDOM: Well, answer the question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I will when we get to vote 5.

[ Page 651 ]

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks to the statements made by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). He stated that this government has reduced the grazing permits to Gang Ranch from 9,000 to 7,000 head of cattle. I would like to remind this Member, especially because it's in his own area, that the Gang Ranch sold to Riske Creek approximately one-quarter of their holdings, and this is where the reduction of the permits came in.

MR. FRASER: You made them sell! Strong arm Woody Woodpecker did. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: They did not have to sell, and you know very well.

Now yesterday and today statements were made about the Fish and Wildlife Branch....

MR. FRASER: Woody Woodpecker did it. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. RADFORD: Statements were made, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RADFORD: May I have some order, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, now.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Will the Minister continue?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday and today statements were made by that Member there that the Fish and Wildlife Branch were taking over excessive grazing in the province.

MR. FRASER: Sure!

HON. MR. RADFORD: This is totally untrue. And he was trying to say that there was conflict between the Department of Recreation and the Agriculture department. I would like to inform the House that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Recreation and Conservation are working together as never before in this province.

For instance, last year in the Creston Valley wildlife management area, Mr. Chairman, the branch, realizing the seriousness of the situation of lack of grazing, gave permits to graze 600 head of cattle for three months on the Lewis unit in that area. In addition to this, 400 head were also permitted to graze on other areas in the management area, and 250 tons of alfalfa hay were given to the farmers who were in distress in that area.

In my speech the other day I mentioned about the three units we took over in the east Kootenays. I also related that these units will not be managed to the exclusion of cattle, rather cattle will be accommodated on certain areas and hay and alfalfa available for harvest will be made available to the neighbouring ranches.

MR. FRASER: What about the hunters shooting cattle?

HON. MR. RADFORD: In this, as in all of our other programmes, true to the concept of multiple-use, the benefits of good planning will be shared by all resources and this includes agriculture.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): We're not on your estimates.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Minister that you are supposed to be discussing vote 3.

HON. MR. RADFORD: All right, but I'm discussing the remarks that that Member made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please confine your remarks to vote 3.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of order. Your turn is coming.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Okay. The point I would like to make to the House is that the conflict that was between these departments in the past is no longer there, Sure, we have some disagreements, but they have been overcome, and we're looking forward to more co-operation with the Agriculture department. We've also met on the predator control situation, which has never been done before.

MR. FRASER: You and Woody Woodpecker overruled agriculture.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Further programmes are taking place, as I mentioned before, in the Vanderhoof area between Agriculture and Recreation and Conservation.

As far as the grazing goes in the Kootenays, which the Member was talking about, domestic cattle and wildlife are compatible, and you should know this, of all people.

[ Page 652 ]

MR. FRASER: We don't even know what a cow looks like in the Kootenays.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have some order? I want to remind you again you are supposed to confine your remarks to vote 3.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Well, I just want to make a few remarks and then I'll sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Make your remarks to Agriculture, vote 3.

HON. MR. RADFORD: The only remarks that I want to end with, Mr. Chairman, are that there are no longer those conflicts that were prevalent in the past between these two departments.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, if I can carefully steer a path between the porcupines and the woodpeckers, I'd like to come back to the chickens. (Laughter.)

This afternoon I asked the Minister a question which quite possibly he lost sight of in view of the many notes he was taking this afternoon, or perhaps he was going to take time over the dinner hour to consult with his deputy to get the answer to this particular question.

The question, if I may remind the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, was the question of whether the Minister would undertake to report to the House, upon consultation with his deputy, whether or not, in fact, his deputy did indeed speak to Mr. McAninch and Mr. Stafford in the terms that they reported in their affidavits that I mentioned earlier on this afternoon, which in ways seemed to directly contradict the words of the Premier with respect to the broiler matter on February 26. As I say, the Minister seemed to overlook that in his replies to questions this afternoon. I wonder if he would have an answer now.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to discuss something that possibly, Mr. Chairman, you might not figure is under the Agriculture vote, but since the Minister of Agriculture should be concerned with rural electrification, and since the Minister of Agriculture is on the Treasury Board, and since I require assistance from the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to just say a few words about rural electrification.

Certainly if rural electrification doesn't come under the Department of Agriculture or some part of it, or if the Minister isn't concerned with it, well he should be. I will keep my remarks very, very brief because I realize probably I'm on thin ice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a separate vote on that issue.

MR. PHILLIPS: On the particular vote you are talking about, I might not be able to get the commitment I am after. I promise to be brief.

My point is this, Mr. Chairman: the subsidy of this government to B.C. Hydro for rural electrification has been functioning very well for a number of years. It was a good measure when it was brought in. However, due to inflation, and specifically due to increased costs, a lot of which have been brought in by the Public Works Fair Employment Act, the formula has fallen very, very far behind. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would, with me, go and talk to those directly involved in the cabinet who lay down this formula to B.C. Hydro to ask for a revision in that formula.

The formula is outdated today and it is outdated for more than one reason. It is outdated not only because of inflation but because those areas in the province which have not previous to this time been served under that subsidy are the more remote areas. They are the areas that just couldn't seem to fit in under the formula. The spread is growing broader and broader. Those areas presently served under rural electrification can't take advantage of the subsidy. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture would want to help me bring those people under this umbrella.

They are the people today who are doing the very things this government want them to do: they are bringing the marginal lands, the far-out lands, the lands far away from the main highways, the lands away from the developed areas. They are really the pioneers of today; they are the people whom we should be subsidizing; they are the people whom we should help. Am I not right, Mr. Member for Cariboo?

MR. FRASER: You're right.

MR. PHILLIPS: The second thing that I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture is: would he change the ALDA Act to allow the rural electrification to come under that Act and so that farmers can borrow money through the ALDA Act to wire their farm homes, to wire their barns, and indeed to pay for their costs of sharing the lines to get power to their area.

I have a situation in my riding — and I am sure many of the other Members here tonight who serve rural ridings have similar situations — known as Lone Prairie. Out in Lone Prairie they have 32 souls, 32 pioneers, 32 farmers who are trying to bring that area into production to produce food for the starving world. They need help.

On that line, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), are seven miles of that line through Crown property. You

[ Page 653 ]

should assist them; you should at least pay, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I am pleading with the Minister of Agriculture to go to you and to ask for your assistance. Both of us will come if you will just pay for the clearing and the line that goes over the seven miles of Crown land. Those 32 individuals out there are hewing and chopping down the trees. No, I shouldn't say that. But they are reclaiming this land out of the raw to bring it into production, the production of food that maybe some day you will want to eat, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I beg the Minister of Agriculture, I beg for his assistance to plead on behalf of these 32 farmers in that Lone Prairie area, to assist them to get that power line.

This isn't the first time I have spoken in this House about that. I spoke about it last year. The spread is getting further and further because inflation is going up. The price of their produce is going up because they are still trying to bring into production their farms.

Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, are you going to help those people? Are you going to help those great souls up there in the Peace River country to get that power line? Are you going to go to cabinet? Are you going to go to Treasury Board? Are you going to go to B.C. Hydro and try and renew that formula? Get it for those great people up there. If you don't, no one else will go into the wilderness. We should assist those people to help bring land under cultivation. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, will you assist me? Please.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Well, if you are patient long enough, Alex, everything happens in good time. Home on the range.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few points I would like to raise at this time on the estimates of the Minister with regard to the vote for Agriculture, things which I touched on briefly before but want to get back to in more detail at this particular time.

Earlier, when I was speaking on the Minister's estimates, I asked him about the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. He indicated later on in a reply that certain funds are now available to help get this programme underway in the Province of British Columbia.

I would like to quote from a press release from the Minister's own office, dated October 16, 1973, when he was commenting on this Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. It says, according to this release, that, "The purpose of the Act is to encourage and assist the continued development and expansion of secondary agricultural enterprises by extending credit in several ways." Then it goes on to list some of the ways in which credit can be obtained. "The Act allows the government to guarantee loans from banks and credit unions and, in special circumstances, give loans and incentive grants to secondary agricultural enterprises." There is also a suggestion that the Act allows the government to invest and hold equity in agricultural enterprises.

The thing I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister at this particular time is a problem facing small industry in the North Peace area; small in relation to many industries in the province but large in relation to the commitments of one particular individual. The industry I am referring to is a small packing plant that opened up about two years ago on an individual basis by one, Mr. Carl Armbuster, called Superior Wholesale. This man invested a lifetime of hard work.

Every dollar he had went into enlarging and expanding his premises. He was encouraged to do that by officials of the provincial government, by the Industrial Development Bank, and by the farmers and ranchers of the Peace River area who felt that if he enlarged his premises and was able to put in a first-class modern packing plant operation, even though it was a fairly small one in comparison to Edmonton or Calgary or wherever, he would be doing a great service for the people of the province and particularly for the people of that area of the province, Fort St. John.

This man invested close to $100,000 of his own money. That was every penny he had saved during a lifetime of hard work as a butcher. Every penny he could lay his hands on, including a mortgage on his house, for everything that he could get went to get this plan into operation.

Now, I'm not suggesting the problems that he has run into since trying to operate and open that plant are altogether the problems of the Minister of Agriculture or people within his department. But certainly, when he asked for help, very little was forthcoming either from the provincial government or the federal government.

The only thing the federal government did was allow him to borrow through the Industrial Development Bank at exorbitant interest rates for that type of business, enough money to get him so far in the red that there is no way he will ever be able to properly equip that plant properly, get it into operation and pay off that debt. As a matter of fact, the Industrial Development Bank has now threatened foreclosure on this particular operation.

It is a small business; it employs about 12 or 14 people on a steady basis. It takes cattle from the surrounding ranchers and farmers. There is a great concern that for many reasons, perhaps some of them poor judgment on the part of the man himself, this business is going to go down the drain.

Surely to goodness, Mr. Minister, there's expertise and advice from people in your department, including

[ Page 654 ]

the Department of Health — which has done nothing but harass the man since he first started to operate — that he could call upon to help get that business going on a profitable basis.

Some of the problem is the premises itself, as I understand it; it does not pass the health standards in certain respects.

This poor fellow has spent most of his life in a business that he knows well. Everyone will admit that he knows how to buy and dress cattle, and he's an excellent butcher. He may not be quite as adept in the business world, but he spent a lifetime and put every dollar he had into that particular operation. At the present time he stands to lose everything. He's not a young man; he's at an age when most people would be considering retirement. But he's a hard worker and he always has been.

I would hope that through the advice and perhaps the help of this particular Farm Products Industry Improvement Act the funds that are required, and I don't think it's a great deal of money, would be made available to that small industry, so that he could modernize his plant or do whatever the Health department and all the federal authorities and everybody else desire, to bring it up to a standard where he can get federal inspection.

If he doesn't, he's going to go down the drain. The plant will be of absolutely no use to the farmers and ranchers of that area who wish to sell their meat locally, and all the employees who work for him will have to look for employment elsewhere. I know it's not an easy problem to solve, but there must be a solution, because he has the nucleus there of a good business. He may need some help and advice on business problems, and certainly at the present time he needs assistance in the form of additional capital so that that plant can be brought up to a standard where he can get federal inspection.

As I said when I first started to speak, this man has run into nothing but one roadblock after the other. He doesn't seem to have received anything but harassment from the departments that have dealt with him. He's at an age when he shouldn't have to face that, and yet he wants to be productive and build a small business enterprise.

Now, he had a small packing plant before that was very successful. It was only when he was encouraged to expand that he got into all these problems with regard to the type of plant that he should build and the equipment that it would require for him to get federal inspection.

I know the Minister is aware of this problem. He's had letters from the Farmers' Institute in Fort St. John and from other people who are concerned about the enterprise. Surely there's a way to salvage that business so that he doesn't lose a lifetime of hard work and the people of the Fort St. John–North Peace area will be able to continue selling their cattle to a local market.

At the present time, as the Minister well knows, all of that beef that is grown and finished in that area goes to Edmonton to a packing plant and then is shipped back to be consumed up there. You have the problem of shipping the live beast out to a packing plant and shipping the carcasses back. So you have freight both ways when it's not really required.

Certainly he could take a fair number of cattle and hogs and process them each week to that packing plant. With federal inspection he'd be able to supply not only the immediate area but project his sights into the market which is north of us, the Fort Nelson and Whitehorse area, and compete with Edmonton operations on an equitable basis. I would hope that the Minister, when he's considering secondary industry in the Province of British Columbia, would give the assistance of some of the expertise he has available in his department to this particular small operation in the northern part of the province.

I'd like also to suggest to the Minister that perhaps some of the funds available under this particular Act would be made available to veterinarians who wish to establish clinics in areas like our own. As the Minister knows, there is a great shortage of veterinarians in the Province of British Columbia, and those that are available, like many professional men, prefer to locate in areas other than northern B.C. — the central part of the province or northeastern B.C.

We are fortunate in that we do have an excellent veterinarian in Fort St. John. The reason that he's operating in that country is that he was raised there as a boy and grew up in the north and he's familiar with conditions, but he's literally running himself to death trying to accommodate the many hundreds of requests that he gets each month for his services.

One of the things that would make his job a little easier would be the establishment of a clinic in the Fort St. John area — a building where he could suggest to the farmers that when they had a problem they load those cattle that were well enough to be hauled into the back of a pick-up truck and bring them into him rather than have him travel hundreds of miles each week, accommodating farmers in first one part of the Peace River lot and then another spot 150 miles away.

I think that this sort of a programme should be extended to help a man like that establish a clinic so that his services would be improved. He would be able to improve his services to the people of the area and he would also be able to accommodate many more farmers than he can at the present time.

I'd like to make one other suggestion regarding veterinary services to the Minister of Agriculture, and that is that when we do find students who are interested in going into veterinary college, the government should make available to these students scholarships or grants, or some financial assistance, so

[ Page 655 ]

that they can conduct themselves through university without undue financial hardships.

We don't have the faculty available to students in the Province of British Columbia, so they must go elsewhere, and that may be the case for some time to come. But if that is the case then surely we could set up some sort of a programme to help students who are interested in attending veterinary college to get that education. Hopefully they then would return to the Province of British Columbia and be available to one or other of the parts of this province.

There's a problem in every part of the province — and I suppose that it's also a problem in the Peace River country — with land erosion, particularly on the river flats adjacent to the Peace River.

Because of the opening up of that country in the last 10 years, it's not unusual now for a small water run to start in the spring of the year, Inside of two or three years that small water run that ran across some of those large alluvial flats adjacent to the Peace becomes canyons — and I mean canyons, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Many of them are 50-60 feet deep and 100 feet wide now, running right through the best farmland that you will find in the Peace River country.

These farmers have, from time to time, come to the Department of Agriculture to find out if there could be some assistance available to them to at least channel that water off, or by one means or another prevent its erosion. They have been bounced from Agriculture to the Department of Lands, to the Water Resources Service, to the federal government, and then back again. As a result, really nothing is ever accomplished. I would hope that the Minister would give us some indication of his particular policy in this respect.

If he does not consider this a responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, then who in the provincial government is responsible for this problem, and who should they take their problem to?

I agree that it's one of those things that comes about as a result of a heavy rainfall at certain periods of the year, but that does not help solve the problem for the poor fellow who could not begin to pay for the damage that is done to his land by soil erosion in those particular areas.

This was not a problem, Mr. Minister, 20 years ago, because of the fact that the high plateau lands of the Peace had not yet come into agricultural production, and the number of trees that were there held back most of the water, so that it was a slow flow going down the ravine and across that flatland.

That's not the case today because most of that land is now in agricultural production. Part of the problem was probably brought about by bringing that into agricultural production. Regardless of that, that land is prime, first-class agricultural land and it should be maintained as agricultural land.

It certainly does no good to allow these great streams to come down through the land and erode it to the point where it creates great problems to farmers in that part of the country. There's not a great number of them, but in places that it has caused damage, the damage is severe.

The Minister, while he was speaking during his estimates, indicated that the feed freight assistance would be continued until the end of March, I believe he said. Am I correct, Mr. Minister?

May I suggest that you don't be too arbitrary on that date because of the fact that there is a great deal of snow in the areas that wish to purchase feed this year, as well as in our own particular part of the country where we have, in some instances, feed to sell — baled hay. At the present time, many of the farmers who have hay cannot get out to the fields to get it out, and the people who might wish to buy it, of course, can't get in to take delivery of it.

The thing that would be most helpful, I suppose, is a Chinook. But if we don't get that, there's going to be a lot of snow to go, and it could be very slow going in the spring.

I realize that the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is concerned about the quality of the hay that his farmers have bought, or that his ranchers have bought from the Peace River country at certain periods of time. I suggest to the Member that I'm sure that the ranchers in the Cariboo have had some experience in buying hay from one place or another for a good many years. If they can't horse-trade with the farmers from the Peace River and come out to an equitable position, then I don't know what's wrong with them.

MR. FRASER: The Minister got all the mineral rights, that's what happened.

MR. SMITH: But I can suggest that if this is a problem, and I suspect that in certain cases it is, then perhaps some system of inspecting the hay before it leaves that particular part of the country should be instituted.

It's not altogether the fault of the farmer who grows hay that his crop does not come up to high-quality standards. Weather conditions have a lot to do with it. If the hay is taken off at a time when the weather looks good and the rains come down and so on, we can get a real problem in curing and turning out a top-quality product.

Regardless of that, I think there is a way to solve the problem. No one in the Peace River country likes to be accused of shipping poor quality goods to any other farmer or any other rancher in any other part of the country. But if it is the best that is available at this particular time, it certainly beats trying to feed the cows chips and sawdust.

Anyway, I would just like to deal with one other particular problem before I take my seat. That is the

[ Page 656 ]

matter of weed control under the Weed Control Act, which was introduced by the Minister at a previous session. Over the last 10 years particularly, weed infestation in the Peace River country has become a serious problem. It certainly is more serious now than it has ever been before and particularly it is a continuing problem to those farmers and people who are engaged in the production of forage seeds and grass seeds and certified seed grain.

As the Minister well knows, there is a tremendous market for Peace River-grown grain, for Peace River-grown fescue and alfalfa and clover and forage seeds. But some of the farmers, to my regret, are not as careful as they should be in keeping the noxious weeds out of their fields — while the farmer adjacent to him may be growing the type of forage seed that would go to world markets.

So I would hope that we would be able to tighten up somewhat on the inspection process in my particular part of the country, and that the people who own land, but are not very co-operative about getting rid of noxious weeds, have the problem brought more forcibly to their attention. They're a detriment not only to themselves but to the farming area that surrounds them.

The other thing that I would like to suggest to the Minister, with regard to weed control in the Peace River area, is the fact that somehow along the rights-of-way for roads, highways, pipelines and Hydro installations and power lines we must find a way to control the weeds that the farmer himself does not have the ability to control.

There's nothing that is more aggravating to a farmer than to be faced with the fact that while he does a good job of tilling his own land and maintaining weed control to the best of his ability, a pipeline or a right-of-way, a road or powerline, or whatever, adjacent to him continually is allowed to run wild with respect to the reproduction of noxious weeds.

It's not his responsibility to go out there and plough down those weeds and look after those rights-of-way, be they either for road, pipelines or Hydro, but they certainly infest his land if that particular problem is allowed to continue. I would hope that the Minister would take that into consideration because there is a great market for specialized crops, that can be grown in the Peace River country, throughout the world.

The last thing we want is to be known as an area that is so weed infested that the cereal grains and crops and the grass seeds will no longer find a market throughout the rest of the world in places where today we have developed a substantial market.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Minister, I would like to go back to some of the questions I asked you earlier this afternoon, and that's on the use of the fair employment practices Act in agriculture. You assured me of something that I'm already aware of: that the majority of people now working in packing houses and in the office facilities of the fruit industries are members of unions.

I know this and you know that. But you know what I want to know, and you know what the producers want to know and that is: are you going to extend the tentacles of that Act into the actual area of production? Is your Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) going to come about and say that employees in orchards, employees in stockyards, employees on cattle ranches are going to have to be members of unions if in fact those producers are going to take part in income-assistance programmes and also in some assistance in the form of secondary industrial development?

That's the assurance I want from you tonight: that neither you nor your government will interfere in any way with the right of the farmer to employ his labour where he can get it on the basis of quality and that he won't be tied to exorbitantly expensive programmes which he can't possibly meet.

Just as an aside, I'd like to ask the Minister what his views are on the development of housing for farm workers. This is something he has indicated in the past that he is interested in. I would just tell the Minister there is no way at the present time that the agricultural industry in British Columbia, in the fruit and vegetable area, can possibly afford to be responsible in any way, shape or form for housing for its employees.

I'd like to talk for a minute about transportation. As you are aware, there is a tremendous backlog — thousands and thousands of boxes of apples are backlogged in the Okanagan because of the lack of boxcars to transport this fruit. Some of it is being trucked down over the line to be put on American lines, but this is a very costly and unsatisfactory situation. Once again, it erodes the return to the producer. What has the Minister actually done this season at this time to solve this problem?

This fruit is on line now. If a good deal of it isn't sold within the next month, it's a dead loss because it cannot be stored any longer. Perhaps the Minister would say not that his officials have contacted someone, but tell me how many times you have talked to Mr. Sinclair, the head of the CPR, and Mr. Harold MacMillan, head of the CNR, about getting boxcars into this area.

I would remind the Minister that one of the few times in the history of the federal parliament that a matter of urgent public business was acknowledged was a few years ago when there was a dock strike in Vancouver at the time the Okanagan apples were coming on line. The federal government considered it important enough to stop parliament to see that the

[ Page 657 ]

fruit moved. We would like to know how important you consider it here in British Columbia to move the fruit sitting there now, and to assure in the future there will be sufficient facilities to transport it.

On the matter of moving this fruit crop: When the Minister was in the opposition, he had great thoughts about a school lunch programme involving B.C. produce. I think everyone in the House would support such a programme. I would like to know if at this time the Minister has met with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and if you have entertained an idea of an apple lunch programme in our British Columbia schools now to help sell the present crop that is in storage. It was a bumper crop, and a crop for which there is serious concern that a market can be found.

There are, I think, 500,000 students — and that's a lot of apples. If we could have a co-operative programme — and I think one has to recognize that apples are an acquired taste — but if even half these school children were eating apples three times a week in our schools at this time, it would be very helpful to the industry, and it might even help their health. It would be of more benefit to them than the potato chips which are sitting around now.

Again on the fruit industry, I'd like to ask the Minister about his plans for climatology studies. As the Minister is aware, there are vast acreages of agricultural land in various parts of the province — I'd like to speak particularly about the Okanagan — that are frozen as agricultural land. A good deal of this land is not suitable for any type of crop production which we can produce in the Okanagan. Many of these so-called good producing orchards are, in fact, divided as to their productivity by climatic conditions and soil conditions.

I'm sure, if not the Minister, many Members have been on orchards; certainly, I, living there, have been on many of them where perhaps the top half of the orchard will produce on the basis of soil capability and climate, but the bottom half of the orchard won't. This land is frozen, yet the Minister is talking about making loans on the basis of unit size, on the basis of full-time employment in the production industry. And the government is freezing land on this basis. This simply isn't good enough.

It was on line, although cancelled last year, for more detailed studies of the Canada land inventory Act. This assessment is good, but the scale is so vast that in an area like the Okanagan it really doesn't apply in terms of economic usage of land. There must be climatology studies done right through the province, particularly in areas where we hope to somehow support an agricultural industry.

I would urge the Minister to give this House a commitment tonight that there will be climatology studies done in the whole of the Okanagan Valley this coming year. Such programmes will take up to two years, but I would suggest the Minister do everything possible to provide adequate staff so that this type of study could be completed much more quickly. There is simply no sense in freezing land and freezing people to land if that land is incapable — of producing economically.

If you as a Minister are going to impose more and more restrictions on the producers of this province — which is becoming fairly evident — then you must be prepared to assume some of the economic responsibility. We all know of incident after incident where very well-trained horticulturists have given advice to producers, with the best of intentions, but weather has intervened or the advice wasn't what it should have been — perhaps beyond the control of the horticulturist. But the person who pays is the producer. He pays over and over again. We see evidence of this in the Fraser Valley; we see a good deal of evidence of this in the Okanagan.

If you continue to erode their individual rights, sir, then you must become responsible for your recommendations in economic terms. Those recommendations should be based on some form of economic analysis. There is a very interesting point nobody is willing to talk about in this whole business of agriculture in British Columbia. I would like to refer specifically to the Okanagan, and I wish the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) was here because she was one of the loudest to decry the erosion of greenbelts and green lands.

Everybody down in Vancouver likes to look at our beautiful orchards; they like to look at our nice vegetable rows; they like to look at our cows roaming the hills. But none of them want to pay for it.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: They certainly don't, Mr. Member.

I'm sorry the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) isn't here because he talked about it yesterday.

It's really time we spoke up in British Columbia and recognized the fact that in the Okanagan Valley, for example, there is a very select group of products which can be grown. There is a very select group of products which can be grown economically. If British Columbians and we as legislators want these beautiful greenbelts, which they are, in terms of trees and gardens and ranches, we have to acknowledge that with the external competition from other provinces in cattle and from the United States in fruit, and with our rising costs of production in British Columbia in terms of labour and farm supplies, if we really want an agricultural industry in these areas, chances are it basically is always going to be a hothouse industry if these people are to achieve the same fair return or an equivalent of a fair return as the rest of the working

[ Page 658 ]

society does.

It is time the Minister of Consumer Services adopted some of her responsibilities. We've heard almost nothing from her since she received her portfolio, except a vicious attack on Eaton's, which wasn't justified and for which she apologized last year, and a vicious attack on the marketing boards yesterday. There is no one in this House who wouldn't suggest there needs to be improvements with marketing boards and that there are going to be frustrations with them in the future, and that they're not perfect. But to have the Minister of Consumer Services, whose majority of consumers want to look at our orchards, stand up and attack our producers, I think is an absolute and utter disgrace.

I think the Minister of Consumer Services, while she certainly has a responsibility to see there are fair prices charged, ought to be out telling the people of British Columbia that they have agreed they want an agricultural industry in British Columbia and the price of that industry is either going to be direct subsidization to the farmers or a fair return in the marketplace from the people in British Columbia.

It's a well-known fact in the fruit industry, for example, that the people in British Columbia are not prepared to pay the premium prices for the premium fruit. That fruit product must be exported in order to get a higher price to try and subsidize the products that go into our local market.

So let's not cloud the issue, Madam Minister. Let's get down and talk to the Minister of Agriculture and let's all join together and face the facts. As I mentioned, in British Columbia, we have said we want an agricultural industry. As British Columbians, we are going to have to be prepared to support it.

That means, Mr. Minister, accelerated programmes as well in such things as climatology. I'd like to know how many programmes you have slated in this area around the province for this year, and whether you can accelerate any that are going on in the Okanagan — and I hope all the Okanagan — to a one-year programme or whether it has to be two years.

I'd like to just go back to the interest rates on the loans. I myself find that there's great disappointment, both on my part and the producer's part, that the basic programmes the Minister is considering are what he calls "low-interest loans," when you get into any major size of a loan. Mr. Minister, the producers in British Columbia don't call 8 per cent a low-interest loan. You either must, Mr. Minister, go to loans in terms of 4 per cent or you've got to go to a sliding scale of loan.

If you take a merging dairy set-up, for instance, their quota, which is going to cost them this year $50,000 or $60,000, can't even be included in their loan. Then if they have land and buildings which will amount to about $300,000, they have $360,000 invested, of which $60,000 can't qualify for any assistance. And 8 per cent on a $200,000 loan is more than the market will bear at this time.

I would ask the Minister to think and think again. If we have low-interest loans, let's stop kidding ourselves and have low-interest loans. Or, as I mentioned, let's go on a sliding scale where you start at 1 per cent or no per cent the first year, 1 per cent the second year and put these loans on a shorter period of time — put them on a 10- or a 12-year time and give them two years of forgiveness of the loan in the middle, which would basically put it on a 10-year pay-back period.

Then what you're doing is building an incentive for the producer to pay off his loan and not be in debt the rest of his life and not have his debt far exceed the life of his machinery and equipment and, in many instances, his buildings. You're making money available for recirculation for other loans and you're giving him a real assistance. If you did it on a 12-year basis with a two-year forgiveness clause at his option, at 1 per cent, it would average out to 4 per cent over 10 years, but your incentive is when it gets up to the twelfth year, when it's at 10 per cent.

Mr. Minister, a farmer has to have incentive and initiative to be successful and he's got to be interested. The type of long-term 8 per cent loan over 30 years doesn't appeal to this personality. As we went around the province as individuals on the committee we found that — and I'm sure the Hon. Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams) recognizes that — when you get younger and more aggressive people into the industry, as we hope to, they don't want to sit on 30-year loans, and they don't want to work on a dismal, stamped-in system. They want some freedom to move.

One of the ways that you can provide the incentive and still recognize that there has to be some type of controls in production is in the basis of the money that you make available to a system.

So I would ask from you tonight, Mr. Minister, a commitment that you will, in your thinking, go to this type of loan and not put so much heavy emphasis on 8 per cent, 30-year loans.

Just back to the CA storage, Mr. Minister, an 8 per cent loan for the CA storage is only about 0.25 per cent below prime rate, so that's no great favour to the producer.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the prime rate?

MRS. JORDAN: It was 8.25 per cent the other day when I checked.

I'd also like to ask for the Minister's actions in relation to domestic fishermen — fish farmers — in British Columbia. There aren't many of them and the problem is that they are an independent group of people who are really not anxious to indulge in government regulations.

[ Page 659 ]

They're doing an excellent job in meeting the needs of the fresh fish market, but they're neither fish nor fowl, if you'll pardon the expression, and they find themselves in the position where they're under the Fish and Wildlife Branch. I wouldn't suggest that they be removed from this department, because there are biological limitations in fish production that have to be considered, which is much better looked after in the Fish and Wildlife Branch, and there's the problem of distribution of these fish.

What these people need also, Mr. Minister, is the same type of assistance that we hope you're going to give to other producers in this province. They need low-term, low-interest — not long-term, but 12-year term — capital to help get themselves established. It takes at least a year to build proper spawning beds and then it takes two years to come on lines from the time they spawn until they're ready for production.

There's quite obviously a good potential market for fresh fish production in British Columbia and I think we should take advantage of it.

I'd like to ask the Minister one more question. There's a lady in our province who doesn't believe in women's lib because she's already evolved there without any help from anyone, and that is Mrs. Esther Wood. The last that we heard of Mrs. Wood she was being paid the retail price for her illegally purchased eggs in the Kootenays, and she had a lawsuit against one of the employees or the inspectors of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board. She announced that she would go on importing Manitoba eggs as long as they were cheaper and she felt like it.

My question to the Minister is: (1) how much money was paid to Mrs. Wood for her illegally imported eggs at that time, and (2) how much, if any, money has been paid to her since that time? That would follow along with how many eggs she has imported into British Columbia since the settlement. The last point was: did it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia or the Egg Marketing Board money to buy off the assault charges against your employees?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I have a very brief observation — just one point I wanted to pick up. I haven't been present for all of the debate on the Minister's salary vote, but I would not like to miss the opportunity to raise the question of the sheep-killing plant to serve the Peace River area. There was considerable discussion about this last year when the agriculture committee travelled. There is the opportunity to move ahead on a joint venture with the Province of Alberta in establishment of a plant at Innisfail. I wonder if the Minister has pursued that or if it is in fact not proceeding at this time.

We were told that that was vital for the Peace River area on both sides of the B.C.-Alberta border. I'm satisfied that that is the case if that industry is to survive — for western Canada, in fact, as the Member suggests.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Minister is going to get stiff sitting there, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps we can ask.... I'm not going to right now try and assist the Minister with his memory of events during October of 1972, but I'd like to switch the subject and perhaps have the Minister recall some of the great speeches that the Premier made when he was in opposition.

He promised us a programme of selling apples in liquor stores. I always liked those speeches and I thought the Premier's idea was a wonderful one.

I'd like to see a nice barrel of apples there in the liquor store so that grapes are on an equal basis with apples. I know the Premier wanted that badly when he was in opposition. I'd like a nice, juicy, red Okanagan apple — if we could just get those in the liquor stores so that when there was that little choice to be made, maybe people could reach over and buy apples instead of processed grapes.

Would the Minister tell us if we could look forward to that programme of apples for sale in the liquor stores?

The other question I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, is whether we are any closer this year than before to having a veterinary college in British Columbia. As I am sure the Minister knows, it is more difficult to get into veterinary college than it is to get into medicine. That's true. There is no more difficult calling to get into in Canada today than veterinarian college, because there are only three veterinary colleges in Canada: one in Quebec; one in Ontario; and one in Saskatchewan. There are very few places. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are perhaps five places reserved for British Columbians in the Western Canada Veterinary College. It's impossible for someone from this province to get into the college in Guelph, or in the Province of Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can his secretary get in?

MR. McGEER: I don't know — you've got to be a fast runner.

Mr. Chairman, doesn't it seem wrong, when we are attempting to encourage agriculture in so many ways, that we have a situation where only five British Columbians a year can get into veterinary college? We have 80 people getting into medicine, out of about 800 who apply. Heaven knows how many might be interested in being vets, if they could only get into a veterinary college.

What I would like to suggest for the Minister to consider, is that a joint veterinary-medical college be set up at the University of Victoria. We are going to have to have a second medical school eventually, and I personally believe that the time should be now. It requires, a course, a great expansion of animal

[ Page 660 ]

facilities — that is one of the things that a medical school requires. And while there has never been, to date in Canada, a joint medical and veterinary college set up, the logic of it is certainly there because you have to have the same kind of life science facilities, physiology, bio-chemistry and so on.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are debating vote 3.

MR. McGEER: I was debating vote 3; I'm not sure about the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the people in the opposition side. I was hoping to have not just your attention, Mr. Chairman, and that of the Minister, but perhaps the Minister of Transport, because I can remember how proud he was when the University of Victoria was first established. I can remember him getting up and saying that his daughter would be in the first graduating class. And I can remember the Premier getting up and saying that she must have a very brilliant mother. (Laughter.) It's true, she does have a very brilliant mother.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the then Leader of the Opposition was a champion of the University of Victoria. I would like to encourage him to carry on that enthusiasm and speak, as I have done, in trying to persuade the Minister of Agriculture not just to set up a college of medicine at the University of Victoria, which must eventually come....

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But, you see, if the responsibility were to be shared by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in getting a joint veterinary-medical college established, there would be a terrific economy in the basic science facilities for both. We'd give a tremendous opportunity to young British Columbians who are being denied today. You know, the members of the New Democratic Party have always spoken about opportunities for people in this province....

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You mean there's no difference between a horse doctor and an MD?

MR. McGEER: I only said it was more difficult to be a horse doctor. I just said it was much more difficult, and it's true.

What we want to do is give opportunities to young people. We don't want to attack the New Democratic Party or horse doctors or the medical profession. What we want to do is to have an opportunity for people in this province to study to be vets or study to be doctors. That opportunity is being denied by governments past and present because they will not build the educational facilities. The demand for the graduates is there. The desire on the part of young British Columbians is there. All that stands in their way, Mr. Chairman, is the stubbornness of government. So I appeal once more to the Minister and to his cabinet colleagues — please establish in this province a veterinary college and another medical school.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request the Hon. Members to confine their remarks and questions to the present administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture under vote 3.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to pursue my colleague's remarks on rural electrification. I refer to remarks by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, in my riding of Cariboo there are residents there tonight with no electricity, eating porcupine by candlelight? (Laughter.) I think that this House should get concerned and particularly the Minister of Agriculture...they are farmers. They are farmers. I think that....

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Better than eating muskrat.

MR. FRASER: But they are not there by choice tonight, right at this time when we're sitting here and the Premier's here with his great big salary — all those Ministers there wining and dining here with all the light in the world. I have constituents right now in my riding eating porcupine by candlelight!

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to agriculture and to vote 3.

MR. FRASER: I'm on that, Mr. Chairman. You misinterpret what I say.

I want to emphasize rural electrification. All you fat cats down here have all got electric power. In my riding there are lots of people who haven't got electric power, period. And the big problem with agriculture.... Where'd the Minister go? He went to have some porcupine. (Laughter.)

In my riding of Cariboo, even with the farmers who have got electrical power, it's just ordinary power and they need three-phase to develop agriculture.

[ Page 661 ]

That Mr. Woody Woodpecker, that Minister over there whose side.... In fact, I'm glad to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), he's here too. They are calling the shots and they won't let these power extensions go ahead. They let those big bureaucrats at B.C. Hydro find a million ways why electric power extensions shouldn't go ahead. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that he should get hold of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister — Woody Woodpecker — who's on Hydro and get these bureaucrats off these good citizens' backs and get these hydro extensions going.

The ones that exist in the large plateau of the Chilcotin, the largest cattle area in this great Province of British Columbia, get them three-phase power so they can expand their operations.

That Minister of Recreation, he's working against the Minister of Agriculture all the time. He wants the pasture for the grizzlies and the porcupines and we're going to end up eating them, Mr. Chairman, if he prevails. I want to prevail on the Minister of Agriculture to take a strong hand dealing with these autocratic cabinet Ministers and get the agricultural picture over.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, he is not getting it over today because the environment kooks are winning — represented by Mr. Minister Woody Woodpecker and that Minister over there of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). They want everything in parks and we're going to end up eating grizzly bear and porcupine quills. My good friend the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) — I can just imagine that he'd be on my side if he was here tonight, because the fat cats he represents won't like eating grizzly bear and porcupine, I'll tell you that.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Right, dead right. Thanks for your help. As a matter of fact, you're not a help but I appreciate your help tonight.

I can't emphasize more.... I'm disgusted that the Minister took off when I started to speak, but I'll repeat this speech again when he comes back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly disappointed that the.... Oh, here comes the Minister of Agriculture. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture would like to answer some of my previous questions, I'll give him the opportunity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's not a case of closure or declining to answer. In most cases the Members have been asking questions that are more appropriately answered under a vote. If we're going to deal with them all under my salary, what would be the point in having 10 separate votes in the department?

Now there have been a few questions that are not appropriate to any particular vote, and for those that were asked by Members who are in the House right now, I'll deal with them.

The questions asked by the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) some time ago were specifically with reference to Bill 42 and the Land Commission, which is more properly under vote 8. The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) repeated a question he has asked a number of times already and I've said all that I am going to say about that.

The question raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) about the quality of hay out of the Peace River...I'm sorry, he's not here.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) isn't here.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked a question about the sheep-killing plant, which doesn't come under any of the votes as an item, since it's not something really tied in with the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act either.

The negotiations with Alberta in particular are going along quite well. The last time I saw the Minister for Alberta at the conference in January, he asked me then about B.C.'s participation. I assured him that we were quite willing to participate once we had settled this question of a transportation differential for the B.C. animals so that we wouldn't be paying any more than our share of the appropriate costs.

He said that there was no problem in working that out. He was quite sure they were going to....

MR. CURTIS: You'll accept it in Alberta?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, my position from the beginning was that they would get going on it and we'd go along with it. If they didn't, well, we might not wait. That's all I have other than questions that are appropriate to particular votes.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about ALDA?

HON. MR. STUPICH: ALDA comes under vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: If this develops what about...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I believe this can be considered under vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, Mr. Chairman, this Minister's salary...he's in control of all of this, and we have perfect rights in this House to ask these questions under his salary vote. We want answers.

[ Page 662 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If this is a specific item covered by vote 7, then I would rule that the matter should be brought up at that time rather than under vote 3.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm on my feet. Now how can it pass?

HON. MR. STUPICH: A good question.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Real easy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct some remarks to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) regarding the preservation of farmland. My remarks regarding the preservation of farmland have to do with that area in British Columbia which, as he has pointed out, is such a small area in British Columbia; and yet every year I would say that thousands of acres of good farmland are eroded away by riverland erosion in this province. Since Bill 42, since all the problems that have been created by Bill 42....

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, could I just interrupt for a moment? That question was raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith). I didn't comment on it at the time because he isn't in his seat right now. I'll do it now if you like, or wait until he comes back or whatever he likes.

Simply, my answer is that control of such situations has nothing to do with the Department of Agriculture. There is a Water Branch and the question should be directed to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, (Hon. R.A. Williams).

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a very, very revealing statement that the Minister of Agriculture has just given this House. The preservation of farmland has nothing to do with the Minister of Agriculture. That's exactly what the Minister just said. It doesn't really concern the Minister of Agriculture.

I've said all along in this House that the Minister of Agriculture is just really a puppet for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I said this during Bill 42 and I'm going to tell you, Mr. Chairman: if the preservation of farmland has nothing to do with the Minister of Agriculture, how come the Minister of Agriculture brought in Bill 42? How come the Minister of Agriculture has so much to say about assessments?

How come the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the Land Commission Act and yet here, during his estimates, he wants us to vote him his salary when he stands on the floor of the Legislature and says "The preservation of farmland has nothing to do with the Minister of Agriculture"?

I'm going to take my place again, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask the Minister to please give us his views on what can be done, what will be done, what he will urge to be done, in the Province of British Columbia with regard to the preservation of farmland along river banks when thousands of acres every year are being eroded away.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister of Agriculture doesn't consider this his responsibility, then I would suggest that he is in error and that the whole of Bill 42 and all of his great statements in this province about the preservation of farmland are nothing but a farce.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is not permitted to ask a Minister to influence another Minister in regard to his responsibilities. The Minister has taken the position that the land that might be eroded along riverbanks comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I would concur in that statement and therefore rule that the discussion on that particular matter is out of order.

On the second point I would quote from Beauchesne, chapter 8, section 239:

"The whole management of a department may be discussed in a general way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution of the estimates of that department which reads as follows: General Administration, amount stated; but the discussion must not be extended to any particular item mentioned in the estimates of that department."

That is the point that the Minister was making about ALDA.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, was this authority written before Bill 42 or after Bill 42?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 201, chapter 8, section 239.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, is there anything about Bill 42 in that Beauchesne?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The specific item is under the Water Resources Branch of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. PHILLIPS: What vote?

MR. FRASER: You should direct it to Woody

[ Page 663 ]

Woodpecker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I simply made the ruling that that's the place where it should be brought up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you like me to challenge your ruling?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're certainly at liberty to challenge my ruling.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I won't challenge your ruling if the Minister of Agriculture will stand up and give us his views as to what he's going to do about riverbank erosion and the erosion of farmland around riverbanks.

If the Minister will do this, if you'll just give me the courtesy...and he can't say that he isn't interested in the preservation of farmland in British Columbia, after him speaking for hours on Bill 42 — talking about assessments and talking about telling all the people in British Columbia, all the farmers that he wants to preserve farmland in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that this matter could be brought up under either vote 160 or vote 165, but I would think that it would probably be vote 160. I would make that comment at that time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I have a few matters to raise with the Minister, which I believe are of very general nature. I won't offend against your ruling; at least, I'll try my very best. I also am pleased that you have indicated to this committee that we should not direct the Minister to influence another Minister.

All I'm going to ask him to do is please indicate to this committee that he's not going to be influenced by any other Minister.

The Minister shakes his head. Okay, we'll get into this matter about the preservation of farmland.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Do you think I should say I'm not going to be influenced by the opinions of other Ministers?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Sure.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You think there should be no cabinet consultations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...when it comes to the preservation of farmland.

When we had that speech from the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) tonight, it reminded me, Mr. Minister of Agriculture.... Neither the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources nor the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) are in the House at the moment. Therefore the Minister of Agriculture is free to confide with the Members of the committee as to his exact feelings with regard to this subject.

Now, when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources spoke in the budget speech he told us about certain changes that were about to take place with regard to the management of resources in the southeastern part of this province. There was to be a resource manager appointed to deal with the area, and that resource manager was to have one specific responsibility among many others, and that was to resolve the conflicts that there were between competing uses for land in the area. The competing uses come down quite simply to three: forestry, recreation and wildlife, and agriculture.

What I want the Minister to do when I sit down, if he please will, is to stand up and tell the committee the extent to which he is prepared to preserve agricultural land within the area in southeastern British Columbia which is to be under the responsibility of this resource management.

If this Minister is not prepared to conserve the agricultural use of land currently used in agriculture, then would he please indicate to this committee whether or not the Government of British Columbia is prepared to face the cost of relocating those farmers and ranchers who heretofore have been carrying on agriculture in that area? If there is one thing that came through loud and clear when the agriculture committee visited the Kootenays, it was that with the increasing size of economic ranching units, more and more of the available Crown grazing land had to be improved and made available to the cattlemen.

When this resource manager goes into the Kootenays, if he decides that it should be for the moose and the deer and the elk — for which the Kootenays are justly famous — and not for the cattle, and therefore the grazing range available is not sufficient to allow ranchers to function economically, is the government going to buy out those ranchers and allow them to relocate themselves in other parts of the province? This is the direct responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture.

I'm aware that he and the two other resource Ministers, Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), have the joint responsibility in this regard, but so far as the farmer is concerned, he's looking to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to know the extent to which this Minister is standing up against the other Ministers in fighting for the rights of the ranchers in this particular area.

It is all very well to talk, as the Minister of

[ Page 664 ]

Recreation and Conservation did earlier this evening, about co-operation. I know when you play with tough kids just what co-operation means. You co-operate with me or I'll stick the bat in your ear — that's what it means. "Or similar words to that effect." (Laughter.)

So I would like to know the extent to which the Minister of Agriculture is co-operating, because the committee discussed this with the Minister. We knew a year ago what the Minister's attitude towards the control of this responsibility was expected to be.

Perhaps when the Minister is at it, he will be good enough to tell us, in this age of co-operation, why it is that Crown land grazing permits, which are designed for the use of cattle, have not been moved to the Minister of Agriculture and out of the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

What is the hold-up? Is there some fear that cattle are to be given some preference over wild animals? Is that the concern? Is there some fear that maybe the Forest Service is going to lose some of its control over a preserve over which for year after year after year it has exercised, in my view, an improper role of supervision?

When is it going to happen? When is grazing land available for permit to ranchers — people engaged in the agricultural industry — going to be placed under the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture? If that is not to happen, then maybe you could tell me when they are going to place the allocation of timber licences under this Minister and take them away from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. That makes about as much sense.

So I'm not asking this Minister to influence any other Minister. I'm just asking him not to be influenced by other Ministers of the Crown who have some particular interest in taking away the rights that this Minister should be responsible for preserving.

On another policy matter, I'm glad that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is here, because there is a real possibility of a conflict between these two Ministers and I want to know how it is going to be resolved. The Members of this committee are entitled to know how it is going to be resolved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pistols at dawn.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Agriculture, if I understand his position correctly, is interested in ensuring that the farmers of this province, in whatever activity they may be engaged, get a fair return for their investment and a fair return for their labour, and that farming become an economic enterprise for the first time in British Columbia.

As one example of this, we have seen, in the past five months — or in a couple of days we are going to see in the past five months — three significant increases in the price of milk.

lnterjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Four. Thanks very much. Each one of them was approved by the Minister of Agriculture, and each time the consumers of this province have been told that the justification for the consumer price increase in milk was because of the increased costs at the producer level. That's fair enough. If the Minister is prepared to assure us that the producer is, in fact, getting more money, then it is consistent with what I understand his policy to be as far as economic farming in the province is concerned.

I am concerned as to the extent to which the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services may interfere with the policies established by the Minister of Agriculture, and may interfere with the right of the farmers to receive their proper returns for their investment and their labour, because she indicated quite strongly in this House yesterday afternoon that as far as she was concerned she wanted to see the consumers in this province get a better break, and that can only happen if the price goes down. Now, if you reduce the price to the consumer, how are you going to increase the price to the producer? And somehow or other between these two Ministers....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They're on a collision course.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right; they're on a collision course. We were talking about political interference in government decisions earlier this afternoon and on previous days, and I want to know what's going to happen when politics enters into that kind of battle between the Minister of Consumer Services and the Minister of Agriculture.

Who's going to win? Is the farmer and his livelihood going to be the guiding influence, or is it going to be the consumer and the ability of the consumer to pay?

Of course, there is one other solution that may resolve this collision, and I would like to hear the Minister comment as to what his government's policy is in this regard. That is the amount to which all the taxpayers of this province may subsidize the producers. We already have in effect in this province for the milk industry a scheme under the Farm Income Assurance Act, and we've been told by the Minister that this is going to cost $1 million a month. I'll bet that's a minimum — $1 million a month.

MR. PHILLIPS: The first three months already cost $300 million.

[ Page 665 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Okay, so the Minister's wrong. It's going to cost $15 million a year to start. It is speculated that when they reach the conclusion with regard to the scheme for the fruit growers this is going to cost about $4 million a year as a cautious estimate. So $15 million and $4 million is a $19 million subsidy.

Then we've got the cattle people, then the broilers, then the eggs and the vegetables, and potatoes, and the cranberries and on and on and on.

When we debated the Farm Income Assurance Act in this House last fall, the Minister indicated that his department would sit down commodity by commodity and set up these schemes and how much it is going to cost. Is this to be the way in which we're to resolve the conflict in which we are heading between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer Services in the discharge by each of those Ministers of their respective responsibilities?

We've got a budget that we're dealing with in this department this year of only $15 million. Already with two commodities in agriculture we're going to face subsidies greater than the budget of the total department. That's just for beginners; that's for openers.

AN HON. MEMBER: That just gets you in the game.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just gets you in the game. And where are we going to go? I think we are entitled to know from this Minister whether he is prepared to ensure that the farmer continues to receive a proper return for his investment and for his labours. I think we're entitled to know the extent to which the consumer can be expected to pay a proper price, returning that benefit to the farming community. We're entitled to know from this Minister to what extent the general revenues of this province will be utilized in the subsidization of the producer. We're entitled to know the extent to which this Minister is prepared to stand up for the responsibilities which fall into his department against the pressures which he is presently facing and which he will face in the future from other members of the cabinet, which, if successful, can only lead to a breakdown of the policies which this Minister has enunciated for the future of the agriculture in British Columbia.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is back. He raised some questions about the quality of hay out of the Peace River, and, as I said, it was the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) who raised the question originally, not me. There were some problems in quality, but as far as continuing the subsidy programme, of course, this will be considered. But we're hoping now that people will make arrangements to get their hay so it will not be necessary. We hoped that, but the end of February it was found out that it would have to be extended and we did extend it.

Your other points are better raised under votes 5 and 7.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is back. Is the Minister of Labour going to insist on farm workers being unionized? I've heard nothing about it. This is the first suggestion that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) should even consider that. I think it very unlikely that that route would be followed. I've heard nothing about it.

The housing programme for farmers' employees....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Perhaps you better ask him if he's taking cognizance of this suggestion, and that he should consider it. But up until now I think it has not even entered his head. It certainly has not entered mine. Well, when his estimates come up you might ask him that.

Housing programme for employees: As you'll appreciate, it is a joint federal-provincial programme. There are grants available and the provincial.... As a matter of fact I signed a letter today that went to the Minister in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing, agreeing to the provincial government entering further into the programme.

Transportation of fruit from the Valley was quite thoroughly discussed this afternoon in the Legislature.

The school lunch programme: Representatives of my department and of the Department of Education are considering this, trying to work out a programme.

MRS. JORDAN: This year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not promising you it will be in effect. I'm hoping it will. But, as I say, they are working on it.

Fish farming is currently under the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

The Esther Wood....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to wait until the Minister is finished.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would just suggest to the Members that when they think there should be some changes in jurisdiction over various areas of government, the time to make suggestions like that is really in the throne speech or the budget speech rather than under the estimates of any particular Minister — the time to make suggestions for changes.

[ Page 666 ]

There is no harm in advancing at this time, and certainly it is something that has been considered but not resolved yet. But I just feel that if you're giving that kind of advice, about changing jurisdictions, it is better done in the two general debates.

The Egg Marketing Board: I could get that information or you could get it direct. I don't know how much it cost the Egg Marketing Board. I don't know how many eggs came in, what the charges were, and I don't have the information as to.... I know the eggs stopped coming in because the price of Manitoba eggs exceeded the price of B.C. eggs. What the current situation is today, I don't know. I've had no reports on that. I haven't sought them and they haven't been forthcoming.

The Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is back. Apples in the liquor store: The Premier talked on this when he was in opposition you say. He talked during the campaign and he's talking to me about it several times since. It's one of the things I haven't delivered for him yet.

Any closer to a vet college? No. You'll recall — I think this is discussed in the fall session — I announced a programme where the federal government was going to put more money into expanding the vet training facilities in Saskatchewan. You say there are only five places available for B.C. students. There is a formula that would theoretically limit us to five, but their real criteria is based more on the capability of the students. And it happens that perhaps because they are B.C. students they seem to be above the average, and we've been getting much more than our minimum quota into that vet college.

The expansion of facility, of course, will provide much more room for B.C. students. Also we have increased the grant per student for that college so they will be better able to upgrade their facilities.

The idea of training doctors and veterinarians together has never occurred to me. I didn't note particularly what....

MR. WALLACE: What about the law school?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, it's something that just hadn't occurred to me. And maybe it's worth looking at or perhaps even partial....

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), is concerned about the resource manager. I'm not sure just how this theme was developed in the general debate, but it's the responsibility of the resource manager to bring the people from the various departments in that area together to discuss what is going on and to discuss the best way of allocating the resources in that area. The way you phrased it it sounds as though he was going to make an individual decision as to what should be done. Rather he's trying to get everybody together to collectively decide on the best way of using these resources. It's not a case of that Minister, this Minister and another Minister having to try to apportion these resources. The resource manager is in the field dealing with representatives of various departments including the Department of Agriculture, and trying to arrive at the best solution to the question of allocating the resources with respect to....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You can't afford to lose any areas right now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We might get more. I'm not suggesting there are going to be any losses. But you did ask the question: would the government buy out? The government has bought two ranches in that area so far and certainly if the ranches....

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I heard somebody say three, it could be three. I thought it was two but there might be a third one. In any case, the answer to the question is yes.

Why not move the range-leasing question to the Department of Agriculture? It was in Forests; it's being moved. I'm not sure whether it's finished yet or not — it being moved to the Lands Department. You say why not to Agriculture? It's a question that I asked as well. And when the cattlemen, in their organization, recommended it go to Lands rather than to Agriculture, it rather cut the ground out from under my campaign.

Now, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, I think they did recommend that it go too. It is being studied. But the B.C. cattlemen's organization recommended that it go from Forest to lands.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When was that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, last fall.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: They did; when the committee was meeting, they did. Subsequently they recommended that it go to Lands.

The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is not opposed to the idea of the producers getting a fair break. She wants a fair break for producers and for consumers, but wants the community as a whole to be assured that it is a fair break for both parties, and not that either group is being taken advantage of for the good of the other, if you like. I think that is one of the things I've tried to indicate earlier. I feel we need a better PR job, a better explanation in the total community as to how

[ Page 667 ]

these marketing boards are working, and to prove to everybody concerned that they are working in the interest of their own members, also the interest of the consumers. I'm satisfied in my own mind that marketing boards, properly run, are in the interest of the consumer and do effectively lower the cost of food to consumers by evening it out. The Minister of Consumer Services is certainly not opposed to that.

Your specific questions about the Farm Income Assurance Plan, I would rather deal with — because there may be others along those lines — when we get to vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it's really unfortunate that you have to carry on your shoulders the responsibility of an irresponsible Minister, and I refer to the Minister of Consumer Services who stands in the Legislature and makes such....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the comment "irresponsible." It's an unparliamentary expression.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'll certainly withdraw the fact that she's an irresponsible Minister. I'll just say she makes irresponsible statements. I think the Minister has already alluded to that fact.

What I'd really like to know from the Minister of Agriculture is: when the dairy income assurance programme was being set up, did he work in co-operation with the Milk Marketing Board? Were they a factor in determining the cost of production? Were they a factor in determining what the price of milk would be, what the subsidy should be? Did the Minister of Agriculture work with this board in keeping down the price of milk in the Province of British Columbia?

My second question, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Agriculture is: to date, how many of the dairy farmers in the Province of British Columbia are in this programme as compared to the total number of dairy farmers in the province? What percentage, and what are the numbers? Would the Minister of Agriculture give me those facts?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well, listen. You know....

HON. MR. STUPICH: Why do you think we have a vote 7?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, why do you think we...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't come into this Legislative Assembly yesterday. What do you want me to be seated for? Did I do something wrong? No reason — just sit down! Would he have a reason to ask me to sit down?

MR. McGEER: The Chairman wants some exercise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want your undivided attention.

If the Hon. Minister prefers to answer this, as it may be answered, under a vote which is more appropriate, then I think that the Hon. Member should respect that wish of the Minister. Therefore, would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. I'd be most happy to continue, Mr. Chairman, and inform you that I didn't come into this Legislature yesterday. I've seen this game played before. You give the Minister his salary and then you get down to the particular vote and, "Oh, you can't discuss it under that vote; you should have discussed it under the Minister's salary." We're asking....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is questioning the word of the Minister. The Minister has indicated that he wishes to answer it under vote 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the humble Member for South Peace River would like very much to learn the rules of the House. If you tell me that I can't ask this question of the Minister under his salary, I'll certainly abide by your ruling. But I want you to stand right up in this Legislature and tell me that I can't ask the Minister of Agriculture to answer a question with regard to the administration of his department, and with regard to the dairy income assurance programme, that has to do with the Farm Income Assurance Act.

If the Chairman will tell me that, if I'm in error in discussing this under the Minister's salary, I'll certainly abide by his decision, because I certainly want to learn the rules of the House — and state your authority, page and number.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister has indicated that he wishes to answer the question under the vote where that particular Act is administered. The Chair is ruling that he should....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm asking it now, and I want an answer now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: And I'll answer it when we get to vote 7.

[ Page 668 ]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not supposed to question anyone now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think I asked a reasonable question under the Minister of Agriculture's salary. I think it is a reasonable question. I think it is a good question, and I'd like the question answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will quote again the section that I read previously from Beauchesne, chapter 8, section 239:

"The whole management of a department may be discussed in a general way when the Committee of Supply is considering the first resolution of the estimates of that department, which reads as follows: General Administration...but the discussion must not be extended to any particular item mentioned in the estimates of that department."

That is my authority.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to take your decision under advisement and consult with my colleagues.

In the meantime I'll move on to a further matter which I am quite sure will come under the Department of Agriculture. As a matter of fact it's certain recommendations which were passed on to the Minister by the agriculture committee.

One thing that I would like the Minister to assure me when he does implement the farm credit Act, is that there will be provisions in the regulations that he lays down to correspond reasonably well, to be reasonably close, to the recommendations of the agriculture committee.

The first recommendation of the agriculture committee, with regard to terms, is that there should be provision for short; intermediate- and long-term loans with a maximum of 30 years. Will the Minister assure me that when he lays down his recommendations, when cabinet discusses this, when he discusses this with Treasury Board, there will be provision for extended terms of repayment so that the real idea of the farm credit Act will be realized by the farmers in this province?

Will the Minister assure me that when the terms of credit are provided, there will be an interest rate well below those that can be borrowed from chartered banks?

Will the Minister assure me that in certain cases — where, for instance, a young farmer is going into business and is faced with extremely high capital costs and no return will be forthcoming for two or three years until his farm is established — will the Minister assure me that there will be a deferment on repayment for a period of three to four years in order that the young farmer may get established?

Will the Minister assure me that young people going into farming and who take out these long-term loans will be life-insured?

Will the Minister assure me that in the case of when he goes to Treasury Board to discuss these loans, loans will be made available when farms transfer within a family? I'm referring to a son wishing to buy out a father in a farm, and not having to wait until such time as the father is deceased. The farm can then be transferred from the original owner of the farm; in the case of it being a father, he will be there to assist the son to develop the farm, to assist him, but at the same time he will receive payment for his farm.

I would like to ask a further question of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to another recommendation from the agriculture committee. That recommendation was that there be a ranch established in conjunction with the vocational school farm. I asked this question during the fall session, and the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) assured me that this was being considered.

Well, that's four months ago. Would the Minister of Agriculture tell me what negotiations are taking place? Because this establishment of a ranch in conjunction with the Dawson Creek Vocational School Farm is very important to the beef industry in the Peace River area. Indeed it is not only important to the beef industry in the Peace River area; it's very important for the beef industry in the entire province.

As the Minister has outlined, and as it was recommended by the agriculture committee, the beef industry in the Peace River area held a great deal of potential. But the area being remote and with great distances to be travelled, it is very necessary that the farmers in that area who are going from maybe raising alfalfa or raising grain or going into the beef industry have some training in the field of veterinary medicine.

Mr. Chairman, this is very, very important to the overall cattle industry in the province. It is very, very important to the economy of the Peace River area. Indeed, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has asked that a veterinary college be established either at the University of Victoria or UBC.

Until such time as this is done, and until such time as there are more veterinarians available within the province, then it would be sort of.... As I mentioned before, veterinary midwives...they would not be able to do the entire operation but certainly they'd be able to administer inoculations, assist in the birth of the young cattle and be able to determine whether it was necessary to have a veterinarian.

[ Page 669 ]

This would be very, very important to the agricultural education of young students who want to go into that. It would be very, very important to the cattle industry in the area, and very, very important to the grain growing in the area, too. Very important to the budget, certainly.

So maybe the Minister of Agriculture would give me some indication as to his thoughts on these five points that I have raised so far.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few general statements, then perhaps a suggestion for the Minister, and then a question that I don't believe has been asked in the three days of questioning we have had.

First of all, some general remarks in the area of marketing quotas. It might be wise, for the benefit of those who are new Members in the House and those who are urban Members, to do a bit of a review on the creation of quotas and the reason for their distribution. Clearly in this House there is a misunderstanding about quotas. May I address myself, perhaps, and look only at the distribution of egg marketing quotas as opposed to broilers, which is still a different ball game.

There was a reason why the quotas had to be established in the first place. The problem existed; the fact that quotas came up as the answer has no suggestion at all that quotas might have been the only answer and that a marketing board was even the best answer. But it came up as an answer and was implemented.

The Minister of Water (Hon. R.A. Williams) stood, in one of his outbursts, and pointed an accusing finger and indicted those who were responsible for creating the quota system, accusing those who were duly-elected and who were made responsible for the distribution of quotas and calling them irresponsible. He said they were parochial and interested only in distributing quotas for egg marketing in the Fraser Valley.

He suggested the names of Langley, Clearbrook, Yale and Chilliwack, and said the reason why they were distributed in those areas was because it was hotbed of Socreds. Not so. I don't know why the Minister, unless he had lost control of his senses for the moment, would make such a statement. The statement, Mr. Chairman, is not true.

The facts are these. There was a problem in the egg marketing business. The market was flooded; they were producing more eggs than we or our neighbours or our chickens could eat, for that matter. As a result, some kind of a plan had to be instigated.

Now, this is what happened. A marketing plan was established and quotas were distributed to all producers of eggs throughout the province. That means, Mr. Chairman, that in your area of Terrace all farmers who were egg producers received a quota which was allotted on the basis of their production per year, and in your area, Mr. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). The Cariboo, as much as he (Mr. Fraser) yells about it, had more quotas allotted in the areas of Delta or Langley or Chilliwack than there were for any other in the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

MR. SCHROEDER: So the Minister of water made an irresponsible statement when he said it was a parochial decision. Not so.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: All right, let me tell you what happened; I'll give you a little lesson, Mr. egg grower.

This is what happened. They found out that it cost more to raise eggs in Terrace than it does to raise eggs close to where the people are because there are more consumers of eggs where the people are than there are in Terrace. As a result, it became impossible for the producer in Terrace to measure up even to his quota. His quota became available. He could choose to increase his flock; he could choose to increase his production; or he could choose to sell his quota, which, by the way, was not the original intent of quotas at all. He could choose to sell his quota or to transfer his quota.

Now, a little bit of a basic study in economics tells you that it is going to automatically migrate to that area where it is financially feasible to produce eggs.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Hogwash!

MR. SCHROEDER: It happens, and has been proven, that the easiest place to produce eggs in the province is in the Fraser Valley. I'll tell you what we can do.

MR. LEWIS: I'll compete with you any day.

MR. SCHROEDER: You can compete as long as there is gasoline for your trucks to haul your product to this area. That's where the problem is.

Now, what is a suggested solution to the problem? A selected solution is this: you could arbitrarily assign quotas to these other areas. As a matter of fact, you could subsidize the production in those areas. But the minute you left it to its own migration, those quotas would find their way right back down to the Fraser Valley. There is only one way the whole scheme can be changed. Not only must consumers be found in those upper areas but also the egg handling stations and distributors must be located.

I'm glad to see there is a poultry processing plant that is going to be placed up there. It is going to help

[ Page 670 ]

in the broiler industry, but I'm addressing myself to the eggs.

As soon as the processing is also cared for in those areas, then those people up there have an economic chance of producing eggs in their areas. Then the quotas which are assigned to those areas will be filled, they can increase by 10 per cent per year, and the distribution will look after itself. That's one way to do it.

But I would say there is no way you are going to build happiness into the egg-producing business by taking a quota from where it is and transporting it to another location.

Let's take a look at the consumer's market. If there is a greater market for eggs, let the agricultural department create more quotas and let them assign those quotas to these upper areas. At least you'll keep peace in the family.

What we're afraid is going to happen is that they're going to take quotas from where they are already assigned, rob them from the present producers, and ship them to some other areas, knowing full well it is not economically feasible and that before too long those quotas will find their way right back to their source in the first place.

The NDP doesn't realize this is a fact. They believe in subsidizing.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: You'll get your chance, man. You've made one irresponsible statement; we don't need any more.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: It wasn't intended to be one.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member continue his speech?

MR. SCHROEDER: I'll be happy to.

Rather than stealing the quota from where it has been now assigned to assign it to a new area, what you could do is what the NDP has been doing in other areas of our country: they take a product which is to be produced in an uneconomic area, subsidize it, and believe they are doing the economy some great favour. But lo and behold, in Manitoba they've got 11 or 12 different corporations of that sort which in four-and-a-half years haven't shown one penny profit. What happens? Belly up is the story. It isn't an answer at all.

Now, back to the question I referred to at the outset. This is the question I would like to ask the Minister, if he's not in the building.... Here he comes. Bless his socks, here he comes.

This is the question. One of the statements you have made is that you enjoy the full confidence of the Premier of the province. Another statement you have made is this: every project you have presented to the Premier has met with co-operation from the Premier. You have suggested to this House that there has been no interference between the two offices. You have suggested it is not even wise for there to be pressure between the two offices.

If all of this is true, then let me ask you this one question: why, or because of what pressure, was it that at least two times you have suggested publicly that you felt like resigning your post? This has certainly not given any confidence, as far as the people are concerned, about any continuity in your particular Ministry. I think the people deserve to know if you intend to stay as Minister of Agriculture or if you plan to resign. If you plan to resign, what pressures have been brought to bear to bring you to this decision?

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) who is very ably defending his own constituents, made some statements which are simply not so, as far as I'm concerned, in regard to the egg business in the Terrace area.

I just want to repeat two or three facts again. First of all, there is a very large population involved up there, a very large population. There's Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Terrace, Smithers, Hazelton, and many other smaller communities. I want to repeat that over: it's a very large population.

The consumption of eggs, I'm quite certain, is in excess of 2,000 cases per week. We have one producer — one only — who runs a little farm in Terrace, and has been given a quota of 200 cases a week. Now the point has been made that in the long run a quota will find its way back down the Fraser Valley because it's more economic to produce eggs down there.

This is so, in a way, if you make things extremely difficult from down below. The fact is that this man has to operate his own egg-grading station which is not economic to run with such a small number of eggs. It is true that if there were a larger production in the area, that egg-grading station would be more economic to run and it would be to the benefit of the local consumers.

I just want to repeat again one paragraph of one letter which this producer received from Burns Foods Limited; they're a fairly large distributor of foods. I just want to repeat it — he obviously didn't hear it — one line only.

MR. GARDOM: You read that yesterday.

MR. DENT: "In the past we have had some of

[ Page 671 ]

your eggs, and the demand for Terrace eggs in this area is very great." The demand for Terrace eggs is very great.

Interjection.

MR. DENT: There's no problem with the economics of the thing. I'm providing this information for the benefit of the Minister to correct what the Hon. Member says.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an attack on Hansard, that's what it is.

MR. DENT: It's quite economic to produce eggs in the Terrace area, but it would be more economic if there were more producers in the area, or if this producer had a larger quota. The people will buy the eggs — there's no problem about that. We have no desire to eat 7-day-old or 10-day-old Fraser Valley eggs. We want our own locally-produced eggs.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): It's been so long ago that I've almost forgotten when this debate started. But at the beginning — I'm not sure whether it was the Finance Minister or the Minister who asked for our comments concerning the layout of the estimates. I for one must tell you that I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the layout.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have you looked beyond vote 3?

MR. MORRISON: Well, I'm still looking at vote 3, if that's all right with you. On page N18, vote 3, the new format shows a completely different breakdown.

I must confess that I prefer the other method better. I'd like the Minister, if he would at this time, to give us the same breakdown as he had in the former method. I'd like the breakdown of the salaries and the clerical staff and....

HON. MR. STUPICH: I gave that information a couple of days ago.

MR. MORRISON: You did?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to record that I don't like the new method and I preferred the former one and if the Minister.... I'm sorry, I must have missed it in the winded past.

I would like to go on record that I don't like this new method — either in vote 3 or any of the other votes in that department.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's been answering in a very responsive and reasonable way most of the areas of questioning. I wonder why he's steering away from one particular area. I want to come back to it.

I could hardly believe my ears earlier on when the Minister said that he had been asked several times a particular question and said all he was going to say. Mr. Chairman, he hasn't said anything about that particular subject.

The particular question was this: would the Minister check with his Deputy to confirm whether or not his Deputy made the statements reported in the affidavit by Mr. McAninch and Mr. Stafford — whether his Deputy made those statements which expressly contradict the statements made by the Premier in this House?

Now when there's an affidavit sworn which shows that a senior officer of the government — a Deputy Minister — has made a statement which explicitly contradicts a statement by the Premier, that's a grave conflict to me, Mr. Chairman.

You know, the Minister says he can't remember well enough to say who's right in most of the matters that come up in these affidavits. But maybe some of these other public servants that were at these meetings can. And that's exactly why we need an inquiry.

But we don't need an inquiry for this particular one, Mr. Chairman. It's a very simple question; it's a recent question; it happened on February 5; it relates to a firm Premier's statement and firm affidavits regarding the exact words of Mr. Peterson concerning the Premier. It has nothing to do with the memory of the Minister, just having to do with the memory of his Deputy or of other officials present at that meeting.

So I ask the Minister just that one point, that one simple point: Will he check with his Deputy in that regard and report to this House?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack earlier asked a question about my reporting to have offered to resign twice. Perhaps I should take the opportunity to clear that up.

On two separate occasions when representatives of different commodity groups, in negotiating with me, said that they were going to go above my head and go to the Premier, I said that that door was certainly open to them, and if the Premier wasn't satisfied with the way I was handling the department, well then, of course, the Premier knew I would co-operate.

I reported this to the Premier and he said that "if any groups are having trouble working with you, that's their problem, because you have my complete confidence as Minister of Agriculture."

With respect to the Deputy's statement, I said earlier — and this is all I'm going to say on the subject — it was the Deputy's responsibility to represent me

[ Page 672 ]

at that meeting, following my instructions, and his responsibility to report back to me. It's my responsibility to get my estimates through the House. The reports between the Deputy and myself are something that happened between us.

MR. GIBSON: But did the Deputy make that statement?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A little time has passed between last time we brought up the subject of marketing boards and this time — 10 minutes to 11 or so. I thought that in that interval the Minister might have sort of reconsidered his position. But obviously he's not prepared to.

I think that this House is being done a disservice. I really want to say once again as clearly as I possibly can that regardless of what the Minister of Waters says, and regardless of what the Minister of Consumer Services says, and regardless of what the Member for Skeena says, and regardless of what the Member for Shuswap says, the question before the House has nothing to do with quotas.

It is not a question of reduced levies; it is not a question of expansion of the industry; it is not a question of marketing boards.

The question is one of power politics. The question is one of Ministerial integrity. The question is one of morality in government, and the question is one of truth. Mr. Chairman, it's clear to me that somebody is not telling the truth, and that's the issue — nothing to do with anything else.

I want to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he will agree that Mr. Bruce McAninch, the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, is an honourable, responsible and truthful person.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will agree that Mr. Richard Stafford, Richard Arthur Stafford, the Manager of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, is an honourable, responsible and truthful person.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would agree that one William Henry Lawrence Brunsdon, egg producer in the Province of British Columbia, is an honourable, responsible and truthful person.

And I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would agree that John Unger, an egg producer in this province, is an honourable, responsible and truthful person.

If you agree, Mr. Chairman, to those four points, then I believe that you have an obligation to begin an immediate inquiry into this whole question. You have an obligation to search out the truth in this matter, even if it implicates the Premier of British Columbia in a game of power politics.

I believe that those four people are responsible, honourable and truthful. Two of them I know personally, and I can guarantee their integrity for sure. Mr. Minister, you do have a serious obligation to the people in this province to open the doors to the truth in this question.

I've a couple of other questions that I'd like to ask the Minister. One of them is: has the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) ever urged the Minister to place the Broiler Marketing Board under government trusteeship, as was reported in a press report of December 24? I want to remind the Member that you are dealing with vote 3....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's part of the vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: If that request was ever made, was it before or after you begin discussions about initial quotas for the Okanagan-Kamloops area with the Broiler Marketing Board?

Did you, in fact, in late December, agree to put the board under a form of trusteeship, or at least under review, after certain complaints from the Member for Shuswap, and until certain conditions that your department ordered were carried out?

Have you received a motion, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, from the British Columbia egg producers in the Fraser Valley, a resolution offering congratulations for the stand taken by Mr. Unger and Mr. Brunsdon, and offering their support for the statements contained in those affidavits?

In view of the published reports that egg producers are extremely unhappy about political interference by the Premier, are you now prepared to review your position and order an inquiry? Or is the government, or your department, or you personally, going to either publicly refute the statements made in those affidavits, or will you take legal action?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Ask Chabot.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Minister, unless you wipe away the cloud of uncertainty covering this whole marketing board situation, you owe the people of British Columbia an apology.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Phony charge.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd suggest, Mr. Minister, that in cases of importance in other jurisdictions throughout the world, Ministers have resigned for far less than this situation. Mr. Minister, I don't think you need a better PR job, as you mentioned earlier. I think you need to take the people of British Columbia into your confidence. I think you need to maintain your obligation to those, people, and if you don't, you'll have done those people a terrible disservice.

I think it's time we had some answers. You've had the time; let's have them.

[ Page 673 ]

MR. GARDOM: Is the Hon. Minister prepared to answer the question that was asked a moment ago by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano?

MR. McGEER: The extremely serious questions raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)...

HON. MR. STUPICH: Only one new one.

MR. McGEER: ...by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and by myself all pertain to the issue of truth in government and the veracity of the Minister of Agriculture.

He has not answered a single one of these questions directly. It has been an evasive performance which has gone in this legislative chamber for three straight days. We have had equally weak and evasive speeches by other Members, from the cabinet benches, and we have had a continual running commentary of hoots and catcalls from one Minister in particular (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who himself has had his veracity challenged by a committee of the Legislature...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Phony political charge.

MR. CHABOT: Phony Minister.

MR. McGEER: ...and no one but his own colleagues would support it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would remind the Member on his feet that you're supposed to be dealing with vote 3.

MR. McGEER: I'm dealing with vote 3, Mr. Chairman. We're dealing with questions that the Minister of Agriculture has systematically refused to answer. We've had evasion, amnesia....

AN HON. MEMBER: Pathos.

MR. McGEER: No pathos, but we've had the kind of soft conciliatory answers to the Members of this chamber that are quite at odds with the harsh political pressures placed upon the people who are brought inside the Ministers' offices.

Now, Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the Minister refused to comment on the Member for Langley's request of him to verify the character and integrity of the people who placed these affidavits before the public of British Columbia, and it may be that these people had misinterpreted the events,

Certainly we have given the Minister of Agriculture ample opportunity to clear his own name, the name of the Premier and the names of the members of his department who were involved in this sorry series of events.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), Mr. Chairman, called for a judicial enquiry under the Public Inquiries Act.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he can think of any reason why the public of British Columbia should not hear the testimony of others who were at that meeting. I refer to the one on October 26, 1972.

We've heard from Mr. John Unger and Mr. William Henry Lawrence Brunsdon, who gave sworn affidavits. Is there any reason, I ask the Minister, why we should not hear from Mr. William Janzen, Mr. Jake Wall, Mr. Ed Morgan, Mr. S.B. Peterson, Mr. Maurice King, Mr. Harry Pope and Mr. M.M. Gilchrist? Is there any reason why we should not hear from each and every one of those individuals to learn what took place on that day, to find out who's telling the truth — the Premier, or the two gentlemen who placed affidavits?

MR. McCLELLAND: Let's call them in.

MR. McGEER: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture cannot set the records straight, we should call the people who placed these affidavits before the bar of the House.

Can the Minister tell us if there's any reason why we should not hear from these people? Can he tell us if a judicial inquiry is not the way to hear from them why they shouldn't be brought before the bar of the House, so that before the Members of this Legislative Assembly, including the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, we couldn't question them and hear their version right down at the end of this chamber?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It's not Star Chamber. The Star Chamber tactics, Mr. Chairman, were in that Minister's office and in the Premier's office. That's where the Star Chamber tactics were. This is supposed to be a democracy. A democracy should not be practised on the floor of this chamber only, but in the offices of the Ministers of the Crown as well.

Can the Minister tell us — would it be appropriate to hear from these people? Is there any reason why not? What does he prefer — a judicial inquiry brought before a bar of this House, before a special committee of this Legislature, or do we keep asking questions in this legislative chamber?

MR. GARDOM: May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to standing order 3?

[ Page 674 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to standing order 3.

The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an error in reply to question 143 appearing in Votes and Proceedings, February 26, page 2.

Part 3 of question 143 reads: "How much money has been committed to this date by the provincial government for itself or on behalf of any of its Crown corporations or trust accounts?"

The reply to that part of the question, "By loan guarantee, $1,500," should have read "By loan guarantee, $1.5 million." I ask that the Journals be corrected accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in exactly 55 minutes Autoplan will be in operation in the Province of British Columbia.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

ERRATUM

page 353, column 1, line 8 should read:

conduct of officers of the Crown, then the proper

page 417, column 2, line 33 should read:

the staff is up from three to 26.

page 420, column 2, lines 12-16 should read:

provinces. But our runs are very similar to their runs on the east coast. In 1970, the capital expenditures for the ferry and coastal were $131 million — that's operating capital and grants. In 1973 they were