[ Page 705 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Wallace — 705

Hon. Mr. Lea — 707

Division — 707

Mr. Wallace — 708

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 708

Mrs. Jordan — 708

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 709

Mr. Bennett — 710

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 710

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 710

Mr. Smith — 710

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 710

Mr. Smith — 711

Mr. Morrison — 711

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 711

Mr. L.A. Williams — 711

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 712

Mrs. Jordan — 712

Mr. McGeer — 713

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 713

Mr. Morrison — 714

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 714

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 714

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 715

Mr. Smith — 715

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 715

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 716

Mr. Smith — 716

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 716

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 716

Mr. McClelland — 716

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 716

Mrs. Jordan — 716

Mr. L.A. Williams — 717

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 717

Mr. Morrison — 718

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 718

Mrs. Jordan — 718

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 718

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 719

Mr. Morrison — 719

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 719

Mr. Morrison — 720

Mr. Curtis — 720

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 720

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 721

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 721

Mrs. Jordan — 722

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 722

Mrs. Jordan — 722

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 723

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 723

Mr. Gardom — 724

Mr. Smith — 724

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 724

Mr. McClelland — 725

Mr. Kelly — 725

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 725

Mr. Smith — 725

Mr. Gardom — 726

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 726

Mrs. Jordan — 727

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 727

Mr. Morrison — 728

Mr. Wallace — 728

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 729

Mr. Curtis — 730

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 731

Mr. Kelly — 732

Mr. Smith — 732

Mr. Gibson — 732

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 732

Mr. Gardom — 733

Mr. Curtis — 733

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 733

    FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1974.

The House met at 1:10 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)

On vote 3: Minister's office.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, if I might continue, I want to make my position quite plain. Although I'm not very fully informed as to detail, I think the principles debated over the past few days make it quite clear that there were several errors of judgment on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. I was trying to put my position in total context by saying I would differ from the opposition point of view in degree that this kind of behaviour is the kind we've witnessed in the United States.

I feel the motivation which got the Minister into this mess he's now in was....

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): No, he isn't.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken feathers.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister is in a very unfortunate position. The chirp, chirp, chirp from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is largely probably because I am getting to him. Maybe he realizes that for somebody to stand up to try and look at the situation logically, with a measure of sympathy for the Minister, is something he just doesn't want to hear.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): He doesn't need sympathy.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, we all need sympathy, Mr. Attorney-General, sometime in our lives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the motion before the House?

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm trying, Mr. Chairman, but I think I'm entitled to respond to the interruptions unless you want to quiet the interruptions also.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Will somebody take that fried chicken out of here?

MR. WALLACE: I was in quite a good mood when I came into this chamber, Mr. Chairman, but if we're not going to have the same rules for everybody I might become somewhat nasty.

I do feel the Minister erred by interference, but I am trying to point out that his motivation was to try and solve a problem which existed. I am just suggesting that he chose the wrong way to go about it. Then, to compound his problems to a very severe degree, the Premier of the province really put him in a position where he was then left with no solution to the problem.

During the debate evidence has been presented in the form of affidavit and, again, each one of us has to interpret such a document as we see fit. Anyone of us trying to remember what was said 18 months ago is liable, in all good faith, to make mistakes in interpretation or in the language you might use to describe what was said. So I don't think we should spend any more time in semantics, debating whether or not the Premier directed or advised or coerced or forced, or any other word.

The fact is the Premier of the province, with or without the wish of the Minister of Agriculture, interfered. I don't think anyone can deny, from whatever side of the House, even from the Minister's own words himself, that the meetings were held and a deep degree of discussion went on about the problems with these marketing boards. I really don't feel it matters whether the Minister says he sent them away to make their own decisions. These boards are supposed to settle their own affairs without any kind of interference such as we've heard described. On that basis I have to support the motion.

I do feel it would be unfair to take such a blanket attitude to condemning the Minister when, in point of fact, I believe his motivation was honourable. Mistaken but honourable. I'm imputing honourable motives to the Minister. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister suggests I might put it in affidavit form. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the two facts that he was new to office and that the difficulties with the marketing boards had been in existence long before this Minister came to office. It is quite clear to me that this appeared to be an ideal opportunity for the dissatisfied persons in the industry to descend upon the Minister and beat on his door, hoping he in some way or another would come up with solutions which heretofore had been sought but not found.

It is for this reason that I feel many of the mistakes the Minister has made in trying to straighten out this situation were well-motivated but certainly,

[ Page 706 ]

in the light of subsequent events, it was a mistake he made. On the other hand, we've heard of how the Premier functioned in interfering with this Minister. He did indeed put the Minister of Agriculture in a very difficult position. Someone suggested this morning that when that event happened, the Minister should have either told the Premier to keep his fingers out of it or the Minister should have resigned.

I think again that's rather an extreme black-and-white approach to take to the function of leadership. Surely what we look for and what we expect from cabinet Ministers and the Premier is leadership. Sometimes initiatives have to be taken which might bring about a solution which heretofore is lacking. But to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture at that point in time when the Premier interfered should have taken such a black-and-white approach and said, "Well, either you don't interfere or I resign" is not the kind of answer to the Minister's problem or to the problems of an efficient government with the awareness of the kind of leadership it's supposed to show.

If this whole debate demonstrated nothing else, it surely showed that we should have some kind of body of authority or a supervisory body of some nature which will consist of highly experienced, knowledgeable people in the marketing field to whom these marketing boards should be responsible. Cabinet Ministers will then no longer either be subjected to the kind of pressures which have occurred in this case or will be tempted to be dragged into a situation which leads to the unfortunate situation we now have.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the motion but I have some reservation inasmuch as the real villain in the piece is the Premier of the province. The villain in my view is not the Minister of Agriculture; he is the one who, because he is the responsible person for the department, is being held to account. I suppose technically and literally this is the way it should be, but I think the events which have unfolded in this debate show he is really not the main villain in the piece. It has been most unfortunate that the person who could have perhaps enlightened us to a greater degree, namely the Premier, for good reasons or otherwise has been absent this morning. If, as the Attorney-General interjects, the Premier will give an explanation, then we look forward to that event.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He will; don't worry about it.

MR. WALLACE: Once again the Attorney-General in very vocal. I would suggest we're dealing with the estimates and the salary vote of the Minister of Agriculture. He keeps interjecting that we can't talk about the Premier or mention the Premier, when in point of fact, this Minister would not be in the predicament he's in today if it were not for the actions of the Premier. How can you expect us intelligently to debate this important issue and stick strictly to the Minister of Agriculture when the culmination of the problem was brought about by a serious degree of interference in his department by the Premier.

Maybe we're into a new era of government where it's thought to be acceptable that the leader of the government can take the kind of action to overrule or override or advise Ministers and to go directly into discussions and dealings with interested parties who have failed to reach, or feel they have failed to reach, agreement with the Minister.

Maybe this is the way this government intends to function. If it is the way, then I would predict confidently that we'll have a debate of this nature repetitively dealing with different Ministers of the Crown in the future. If that's the case, I think we're looking forward to debates which are unnecessary and could be avoided, because all we're trying to get at in this case are the facts. When you have two Ministers of the Crown or one Minister of the Crown and the Premier involved in a manner such as this one we're now debating, it is a rather fruitless use of four or five days of the House's time.

If the Attorney-General tells us that the Premier will explain, I hope the Premier will also explain whether or not this is to be a pattern of his attitude to the Premier's role in government in British Columbia, namely that this kind of interference by him with one of his Ministers is something we can expect at the Premier's discretion.

I would submit that it has caused a great deal of difficulty and dissension. It's created a debate that has overlooked, unfortunately, many of the more general matters of agriculture.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: This is regrettable, and I'm glad to hear the Attorney-General agrees. All I'm saying, Mr. Attorney-General, is that I can see this kind of debate being repeated, if in fact it is the feeling of the Premier that at any time he can decide to interfere in this manner with matters which should be decided solely between the Minister concerned and the particular groups and associations or citizens or, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made very clear, within the duly authorized control of cabinet.

If the Premier is to interfere with the Minister's department and his problems and if, in fact, orders-in-council are to be ignored or the provisions of the order-in-council are to be overruled by the decision of one Minister or by the Premier, then I can only see chaos. Inevitably orders-in-council are an unavoidable instrument of government, but if they

[ Page 707 ]

are to be treated lightly, and if in the face of public anger or dissatisfaction with the contents or the consequences of an order-in-council we have the Minister reacting to pressure from outside groups, then again, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound pointed out, we're headed for chaos.

You have to have laws and the laws have to be obeyed or not obeyed. You can't pick and choose who shall obey them and who shall not obey them. You can't pick and choose which Minister might be quietly permitted to ignore the provisions of an order-in-council.

These are some of the very central principles that have been discussed in this debate. It's always easy to be smart in retrospect — I admit that — but I'm saying that if we've learned nothing and if the cabinet has learned nothing, other than the fact that this style of government, if it continues, will lead to this kind of debate affecting other Ministers in the cabinet, I think it means that the cabinet will finish up by appearing to have less than the respect we all expect them to have for the law. It will certainly result in the citizens of this province realizing that laws are very flexible things to be used and bent to the advantage of cabinet Ministers and the Premier.

No one of us in this chamber or anywhere in this province is above the law. The minute that this kind of situation, if it is repeated, and I hope it isn't.... I just say in closing that if the Premier repeats his behaviour with other members of cabinet, we'll have the same kind of debate all over again at another time. With each such debate, I think there'll be the sad consequence of citizens of this province realizing that the cabinet members individually seem to consider themselves above the law.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I represent a northern riding, as you know. It's not a riding known for its agricultural products, except that we do try to consume agricultural products that are fresh and that are reasonably priced. The people in my riding I'm sure are not interested in who said what to whom, but whether or not they can buy fresh products, reasonably priced, from their stores and supermarkets within the riding. I think that's the issue; that's what we're really talking about.

There's something very strange, Mr. Chairman, going on in this debate. It's all very strange because it seems to me that those ridings who have never even seen a tree for a long while are the ones who are really taking part in this debate from the opposition.

The Hon. Members of the Liberal party are really concerned, but are they really concerned about the north and about the Interior and about the kind of foods that you're able to purchase? Or are they concerned about making political marks to try and win the next election? I think we have to think about that. Right?

I recognize that people are political — we all are, and that's why we're here. But what's happening over here with the Social Credit party? Two Members, the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), are taking a very hard stand in this debate. I wonder why.

The other Members are not quite as vocal. For instance, t h e Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) knows where it's at. He's an old politician, and he's not going to go on record in this debate as leaving all the goodies for the Fraser Valley. He knows that; that's not good.

And what about the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)? Where is he in this debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: Out paying his bills.

HON. MR. LEA: Where are the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) and the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips)? But most of all, where is the leader of the official opposition from South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett)? When is he going to stand in this House and take a stand? Not once has he stood in this House and taken a reasonable stand.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He spoke in the debate.

HON. MR. LEA: Let's hear what he has to say. Let's hear what the official leader of that official opposition has to say about the way the quotas are allocated in this province. Is he in favour of Clearbrook or is he in favour of the Okanagan Valley and the north? Let's hear it from him.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 26

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I request

[ Page 708 ]

you report this vote when you report to the Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Vote 3 approved.

On vote 4: Department of Agriculture, departmental administration, $712,170.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I notice there is an increase of $75,000 which seems to relate to three staff. Could the Minister explain the breakdown on that $75,000?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'm not sure of the question. Was it $30,000 for three staff? Is that what the question was?

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Chairman, could I just repeat that? You have got an increase of three staff under general administration and the increase in money is substantial — $75,000 — and I just wondered if the Minister could tell us who these personnel are at $25,000 a year each.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if you look at the expenditure classification immediately below that — code 01 refers to salaries — there is an increase of about $30,000 for three staff members, which is the average provision for staff in this section. You will note last year that there were 27 staff members at slightly under $270,000 and now 30 at over $320,000, slightly over.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): That's $50,900.

HON. MR. STUPICH: $50,000 for three? Yes, but it's not because of those three. It's the average for the whole group that has gone up. There was a substantial reclassification and change of salaries a year ago that is now reflected in the estimates.

MR. MORRISON: Could we get a breakdown on that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: You could if you like. Some of them are not even hired yet.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on the same vote lower down, could the Minister briefly tell us what particular direction the increased grants will go? There is more money for research; it has doubled from $50,000 to $100,000. Could we hear where the money is going?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, in the second line of that, you will notice that it is grants to universities for research. So from time to time during the year we agree with the universities as to what research programmes they will follow. We have increased the provision from $50,000 to $100,000 because we want to work more closely with the universities in developing research.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I would just like to point out in relation to the first question asked by the Member for Oak Bay, and commented on by the first Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), that quite obviously this form that you presented this year as a trial area is not suitable. It is very inadequate and it seems quite obvious from the questions that the Minister has been asked that he, himself, is not now conversant and does not have in his hands the information that the Members of this House are going to need.

I would respectfully suggest that this is not a good form for estimates in this House. It leaves too much unknown and it leaves the Minister in a most embarrassing position where he really can't break down the spending of his own department.

Apart from that, I would like to make reference regarding either vote 80 or 90. I notice that there is no increase for unclassified research and project expenditures and I think this is a disappointment at this time when there is obviously a great deal of need for research to be done in the agricultural industry. I would ask: which vote is the climatology study specifically in the Okanagan going to be paid from? Is it the university? Are they going to carry it out? Or is it going to be done by your department, by a permanent staff, or what arrangements have you made and how extensive is this study going to be? You didn't answer my questions under your salary.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What study did you say? Climatology?

MRS. JORDAN: Climatology.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Were you thinking about the sewage — the effluent?

MRS. JORDAN: No, I'll get to that. Maybe I should educate the Minister. There has got to be a study of climate factors in relationship to the Canada Land Inventory as it is broken down into a finer sense in relation. Then it has to be tied in economically with whether or not you can produce a growable economic product in agricultural land.

My understanding is, in spite of its not being carried out last year, that it will be carried out this year. I'm sorry the Minister was not listening under his salary because this sort of thing should be done in many areas of the province.

I wonder if the Minister would make clear what is

[ Page 709 ]

happening in the Okanagan; what staff you are hiring or is it going to be done through the university; when is it starting; when do you anticipate it completed; how extensive will it be and what other areas of the province are you doing it?

Then I would like to ask again about the effluent spray irrigation. There are serious problems due to political indiplomacy but I consistently pressed for funds to utilize this pilot project, to experiment and see whether or not it's feasible to grow edible products — humanly edible products — with this type of effluent irrigation.

Last year the Minister advised me that it was too emotional a problem; we couldn't touch it on that basis and yet they are thinking of putting a chicken processing plant right next to a sewage lagoon so I suggest that that no longer is a reasonable excuse. I would like to know if the Minister has funded for this, what these funds will be, and when they can look forward to commencing.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was no suggestion that we would use the water from the sewage disposal pond in the chicken processing plant but...

MRS. JORDAN: I never said there was.

HON. MR. STUPICH: ...there is some suggestion that the water from the Vernon Spray Irrigation Project do go on the land where crops are growing and there still is the public action against the idea of using water from the sewage effluent in growing crops that are going to be directly consumed by humans, and even some reaction against crops that are going to be consumed indirectly by humans.

I said during the course of the vote 3 debate that I didn't feel that way about it myself but I have to recognize that there is this concern. However, as I said also during that debate, you may not have been in the House when I replied, but that those studies are going on under the auspices of the Land Commission. There is a vote later on if you want to take that further.

Initial studies are being done by the Land Commission and as far as the studies — and this is the same question and the same answer you got last year — I am satisfied that enough work has been done on the growing of crops with this material on top of the pilot project that has already been in operation up there, that it is time now to move into full-scale operation. We still have to convince the people in the area that it is a good thing, hence these studies that are being done by the Land Commission.

The grants, the unclassified research and projects, which you are concerned about is still the same figure. This is a new programme started last year for the first time, and $100,000 was voted for the demonstration of agricultural technology and economics. The programme did get off the ground last year. We didn't commit all of the funds. This year we are staying with the same figure and looking at new projects and I am satisfied that we will be able to use the funds fully this year. If we get it rolling, I hope that we would next year ask for more funds from Treasury and that the Legislature would see fit to vote for them.

We are certainly listening and if there are any valid criticisms about the change in the methods of presentation — you commented on this...I see you are shaking your head — you don't feel that way now. You are not criticizing it now?

lnterjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, you still are. Yes. Well, if there are valid points, I welcome them. But the points you have made so far are not. Because you have talked about....

MRS. JORDAN: No, because it is common sense against your bias. So how can we win? It's not explanatory. We have to ferret too much and you won't answer questions. That's the problem.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, may I have the floor for a moment? There is more explanatory detail description in the description of the votes. I did draw the Member's attention to the further explanatory detail on the last page of the estimates.

As far as the breakdown in salary — in trying to find out what individual is getting how much money — that has never been available in estimates, to my information. If you'll compare this with any of the other departments, you'll see that you're getting as much information about individuals.

For example, in some situations you'll find a block of money allotted for 240 people or some such figure, without any attempt to break them down.

Now if you want that breakdown, and you've asked for it, it will be provided, but I suggest that it's not necessary to include it in estimates. The portrayal of it this year does not give any less information in that particular regard than does the portrayal that we had last year, or than there is for other departments.

MRS. JORDAN: What about the climatology situation and study, Mr. Minister? Are you going to answer my questions on the climatology studies — for the 10th time I've asked?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I did earlier when we were talking on the Ministerial vote. I said then — you could have been out, I don't recall — that the studies of the Canada Land Inventory, the continuing work

[ Page 710 ]

that they were going to do, as the Member I'm sure is aware, was transferred to the secretariat. The staff of the Canada Land Inventory, formerly in the Department of Agriculture, have been transferred to the secretariat. So questions to be asked on that should be asked of the Minister responsible for the secretariat.

MRS. JORDAN: So agriculture has moved out of Agriculture.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to question the Minister on No. 10: travelling expenses.

I've been trying to find out where the provision for automobile insurance for the number of vehicles within the department is. Could he give me the number of vehicles and the breakdown on the insurance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't know whether insurance is in that. The insurance premium is not in this travel figure. There is a separate vote; I'm not sure where it is in the estimates. I'm told that there is a separate vote covering insurance premiums.

MR. BENNETT: I was told by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) that it was in each departmental estimate and I'd like you to show me where it is.

HON. MR. STUPICH: My understanding is that they will be in the future but they're not in this year. Well, let's ask him then when his estimates come up.

My information, Mr. Chairman...all I can give is the information I have. My information is that they are not included in these figures.

MR. BENNETT: Can you give me the number of vehicles for which there is no insurance in these figures?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the figure that I would ask the Member to put on the order paper. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd remind the Member that I've answered every question that has been put on the order paper so far, and will certainly answer that one promptly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have the same type of question, Mr. Chairman. Travelling expenses are up to $18,000. Office expenses are up twice what they were last year. This is the type of fat in government which we think we should question, because it adds up to an enormous amount in every department. I wonder if he could indicate why there is an extra $13,000 for office expenses.

HON. MR. STUPICH: On the office expense? It is simply because we have found out that while these figures have from year to year remained fairly constant, with only a nominal increase, from year to year in particular areas, such as office expense, expenditures have been very much in excess of what has been provided in these sub-codes.

We realistically looked at them and increased them to what we feel will cover the expense rather than pretending that office expense isn't going to be comparable to what it was last year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister's remarks. We certainly want estimates to be accurate. That's why we think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is going to have a lot of trouble when her estimates come up. I would like to know, though, what the figure was last year, as opposed to the estimate last year. If this new and doubling figure, a figure of twice the size, is to take care of expenditures last year, undoubtedly your Deputy can provide you with information as to what the actual expenditure was last year.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the first 10 months the expenditures exceeded the provision by $7,000 for this one item.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): With respect to vote 4, there is an item almost at the bottom of the page: grants to universities for research. I note that the amount has increased from $50,000 to $100,000 for this current fiscal year.

Would the Minister tell me if these grants are unconditional grants? Are they unconditional grants, or is the money allocated with specific instructions towards certain specified research projects?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In co-operation with the university, we decide on projects and then the money is granted for these projects.

MR. SMITH: Then you have an idea, before you authorize the grants, of the specific research projects that you will be participating in on a monetary basis. Could the Minister give me some indication of the projects you are presently engaged in?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, not the specific projects for the year ahead, no. What we do is consult with the university before we spend any money on these grants to the universities, and then on the basis of the project decide to what extent we are going to support that particular project.

Last year the $50,000 was based on what had been in there before, and we had that figure. But I felt that there was a woeful inadequacy to co-operate with the university to the extent that we would have liked to,

[ Page 711 ]

and we asked for more money for this. Projects will be considered as they come up. But we don't have a list of projects right now adding up to $100,000.

MR. SMITH: Well, what projects were you in last year to spend $50,000? Could you give me an indication?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I could get a list of those and give you the amount spent on each one. There were studies of engineering; we were talking about waste-disposal programmes — a problem particularly in the Fraser Valley where there is so much population, animal and human population, so close together. We have been studying ways of trying to dispose of this waste, from an agricultural point of view, more efficiently.

We have been studying animal rations. The university has been studying them and submitting proposals to us. In total something like 25 or 30 different projects were supported by the Department of Agriculture under this code last year.

MR. SMITH: Are you in any way involved in any projects or research projects along the lines of discovering new forms of protein food or supplements to take the place of our locally grown and known dairy products and beef products? Is there any research going on in that direction?

HON. MR. STUPICH: For human consumption?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't know of any projects like that.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, some of the problems which I find in trying to analyse what's happening in this department are reflected perhaps best in item No. 30 where it lists office expense, and they show an office expense increase of $13,000. When you refer back to that page N26 which the Minister referred to, item 30 doesn't show anything in the form of rent.

I'm a little curious to know, first of all, where the 30 people are going to be accommodated, and why there is no rent or rent equivalent shown in this department. The same question applies, of course, to the automobiles and insurance. Those sorts of things become almost impossible to dig out. This is the sort of item I'd like the Minister to refer to.

Secondly, while he's looking that one up, he made a comment that one item was up $7,000 over the estimates for the first 10 months. We have only the first nine months in our interim financial statements. But the item that he referred to as being up $7,000 is showing here as being $1,000,001 below. When you extrapolate it out it would appear that he isn't going to spend it at all. So again I would like to know how you find that figure.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, of course, when you talk about $1,000,001 below, we're talking about entirely different totals, aren't we? I'm talking about one sub-code.

Now he wants to know how we compared in every one of these. If you want I'll give you the figures for each sub-code. But the point I was trying to make with you earlier is that that information was not available in estimate form before. He's drawn attention to office expense and says: what does this figure tell you when it's in this form?

If you look under Health Services you'll find a figure for office expense. Are you any further behind or further ahead?

MR. MORRISON: But again, Mr. Chairman, if you read item 30 on page N 26, it lists office expense as supplies and expenses required for the operation of offices. It doesn't say anything about the rent for them...and also the lease or purchase of office furniture and equipment. Now all we're talking about is the things that go in them. Well, where are the offices and where does the rent show up?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Sorry, I missed that question. That figure will be in Public Works. Public Works pays the rent on behalf of all government offices. That supplies buildings. They're not all rented, obviously. Public Works supplies the buildings or rents space for government departments.

MR. MORRISON: I realize that, but does not each department in their estimates have to include any of their office rent or its equivalent?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's being considered but it's not been accomplished yet. No, that's not in the accounts that way.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I too must express my concern about the form of the estimates, Mr. Chairman. When I compare the information that we did receive in previous years with what is contained in these estimates, it shows it to be sorely lacking in any kind of information.

The Minister said that we never got much information before. But it should be recognized by the committee that under what is now called departmental administration, previously called general administration, we had a complete list of all salaries, for example, which went to the Deputy Minister, the Assistant Deputy, agriculturists, the administrative officers, the engineers, laboratory scientists, research officers — position, after position,

[ Page 712 ]

after position, each bearing a proper code, each capable of being classified and enabling us to determine whether or not expansions of staff were being carried out in the areas where need existed.

We also find when we get over to the matter of straight expenses that we had far more items under general administration than is now the case. I wonder if the Minister would tell us what has happened to rebates on stumping powder, subsidies on agricultural lime, the expenses of the food control — only to name a few.

While I'm on my feet I might also point out that under the estimates we are currently considering we have an item, advertising and publications, which is classification 40. Now, previously we always used to have a code number which could be very carefully checked with the Comptroller-General to relate expenditure vouchers to these items in our estimate book.

But it shows this year, under advertising and publications, that the amount that was estimated in the previous year was $65,000. Yet, when I look at the estimates that we considered last spring, I find that there were two items: advertising and publicity $25,000; printing and publications $15,000. That totals $40,000, not $65,000. But we are now lumping them together, and the estimates, which should suggest to us that last year there was estimated $65,000, when in fact $40,000 was the figures, show this year we're estimating $75,000. So the increase this year is $35,000, not merely $10,000.

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, perhaps he would indicate clearly to us: are we to understand, with respect to his estimates, that if we wish to have information as to the classifications of employees and the gross salaries paid in those various classifications, we will henceforth be obliged to place questions on the order paper? I suggest to the Minister that if such is the case, then his department officials are going to be involved in the production of voluminous amounts of material which could easily have been solved by simply placing the facts before us in the estimates which we consider in this committee.

Perhaps the Minister would be good enough also to indicate with regard to classification 90 — unclassified research and project expenditures — exactly what it is that he proposes to do in this regard. He would indicate that last year a budgeted amount of $100,000 was available, and yet reference to the estimates of last year indicate that $100,000 was for demonstration and applied research. Now it's unclassified research and project expenditure; I'd like to know what the distinction is.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The distinction between...what was that again?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The distinction between what we had last year called "demonstration and applied research" and now we have "unclassified research and project expenditure." I want to know what the distinction is, and what you put within unclassified research.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The list of projects under the demonstration of agricultural technology and economics that was financed this year — I can file that list in complete detail. It was published in Country Life very recently, so the farmers have the information. You could probably get that publication, there was a complete list in there. I didn't bring the list with me — since it was published that way I thought the Members would be aware of it. I'll certainly make that list available. Some of those projects will be considered and some new ones will be added, but that's the programme for this year.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Where's the food council expenditure?

HON. MR. STUPICH: What vote was it in last year?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Four.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Vote 4 is in general administration again.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What classification is it under?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The food council is divided.... I'm working on it now. I know it's in vote 4.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed that the Minister doesn't know his way around his own estimates. I think this speaks again of why this is not a good system.

I am intrigued with code 75 and your explanation. You have allowed $25,000 last year and $30,000 this year, and your explanation is that it's the acquisition of machinery and equipment not included elsewhere — including purchase of aircraft, construction equipment, boats and ships. What's that all about, Mr. Minister? I'm not an economist and the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has rather rudely suggested that I don't understand economics, and I'm willing to accept that. But I think even in my naive way I wouldn't expect to buy ships and boats and aircraft with $25,000 or $30,000.

We would like to know what it's all about, and why when so much of the Agriculture's department authority is being removed to the Land Commission, and out of the Minister of Agriculture's hands, you need ships and aircraft.

[ Page 713 ]

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Member's question makes actually more sense than she intended it to, because code 75....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Would that rude Minister who tries to cover up his incompetence with inane and childish remarks withdraw, please? I don't mind what I call myself, but I do object to a Minister of the Crown.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): You're still a little-girl opposition Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm still bigger than you are.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister continue?

HON. MR. STUPICH: For those Members interested in at least looking at the new form and giving it some consideration, you will note that code 75 can be included under any of the votes. Now, maybe in some cases it isn't appropriate. But you'll see there's a code 75 under vote 4; there's one under vote 5; one under.... I won't bore you with looking any further — my point is: it's for acquisition of equipment. And in any vote where it's appropriate to acquire equipment, well then it refers to the type of equipment that might be acquired under that vote.

Here we are dealing with departmental administration, where it would not be appropriate to buy a boat; it would be appropriate to buy an adding machine. Now that's the sort of equipment that we're talking about in departmental administration. When we come to the next vote, production and marketing programme — same code number, same words — equipment — but quite different equipment.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to know why the Department of Agriculture has $30,000 allotted for not just adding machines, but as you say, aircraft, construction equipment, ships and boats. I don't want a dissertation on your accounting system. I want to know: does this Minister know what he's supposed to be purchasing in the way of ships and aircraft for $30,000, including adding machines? The Minister doesn't know his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 4 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: No, wait!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to answer the....

HON. MR. STUPICH: How many ships are we going to buy under general administration? I am not going to dignify that with an answer!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey make his point?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the Minister, with this new method of accounting here — there are two questions. First of all, if we ask for vouchers, ultimately, under this vote — before, we could ask for a code number which broke it down fairly well. I presume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when expenditures under the vote go to the Treasury Board, suppose there's unexpended money under vote 4030, incidentals and contingencies, they just consider the total vote, and if you overexpend under one code number, then you can use unexpended funds under another code number to supplement. In other words, you can go over on a code number within a vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No change.

MR. McGEER: It's always been that way? But you need a supplement. And if there is unexpended funds in the vote, then that goes back to the Treasury Board again. Say, if there's money left over in 4 and you needed money in 5, you've got to go back to the Treasury Board for that exchange, but code numbers within a vote are at departmental discretion.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Comptroller-General still has quite a lot to say about that. He questions very closely the appropriateness of a particular expenditure to the vote and code number that we are asking that it be charged to. These are all checked.

MR. McGEER: ...there is far less of the detail. We certainly can't see it in the books. You say it is being broken down in just as much detail into code numbers. It is just being presented in a more generalized form in the books — is that it? All of the Members are having trouble relating last year's detailed division, for example, of vote 4, which consumes almost two pages, with the cryptic notations under vote 4 in this year's books. It's half a page, and obviously there's been a great deal of condensation. That is how it is presented to us.

My question is: how is it controlled from within the department, and how do we pursue the detailed expenditures — ultimately by requesting vouchers?

HON. MR. STUPICH: You can request vouchers as you could in the past. It was the habit then to request them by vote and by code number, if you chose. It

[ Page 714 ]

was my habit, when I was in Public Accounts, to request by payee. I'm not suggesting that Public Accounts do that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It is all recorded — not here, but in Public Accounts. I found a way of doing it.

In any case, the hope of this plan is not to give less information, but to relate the details so that it makes more sense. As the Comptroller-General said in presenting this, it is hoped that the expenditures will be related to projects and programmes rather than to the specific items about which you have been raising questions.

Now, you've got into the habit, I suppose, of looking at it the old way, and you find that more interesting. Maybe that's what we will have to stay with. But it was the hope that it would be more informative, more interesting to the Members and to the public, to know more about programmes and projects and have them identified that way rather than the other way.

MR. MORRISON: Perhaps I could get a little closer to what I am driving at, then, in the 1974 red book on page N19, where it says "departmental administration." How does that relate to the 1973 book — the blue book? I realize that the vote numbers don't necessarily have to be the same, but we have also there listed "general administration." Now, is departmental administration only a part of general administration? Is this where we are getting confused?

HON. MR. STUPICH: One important difference is that before we had practically the whole staff of the department under general administration; this year the staff has been moved out to other votes. That's why last year's total under vote 4 in the red book is much less, as you say, than the total that was there the year before. The reason largely is that the staff are now under various votes. That's supposed to be one of the benefits — the staff will be related to the project, rather than to this grab-bag of general administration.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I think that is probably where part of the confusion is coming from — the fact that departmental administration is only a part of that previous general administration figure. But we find it difficult to relate some of the expenses then, too, because they appear to turn up in other votes, and I find it hard to try and find out which expense rightfully belongs to that department.

For example, one of them, in the previous book item 29, which was "motor vehicles and accessories," at $50,000, does not appear — at least if it does, I don't know where it is — in this particular vote. Now, does that relate to some other vote, or where do I find it? How do I get a comparison?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, that would be code 75 — equipment. And there is some under general administration. I'm not saying that there are any motor vehicles necessarily in that figure, but the bulk is....

MR. MORRISON: Well, it was $50,000 last year. Where are they this year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The vehicles?

MR. MORRISON: Yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You will find them under vote 5, because most of the vehicles in the Department of Agriculture are associated with the production and marketing programmes of the department, rather than with the general administration.

MR. MORRISON: I'm sure you can see why we find this extremely confusing; there is just no way to relate them. I don't know how anybody is going to figure out what has transpired. Maybe when we are used to the new system, but....

HON. MR. STUPICH: Ask the question, and if I don't have an answer I'll get it. But I have a short list here and I think I can find anything that was in last year and tell you where it is this year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the fact that this is a new system, but when we have less than one-third of the information provided that we had last year in terms of breakdown — a third of the space on the page — we find it very difficult to correlate. I just don't think that the best way of going about this would be for us to question line by line what happened last year and try and find out where it occurs this year, and that's pretty well what you ask us to do with your last statement about the fact that you have the information there. We don't have it here, and it is complicated.

In these votes, for example, we don't know what the salaries of particular people are or the increases in individual numbers or individual categories are. I think that — as we are probably going to break for lunch anyway; I trust we are — you could put your departmental officials on to the job of preparing something approximating last year's breakdown so that we could then relate the two.

I appreciate fully that this is an experimental system that you have introduced, and you've been perfectly frank in saying that it is going to take time

[ Page 715 ]

getting used to, but we don't have any transitional document from one to the other. No doubt your departmental officials could, for example, take last year's figures and relate them directly to this year's votes, because we are having a little difficulty over here. We are not finding the information, and we think that if this were done this way we would appreciate a little better your new breakdown.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, vote 4 this year is comparable to vote 4 last year — same heading — except that the various codes as detailed on N26 have been transferred from general administration when it is appropriate to transfer them to the remaining votes, such as production and marketing programmes, agriculture and rural development programmes, and so on.

When we come to vote 5, if we do come to vote 5, it's the same thing. Last year it was production services and this year it is production services. Vote 6: last year's special services are included in vote 5 this year.

So 5 and 6 from last year are both included in production and marketing services, because they are production and marketing services.

If you would care to note it, 5 and 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are all included in vote 5 this year, because they are, indeed, all production and marketing services.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay, repeat that again.

HON. MR. STUPICH: 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14. Those votes from last year are all in vote 5. And then vote 5 this year, as I said, also includes things that were formerly in vote 4, like salaries.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is very little information on that page.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, we haven't come to that yet.

Vote 4 approved.

On vote 5: production and marketing programme, $5,921,786.

MR. SMITH: There are a couple of points that I would like to make under this vote. The first thing I would like to do is direct the Minister's attention to the vote for weed control in conjunction with regional districts. I note that that vote is up from $10,000 to $200,000. Now, clearly this must anticipate a greatly accelerated programme of weed control in the province.

I'd like the Minster to tell us just what he envisions in this programme, whether there will be financial commitments by the regional district out of funds available to them on a joint basis with the provincial government, and whether the programme takes into consideration the control of weeds on rights-of-way that belong to the province in right of the Crown, be they Hydro roads, pipelines, or whatever.

What type of a programme, Mr. Minister, do you intend to participate in, and will the regional districts themselves, and the municipalities or whatever, be contributing funds to make this programme workable?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, you will recall and the Hon. Member opposite will recall that the Weed Control Act, which was discussed in the fall session, made provision for co-operation with the regional districts and even at times anticipated in the case of some regional districts at least that there might be financial co-operation. There would be a certain minimum programme that we would operate under our own legislation. In other instances we would co-operate with regional districts that felt the basic programme wasn't sufficient for their needs, and there was some willingness on the part of local people to support a better programme.

With respect to the concerns opposite about not being able to find things, it was recognized, I think, very early in the scheme that this was different. I suppose I'm a bit disappointed in that you've had this form available to you now for three weeks. The Members of the Liberal Party, who are particularly concerned about this, have had them for three weeks and have had research staff assigned to them. We've been four days on the estimates when these estimates have been before them, and yet this would appear to be the first time they have seen fit to raise any questions about any details.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You've had three weeks with this before you, you have research staff paid for by the government, and you could have had any amount of back-up material if you had given some indication as to the kind of information you would have liked to have had today.

You chose not to do that. That's your choice. But now the estimates are before you and we're dealing with them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...his comment passes unchallenged.

MR. SMITH: Could I pursue the same question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm asking the Member to pursue his question.

[ Page 716 ]

MR. SMITH: I'm not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My point of order is this: the Minister has made accusations that we're not looking at this. We cannot in this House discuss votes until we come to them. We now come to them; we discuss them. It's fair enough, I think, to ask you some of the questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is a point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm saying it's not a point of order. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: I want to pursue just a little further this matter of this weed-control programme because it is a new programme, as the Minister has outlined. Who is to take the initiative in the programme? Is it the anticipation of your department that the regional districts will set up a programme with which you will co-operate or will your department actually initiate the programme? If so, do you have specific areas of the province in mind or is it a general programme throughout the whole province?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, from a priority point of view there are specific areas in mind, yes. We know there are particular weed problems in some special areas and we will want to direct our attention to those first.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, under office expenses, item 30, $68,500 is shown. The Minister read out the number of previous votes which are included in this new vote 5; the total happens to be $86,000. I'd like to know how he gets the discrepancy of $86,000 under the estimates of the previous year and $68,500 printed in this year's estimates.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are there any further questions, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've asked your question; you'll get your answer from the Minister. He doesn't have to give you that answer now.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a couple of questions about the marketing-board situation. In view of the fact that the information we have before us now shows that the programme to expand the egg-marketing scheme throughout the province has collapsed, have you contacted these people from the B.C. Egg Producers Association and called them into meetings? What are your plans in regard to this expansion?

Secondly, I'd like you to clear up a question for me that you answered yesterday for the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) with regard to the suggestion that egg quotas for valley producers be cut back from the 90 per cent they're now established at by a further 10 per cent.

The Minister said in answer to that question that he wasn't aware of any such suggestions, but published reports in the paper have indicated that was a suggestion by poultry commissioner Bill Wood in that leaked confidential report we referred to earlier. It seemed to me the report was leaked to everyone but the Minister. Would the Minister care to comment on these questions, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been many discussions and many memoranda in the department on this whole question of the egg industry. The one you are talking about was an interdepartmental memorandum. It's not my policy. Now, what's your problem? What's your question? I have not adopted that policy. I can't remember how you phrased it now: you say the scheme has failed?

MR. McCLELLAND: The programme has collapsed.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Collapsed, that's right. I don't recognize that it has collapsed. I have heard from you to the effect that it has collapsed, and you have read out several times in the course of the vote 3 debate that there was a resolution passed at the poultry association meeting. That resolution may very well be on my desk; I haven't had much opportunity to look at my desk in the past four days. It may be waiting for me. If I become convinced that the scheme has collapsed, well then, I'll have to find some way of getting the scheme reorganized and start all over again. I'm not yet convinced that it has indeed collapsed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister can get off his high horse and answer some questions some of the producers are concerned about without being sarcastic, I'd ask him if this is the right vote and how much he has allotted for the food fair. I understand that in the previous government's administration there was $10,000 in 1972. Last year you only budgeted and gave $6,000. I'd like to know how much you've budgeted this year, where the budget is, and, if you've cut it down this year, why. Why did you cut it down last year?

[ Page 717 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have forgotten what figure you said. The actual grant was $7,500 last year. The provision is in grants under this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: How much have you budgeted for it specifically this year and, if it's down, why?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The cut-down last year was because some sections of the agricultural industry declined to take part in the programme. Whether they will or not this year, I don't know. I have written letters to some of them urging them to come back in and to participate because we would like to include agriculture as widely as we can.

We have the money to contribute in the grants programme if they will participate. I can't guarantee their participation.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you change the ground rules for their participation? I understand there was some concern where it insisted it become a more comprehensive display with more people putting input. There was a lot of concern that certain aspects of the industry lost their identity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We didn't change the ground rules; we did make some attempt to get them to consolidate their efforts and, instead of having separate displays, to work together and to produce a really worthwhile display for agriculture. But we didn't change the ground rules that would encourage any of them not to participate. We want maximum participation.

MRS. JORDAN: But don't you think one of the problems you're running into is the fact that they are losing their identity? You could get an overall effective display, if in fact, you left them with more of an onus to their own identity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't quite know. The honey producers, for example, stayed out. I don't know how they could be losing their identity. They are a very particular group and yet they chose to stay out. I'm hoping this year they'll choose to come in. I'm not sure what the Member is driving at when she says they're losing their identity because of something we are doing in this programme. If they have separate displays, separate booths, we want it to be the kind of thing to build up the whole picture, if you like. But they do have separate displays.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I asked the Minister once with regard to what is included in vote 5. You gave us the number of votes from last year that had been drawn together under this vote. What was in vote 4 last year? Also in vote 5.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In vote 4, salaries were a very large part of general administration last year and this has been allocated among other votes. Do you want to know other items apart from salaries, like office expenses, for example?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, that's the only one. So salaries out of vote 4 have now been moved forward to vote 5, and also items from vote 6, 8 and 11 and 12.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I won't say there are salaries in all those votes particularly, but yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to salary classification in vote 5, the increase is $500,000 and yet the number of persons employed is only increased by eight. Are you suggesting or can we conclude that you've hired eight people at $60,000 a year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No. You will notice that the number of executive and senior management people with a higher salary group have increased by 50 per cent. You'll notice that the professional and technical people have been increased by only three. There was a 10 per cent salary adjustment — it was more than 10 per cent — last year. You'll recall the first settlement the present administration made to the employees; it was a minimum of 10 per cent or $75 a month, whichever was greater. So the salary adjustment was in excess of 10 per cent. In addition to that salary adjustment which accounts for in excess of $310,000, there are the increases to staff.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A specific question. You've increased executive and senior management by two. Could you identify the employment category? Can you tell me if the categories are filled or unfilled, and in the other case what salaries do you intend to pay to those two new classifications?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There's one remaining to be filled. We've been looking for some time for the right person to fill that position.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What kind of a position is it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Research and economics.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Both of them?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it's a combined position. There is one position remaining to be filled. The others have been filled.

[ Page 718 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Both in research and economics?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That one person will do both.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Who's the other new employee? What classification?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, it's not a new employee; it's a transfer. We get into this bag of transferring from other votes. We have moved people from special services which last year was vote 6. The top man there was moved into the production and marketing programme. That accounted for one of them. The other is a position yet to be filled.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How much do you propose to pay for the research economist?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The position was advertised, I believe, at from a range of $21,000 to $24,000.

MR. MORRISON: This again is part of the problem as I look at vote 5, and we get into the administration item No. 1. We show a staff increase of only two people and yet we show a salary increase then of $63,353.

Item 2, which I assume includes some staff — it shows the staff increase of two — went up $188,125.

Item 3, livestock, shows a staff increase of four people but a total increase of $402,666.

These are some of the reasons we're a little unhappy with this. It's hard to sort out what is staff increase, what is wages and what is in other departments. There's no way you can relate them and, frankly, that's why I much prefer the old system. At least the staff position, although not named... The position was there and the salary structure was there and we could take that out of it and decide what was left in that extension or livestock department. Could I have an explanation of those three items now, please?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As you say, administration includes an increase in staff of two. But then under administration as well...

MR. MORRISON: That $63,000 is shown.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, but you see in addition to staff...surely as an accountant you'll recognize that office expenses are part of administration. So there are all these things that...it's just two ways of arriving at the same total.

MR. MORRISON: Well, in the past you showed it; then I could take that out because the staff position at least was there and I could total that....

HON. MR. STUPICH: You know the total staff. Do you want a breakdown under each of the activities as well?

MR. MORRISON: Right. I'd like to know how much of that increase of $63,000 was staff, and how much of it was activity.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Okay, I think you're getting more information this way than you were the other way. But you want it a different way.

MR. MORRISON: I could take it out of there with no trouble at all last year.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to ask a question in regard to conditions of employment. I understand that there are some highly competent agricultural people applying for positions with the department that cannot be filled under the present qualification requirements — i.e. a Canadian citizen or British subject.

I wonder, in view of the fact that one or two of these people, as I understand it, who are applying and who don't qualify on that basis, are almost thought to be world authorities, and we can't fill the positions within the confines of Canadian citizen, or British subject, if he's going to waive this. There is a specific instance in the Kelowna office.

I'd like to go back to code 75, and I shall, with every respect and as courteously as I can, ask the Minister — which in this area reflects $200,000 and, according to his notes, reflects an interest in purchase of aircraft, construction equipment, ships and boats — for a detailed explanation of what he intends to do under this vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't know whether I made myself clear before, but under this uniform expenditure classification this is the classification that would apply to every department we moved into this. So the reference to boats and aircraft — the terminology, the description — would be exactly the same for every department if we moved into this system of presentation.

So while code 75 describes....

MRS. JORDAN: You mean I have to ask that question under all departments before I get an answer?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, I think perhaps the Minister could use a bit of ingenuity in determining under what department....

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not the Minister any more.

[ Page 719 ]

You are.

HON. MR. STUPICH: My apologies. I'm not sorry, but I apologize for my mistake. I think you could, with a bit of ingenuity, determine under which department you should ask whether or not it is the intention of the department to purchase any aircraft. For myself it is not the department policy to purchase aircraft, construction equipment, ships or planes. But we will be purchasing....

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I'm listening. You'll be purchasing...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I had a question to the Minister on how office expenses which previously totalled $86,000 under the careful and detailed breakdown suddenly wound up at $58,500 for the year 1973-74.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The department administrative officer, in consultation with the Comptroller-General in arriving at these figures, came to the conclusion that there were a lot of items formerly called office expenses that were deserving of something a little better than office expense.

If you want a detailed breakdown in this particular instance as a matter of information as to why they were changed and what the specific figures were and where they all ended up, I'll provide that.

But that's the theory behind it — that the old heading "office expense" was being too generally used to throw in a lot of stuff. Sometimes accountants do that. When they don't know where else to put it they call it office expense. This is intended to be a more accurate reflection of what should properly be called office expense.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This may be, Mr. Minister, but we voted last year on office expenses of $86,000. We find this year that somehow it's disappeared. Now I agree you can change things around, but our difficulty is trying to relate to two systems. It said $86,000 when we passed it last year and you defended that vote. Now apparently you've abandoned it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: But we haven't abandoned any of the money; the money has been moved to another code number. In this case it's gone to materials, supplies, and utilities; it's in code 50 — the amount by which office expense was decreased in the estimates.

Now when we get to public accounts, of course, the public accounts for the year ending March 31, 1974, will show the estimates as they were for the year. But in this case, rather than show the old figures, which would be rather meaningless compared to new figures if we had changed the meaning of the description, we felt we should try to break down the old figures and show how they would have looked had we been on this system.

In retrospect, going through the debate right now, if we had left that figure as it was, then it would be a much easier task, but it would not have been nearly as informative.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the problem is that we have no basis of comparison by the Minister's own statement — no basis except the overall totals. No matter how much research we do, no matter how much time we spend on this, the difficulty we face is that we have to reconstruct things which we felt we passed upon last year and which we thought might reappear.

You talk, for example, of some of the office expenses going to material supplies and utilities. But "material supplies and utilities" is used this year, and yet "equipment machinery and supply" was used last year. The difficulty is that we don't know where the money has gone, we don't know where the breakdown is. We can only examine total.

For example, here, material supplies and utilities they put down last year as $135,955. Yet when you total up last year's equipment, machinery and supply, it's over $220,000. Now there is a substantial discrepancy of $100,000. I'd like to know where it is.

MR. MORRISON: Again, item 60: I'd like to know what rentals includes. That one is a little hard to sort out. Also item 10: we're talking about travelling expenses last year of $471,300. This year we're projecting an increase of $121,700. I'd like to know what goes into that.

As far as I can find, I don't know where the rentals came from that they got the $20,000 for this year. I couldn't find rentals last year and yet you've shown $20,000 as being somewhere. You found it in that budget — I don't know where — and you've got $23,000 as projected this year.

The two questions are the travelling and the rentals.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The rentals referred to here in the Department of Agriculture are for equipment or, well, generally equipment that's rented.

MR. MORRISON: When you say equipment, now do you mean office equipment?

HON. MR. STUPICH: When we're dealing with production and marketing, no. But when we are in the other vote, yes. In this case it might be agriculture equipment that we're renting for research purposes. We might rent equipment. On occasion we even rent helicopters, for example.

[ Page 720 ]

Sometimes it would be properly under travel. If we're going somewhere, if it's to review something, to look over something, then it's not considered travel. It's considered looking at that particular project and then it's under rental.

MR. MORRISON: Would you be renting land also and that sort of thing for experimental work?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It could be. Not so much experimental work, but we've looked at land with the point of view of developing community pastures. Under those circumstances it would be appropriate to call it rentals rather than travel.

MR. MORRISON: What about the travel item? You've got $121,000 increase in travels...

HON. MR. STUPICH: It was a Treasury Board decision to simply increase travel across the board. This was discussed to some extent last year. Under the previous administration there had been a very tight lid kept on travel, particularly for staff. Under the present administration we felt that we were losing out a lot in not letting staff attend short conferences that were held all over the country and, to some extent, in the States as well. We've allowed a good deal more of that to take place, and we've found that we've had to increase substantially.

Rather than have each Minister come in and try to justify a particular increase for his department, Treasury decided to grant a substantial increase across the board and see what their experience is this year.

MR. MORRISON: Could I ask also, Mr. Chairman: would that travel allowance item, gasoline and those sorts of expenditures, appear in that place, or would I find them again somewhere else? In other words, for any company cars or staff cars, where would the gasoline be charged to?

HON. MR. STUPICH: This is gasoline for the government cars, you mean?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, would that be a travel item?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That would be a travel item.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I guess this is the appropriate point then to ask. I'd like to ask what the department's policy is for staff usage of government cars, and are the government cars again stickered on the door so they are identifiable or do you have a licence number that identifies them; do you have a code system? And what is the arrangement for people taking government vehicles home or using them on weekends for private use; or exactly what is your department's policy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The policy has not changed in this regard. The staff cars are all identified with the decal and they are to be used for official uses only. Some members of staff, the district agriculturists in particular, for example, use them to drive back and forth to their office from home, but they're not supposed to be used on weekends for private pleasure driving or things like that.

MR. MORRISON: Well, it must be obvious that there is a great deal of this happening, not only around the city. It's probably a little more obvious to me because I cover this area. But it's very common to see cars, which, frankly, I think belong in your department, around on weekends. Some of them I know and have identified do not have stickers on them. Because of the licence number sequence it's pretty easy to identify government cars.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If you have any specific instances, I'd certainly be quite happy to look into them and get an answer. To the best of my knowledge the cars are all identified. It's quite possible the staff are using them on weekends on official business, because in the Department of Agriculture — I suppose in many of the other departments as well, but certainly in the Department of Agriculture — members of staff are often involved on weekends.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, just following on that point. Mr. Minister, a number of your departmental employees would use their own vehicles. I think we've seen this throughout the province, and the expenses paid would be included in this vote, is that correct?

Would you give us an idea of the percentage? Do most of your departmental people use government cars? Is the privately-used automobile in the minority? I know a number of DAs appear to be driving their own automobiles and at considerable expense in the long-term life of that automobile, by the way. They have to travel over some pretty rough ground.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Again, it's the old policy; there's been no change. But a government employee that is driving so much that in the course of the year he would rack up 12,000 or more miles, is required to use a government car rather than claim mileage for his own vehicle.

Now whether or not a particular government employee is entitled to a vehicle depends not just on mileage, but on other peculiar aspects of his responsibilities. I'm not saying he has to drive 12,000 miles to get a vehicle. I'm saying that he can't claim

[ Page 721 ]

any more than 12,000 miles. He's obliged to have a government vehicle beyond that.

MR. CURTIS: Such criteria as the territory to which he's been assigned, and the nature of his specific work?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question of travel came up with the First Member for Victoria. I have searched this and have found no way of coming to the figure of $471,000 for travel last year. Mine comes under $438,000. I wonder where the extra might be. It's a substantial increase, of course, between this year and last year, even on the figures put forward in vote 5. But when you compare it with the vote of two years ago, it's a quantum jump of enormous proportions. It's well over double.

I would like to know precisely where that figure was arrived at, because I feel the figures here cheat. What they do is show a higher total for last year than what we actually voted last year.

HON. MR. STUPICH: If I could just give an example, there was a vote last year — vote 11, "rodent control" — which is one blanket figure for rodent control. Now part of rodent control is travel. As I suggested earlier, if you want that kind of breakdown, well, of course, it's going to take a lot more research to give you specific answers. But in this instance, one of the reasons you've fallen short in trying to arrive at that figure is rodent control. There's a lot of travel involved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Minister, then, on the question of materials, supplies and utilities and equipment, machinery and supply: will he give the rationale behind the change in breakdown and how it occurs? There are substantial funds involved and I just don't see the change in breakdown.

I will be happy, while the Minister is searching for an answer, to speak at some length so that his assistants can inform him of where the change occurs. While I'm doing that, I might refer to other votes there.

Last year we voted $10,000 for artificial insemination: I fail to find it this year. Are we going back to natural methods or are we simply changing our approach? Are we no longer in this programme? I ask this question because last year we cut down substantially the amount of money we voted to artificial insemination, and this year apparently we've cut it out altogether.

Livestock improvement is another area where I'd like to ask what has happened to the vote. There are plenty of others. There are all sorts of them down here but perhaps the Minister is now ready to answer my earlier question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: This one you don't really want an answer to, do you? You're just giving me time to find the answer to the other one. This one I can answer; it's in special services. Artificial insemination is in professional and special services.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Natural insemination is under amateur services, is that correct?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I said professional and special, not amateur.

The other questions you asked: items for machinery and equipment were scattered throughout the votes that I said are now included under vote 5, under the recirculation. If you want specific information as to how you arrive at any one of these figures that you want, well, then I will provide that. But give it to me in writing. Slip a note across or something and then I'll get it to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll be happy to send the Minister notes if he'd prefer me to write rather than to speak.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Or just put it on the order paper if you like.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But another question is weed control in conjunction with regional districts. Now we had a certain amount of weed control last year. Control of noxious weeds: labour, material and supplies went up from $8,500 to $10,000. Taken over two years, it's gone from $8,500 to $200,000.

HON. MR. STUPICH: For weed control?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, for weed control. Perhaps we'll have some explanation of that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, yes. You recall the legislation that we passed in the fall session. So we are considering getting involved in a much heavier weed control programme than we did before. Also it involves co-operation with the regional districts. There'll be some funding of local programmes as well. So it's a much expanded programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister then, in view of the concern in the public mind about herbicide programmes, the B.C. Hydro spraying in particular, what type of $200,000 programme this is going to be? Are we going to increase by twenty-fold the amount of herbicide sprayed in British Columbia or not?

[ Page 722 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: The programmes will be appropriate to the weed and to the area that we're working on. You'll recall there was discussion in the fall session. I said then that one of the reasons for having the local committees was that there would be local consideration of the very questions that you have raised.

In some areas there should be local opportunity to discuss whether or not there should be a particular method of weed control. Now I can't answer that generally. It's a situation where we're going to allow for more local consideration and we'll listen to the local people.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Minister would now be able to answer my question about equipment, machinery and supply and material, supplies and utilities.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's hear the question specifically again.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thought you'd been working on it for the last 20 minutes. The question is this: because of the variation in the heading, what I took as last year to be $220,000 — what we voted last year — occurs here as $135,955. Now there's been a change in the things you throw under this heading and I'd like to know on what basis it's been made.

There's no way we can compare this year's expenditures with any previous year when not only are they consolidated, as you talked about earlier, but the headings are so changed around and chopped around that it's impossible to trace.

So I'd like to know how you've come to the decision in item 50 — materials, supplies and utilities — and how this differs from last year's item 16 — equipment, machinery and supplies.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are there any other questions, Mr. Chairman?

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to discuss, just for a minute, 4H Clubs and other prizes and awards. It was 25.4 last year supposedly and 26.9 this year. My understanding is that there should have been an accelerated programme to develop or have the opportunity to develop 4H Club activities in the lower mainland and in some of the metropolitan areas.

I'd like to know if this money is to be spent solely for prizes and awards or are there going to be some types of other monetary contributions to 4H Clubs. Does this include the government's contribution towards the PNE in terms of 4H activities? How, in fact, is the expansion of 4H Clubs coming along, and has, in fact, the government given any thought, in light of the fact that they seem to like to pay everybody, to offering some form of expenses or remuneration to people that oversee or are leaders in 4H Clubs?

This is a major problem because they are farmers themselves. They have to work long hours. They've got a lot of problems and they want to give to the 4H but there is a lack of leadership. There are lots of young people that would like to belong and I wonder whether the Minister has thought of doing this, or expanding his programme, and if so where would the funds be for it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as the 4H programme at the P.N.E., it is federally sponsored, not provincially. The nominal increase, relatively nominal increase in this amount, is because of the fact that the new programme really hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Now whether it will pick up during the year I don't know. But there is sufficient money in here, at the rate at which it looks as though we will get going, the recently announced programme will be covered by this amount.

The matter of paying community-minded people who have been working with 4H, students or 4H children in the past, has never come to my attention. No one has asked for it. Up to now it would seem that the people doing it feel that they are doing something they want to do for the sake of doing it themselves, rather than getting any kind of remuneration for it.

Certainly I don't think it would be my position to initiate discussions with them as to whether or not they should get it, or how much they should get for it. They like to do it for the sake of doing and I like to think that some people in the community are prepared to put that kind of effort and that kind of time into what is a very worthwhile programme.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I wouldn't disagree with the Minister on that, and I'd be the last person to initiate payment. But I do feel that some of the problems are that they do put a lot of time in and they're glad to do it, but when it comes to transporting these young people on trips, all the money has to be generated locally, as I understand it, and so often these groups are in small communities where their sole source of revenue for all of the development programmes is from a very small group of people.

I don't want the Minister to misunderstand. I'm not suggesting you pay them, but I'm suggesting that perhaps there should be some provision for matching grants or third grants to help cover the expenses of people so that these children can get around to local fairs and displays. It doesn't have to be a next door situation.

There's no question that 4H club activities can play a tremendously interesting and beneficial role in young people in the future, more so probably than

[ Page 723 ]

they have in the past. Because this organization is a problem and because a lot of the 4H time is spent raising money, if there could be some incentive perhaps on a group basis to help pay the expenses. I think the Minister would find this helpful.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, as I said, I've never been asked for this so I've not given it any consideration at all. My own personal experience with 4H is that usually they get together and the leaders provide cars and transport the children in that way. I've never been asked for anything else beyond that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there's the item here for advertising in publications of $200,700 and it's the same this year as last year. I checked out last year's figures and we never voted anything for advertising at all. I presume it's a reference to B.C. food promotion which is another expenditure which apparently is not cross referenced.

I would like the confirmation of the Minister on that, and I wonder whether he would indicate whether this programme is to continue. In my mind it appears to be in limbo if it's left at the same level. I feel that much of the expenditure in past years has not been very beneficial to the agricultural communities. It has not made any substantial increase in the amount of B.C. produce eaten in British Columbia by British Columbians and I wonder whether he'd like to give us the benefit of the department's cost benefit analysis of the advertising under the B.C. food promotion from past years. I have heard grave doubts as to whether it's very valuable at all.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As to whether the programme is very valuable?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Whether the advertising is — well is it the same programme, for one thing?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well it's a similar programme. The provision for this last year was $200,000. This year the comparable provision would be $250,000. The amount of advertising in publications, the amount that is going to be spent on advertising alone is in this. In addition there are staff members involved in the programme, but the total expenditure in the programme is going up by $50,000.

We think the programme is well worthwhile. It's new and we're still developing it. One reason that it isn't considerably larger is that there's some different ideas being tried and different emphasis on the advertising programme, so we're still to some extent feeling our way in what is a new programme. This is the second year of operation, and that's as far as I want it to go in the second year.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just if the Member wouldn't mind.... I noticed the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) is in the House. I want to apologize to the House and I didn't want to do it until he was here because he asked me a very specific question about the funds for car insurance that I was led to believe was not in these estimates. It is indeed here, the Member was quite correct. It's in vote 5. It's in code 20. The amount I can't give you. I can't tell you how much that is but I will get that information.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, can I take from the Minister's reply that we are cutting down on the amount of money which last year went to B.C. food promotion?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, up to $202,500. Some is in advertising, some is in salaries.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In other words the B.C. food promotion is now split up and we can no longer see it as a separate item? Is that the case?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. You'd have to ask me how much we are going to spend on food promotion — it will be $250,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well this is a difficulty. Can I ask him then if we last year spent $200,700 on advertising in publications, where the other publications and other advertising came from? I'm not too sure. It seems to me that last year we spent $200,000 on food promotion and I had assumed that it had been directly transferred to this advertising in publications vote. If that is the case somehow or another there are other moneys which perhaps should have been included in that last year's figure because it's impossible to find where it might have come from.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well the figure here, advertising and publications, includes all of the advertising in all of the publications, including bulletins put out by the department that are associated with the production and marketing programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Food promotion?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Part of the advertising.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did we spend $200,000 last year?

HON. MR. STUPICH: $20,000 or $200,000?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps my question isn't clear enough. On the lefthand column about four

[ Page 724 ]

down on item 40 you have $200,700 for advertising in publications. What I'm trying to find out is that if that was what we voted last year for this particular thing, where has the extra money gone? Because you mentioned a number of other things such as publications that come from your office in great numbers and flood my mail box when I'm not at home.

These things are no doubt very valuable but the fact of the matter is that it appears to me looking at last year's figures that we voted a lot more for this type of advertising in publications and actually it is indicated in this year's figures.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, last year I suppose you didn't really see this figure in front of you when you voted for advertising and publications. You didn't see the figure $200,700 — that's a reconstituted figure. But that figure represents all of the advertising and publication money that was voted for my department a year ago.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In B.C. food promotion?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Partly. The advertising that was going to be under B.C. food promotion is included in this figure and is again this year. Wages that were involved, salaries that were involved in the B.C. food promotion programme, are included in this $200,700 and they are also included — sorry, not the salaries. The salaries are not included, they've been moved up to salaries. But last year when you saw the figure for food promotion you saw one round amount of $200,000. Now the $200,000 has indeed been spent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There was one home economics person that worked with the programme last year, that was included.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Is there not a nutritionistic programme, if that's the correct term and it probably is not, under this vote or under your department? My question is, Mr. Minister, do we find out about the nutritionistic programme in the Province of B.C. through you or through the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Health.

Vote 5 approved.

On vote 6: agricultural and rural development programme, $4,422,000.

MR. SMITH: In looking over the detail of this particular vote I'd like to direct the Minister's attention to the amount of money made available for ARDA programmes. It's approximately the same as last year — $4,400,000 or a little better — but in the detail of votes 1 to 6 there is a wide variation in what was allocated last year and the comparable amount for this year.

For instance, last year for irrigation and farm water supply the vote was $2 million, this year it's $2.5 million so that's up $500,000. Resource processing facilities was $400,000; it's now $1,200,000, up $800,000. Then the item right below this, farm drainage, last year had $1,600,000, now down to $300,000 so that's a drop of $1,300,000.

Would the Minister try to correlate the programme so that I could understand exactly what is going on? Does that mean that you're actually cutting back on the farm drainage programme by $1.3 million, or does it mean that you have just shifted it to somewhere else?

Perhaps the Minister could give me some idea of the detail on this. I see the total figure is about the same, but certainly there is wide variation and discrepancy within each individual vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the areas where the new form is quite different from the old one. Under the old one you would have had one vote, $5.5 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, look at your last year's estimates that you've been referring to. You have one figure — $5.5 million. Here we have half a page showing some details of the programme — information that you didn't have before. As far as the specific work, you will appreciate that these projects take something like two years to get rolling, and by this time of year we know with a fair degree of certainty what projects will come on line in the year ahead. They all have to be negotiated with Ottawa, so we can give information. We know ahead of time just what projects we are going to be working on in the year ahead. The figures are different, because of these particular projects. Now, next year the emphasis might be on drainage, in co-operation with the federal government.

MR. SMITH: If I might pursue this just for a moment, as I understand the figures as you have recorded them in the vote here, there is actually going to be $1.3 million less spent on projects for farm drainage in this fiscal year than there was in the prior fiscal year. That's what your vote shows — a decrease from $1.6 million to $300,000, So in that particular programme, whatever it may have been that was completed last year, you are now cutting back on

[ Page 725 ]

that particular phase of the development. Is that right?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not really a phase, but it means that last year there were — I don't know the details — some pretty heavy farm drainage programmes on line, in co-operation with the federal government. This year it would appear that there are heavier irrigation and resource processing facilities projects on line. Now, as I say, this year we are working on this year's projects, and we are also planning the following year's, and it could well be that the following year will be irrigation again.

MR. SMITH: The resource processing facilities vote is up $800,000 from the previous year. This would indicate plans for, I presume, additional processing facilities. Can you give me some indication of what those facilities are? What programmes have actually been approved for this year?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise one quick point. I hope I'm under the right vote, but it is another example of the awesome power that this government has taken upon itself. This is contained in the kind of thing that this government does with a single stroke of the pen — contained in the resume of orders-in-council of February 26, where I see that the Peckham's Lake bull control area and the Maycook-Rampart bull control area have been cancelled. With a single stroke of the pen they've been cancelled.

I want the Minister to tell us if the bulls are running rampant in the Peckham's Lake bull control area and in the Maycook-Rampart bull control area.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A question was asked on the resource-processing facilities. The Tofino fishery project was approved last year and it is expected that the money will be spent this year. There was the Bulkley Valley Forest Products programme that was approved last year. There was another forest industry project — these are special ARDA programmes but the money shows in here.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Just one question. I know that really it isn't under this vote at all, but the headings of "rural development, land use," are used here. It is a problem that exists in Omineca, that the land that is available — that is, the raw land, uncultivated or uncleared — is being reserved for only people who are already farming. They either must have a minimum of 40 acres or 80 per cent, whichever is the greatest amount of land under cultivation.

I know, Mr. Minister, that you have no control over this, but it does cause me great anxiety to know that I have great numbers of potential farmers in my area who, because they aren't financially in a position to buy an existing farm, are now prohibited by this from going into the farming industry, and taking a piece of raw land and developing it. I'm very anxious that the Minister might be able to negotiate with his counterparts in the other branches of the cabinet to make available some of this land to potential farmers.

I think it is a shame that a man who doesn't have those funds isn't able to get a piece of land to bring into production, because this is how the existing farms were brought in in the first place. The land freeze and what-have-you have made it that much more difficult.

Somehow or another I would like to encourage at least people who are bona fide farmers. Many of the people who moved into our area, like the average fellow who arrived maybe a few years back, worked for a few years until they accumulated enough assets to maybe get themselves a little piece of land. Today it is even more difficult because of the high cost.

I know that it is only because of a related incident pertaining to rural development that assistance in the rural areas and communities for improvement of income.... This is one of the things I referred to. I think there should be some relationship between my problem and the vote we are discussing.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as far as assistance for the individual like that goes, with respect to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), surely he wouldn't expect me to bring political pressure to bear on the Minister of Lands. But you are talking about individual projects, and these are more appropriate under votes 7 and 8, and vote 6 — ARDA — and we must have a minimum of seven people being affected by the project before it can be considered as an ARDA project. There are other qualifications as well, but it must affect a minimum group of seven. But we can talk about special help for individuals under votes 7 and 8.

Vote 6 approved.

On vote 7: financial and special assistance programme, $3,471,436.

MR. SMITH: I would think that this is the vote under which I would have to take these particular matters up with the Minister.

Earlier on in his estimates, when we were on the Minister's salary vote, I brought up a number of points. I don't recall ever receiving any answers to them at that time, except to take up with the Minister under specific votes, and that's what I'd like to do now.

There's the matter which I have brought to the Minister's attention with respect to veterinary clinics

[ Page 726 ]

in the province, and the establishment of them, or at least that assistance or loans be made available to veterinarians who have located in the Province of British Columbia.

Will the Minister give any consideration to making either loans or financial assistance available to veterinarians who wish to establish clinics? If so, has he a programme in mind, or what is contemplated in that respect? At the same time, will the Minister give us some indication as to what he thinks would be in the future for veterinary students who wish to go to college? Certainly they cannot get their education in the Province of British Columbia at the present time so they must go to other provinces. Would he consider loans or grants to students who qualify and have a genuine interest in becoming veterinarians so that they can help finance their education?

The third matter is the one I brought before the Minister also, and that is the meat packing plant at Fort St. John, known as Superior Meats. I pointed out when I spoke earlier that the owner is in severe financial distress. I don't intend to elaborate on the details again, because I think it is well known. He does need advice, and I suggest that he requires additional capital to modernize his plant to a standard where federal inspection would be possible.

Is there anyone available from the Department of Agriculture who could give this man some advice? I know there have been people up there, but the type of people who have inspected the plant were more concerned about the t's being crossed and the i's being dotted than they were about giving the man anything that he could really hang his hat on as to what he should really do in the way of modernization.

It's a new plant, a new building but there are certain things that are deficient. So is there someone available through your department, or if not through your department, through the federal Department of Agriculture who you could bring in to assist this man in getting him pointed at least in the right direction and analyse what it would take to solve his problem? He's invested a great deal of his own money and he stands to lose everything as it is right now, and the district stands to lose by a very much needed small business enterprise.

MR. GARDOM: Yesterday I asked the Minister some questions dealing with the acquisition by himself, representing the government, of some shares of South Peace Dehy Products, Ltd. I asked him what the economic projections were, why the government is proposing to enter into this endeavour, and so forth and so on. And he said he'd answer that when we came to this vote. We have now come to the vote.

HON. MR. STUPICH: (Mike not on) ...to the vote, but we have indeed come to the proper vote. As far as the vet clinics are concerned, one of the things I had in mind when we were discussing the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act was that this would be an Act under which the vet clinic — not really an industry, but a service to the agricultural industry — could very well apply. I did assure people who wrote and asked me whether I thought it would be appropriate that, indeed, it would.

Vet students: you know the policy of grants the Department of Education has for the colleges. As far as special grants to students, we have given that any consideration yet. We've rather gone the other route of making money available to enable vets to become established once they become vets. I'm not sure about the idea... We really haven't considered the idea of giving grants to one group of students going through out university training system — whether it be here or in another province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, student loans are available. A student loan-programme is available. My point is: it's the same for the vet students as it is for any other students. The door is open to them just to the same extent that it is for others. I think I would not want to change that, really.

The meat packing plant in Fort St. John: The operation of that plant was curtailed, if you like, by the Department of Health. I'm going to suggest that you might want to ask questions when the Department of Health's estimates are up. But I'm also going to suggest that if you'd like to come and review some of the correspondence or reports I have, prior to discussing on the floor of the House with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), then I'd welcome an opportunity to discuss it with you.

Advice: Advice is available, but it's a matter sometimes of persuading people that they should follow the advice. Certainly, speaking in general, this type of enterprise would be appropriately assisted under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. In this specific instance, I would appreciate it if you would put specific questions to the Minister of Health. But before putting that first, come and have a look at some of the material.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. Yes, the economic projections were actually started by the previous administration to some extent. They were continued under the present administration in the Department of Industrial Development when the project was determined to be economically feasible. Not a great...

[ Page 727 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The alfalfa cubing: Not a great money maker, but at least marginally good from a economic point of view. Apart from the economics of it, though.... And of course, this is history. Since then there have been runaway prices of forage crop generally, and now it would be a real winner regardless.

But quite apart from wanting to get that first plant on line — and as I say, the projections were good but not excellent. Quite apart from wanting to get it going, the need to get plants like this in areas of the province where we can grow forage quite efficiently — it can't grow grain, where people should be growing forage rather than trying to grow grains — led us to believe that this particular one should get off to as early a start as possible and under as good conditions as possible so that we could demonstrate and show to other groups interested in going ahead with such plants in the province the best techniques for using B.C. material — the best equipment, as determined by our studies, that could be used. We hope there'll be a number of these operating in the relatively near future.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, it's not so much labour-intensive as using farmers to grow alfalfa that they can sell only when they collect their crop insurance premium. So it's not a case of creating jobs. It's a matter of growing forage, which we desperately need, and using farmland more productively to grow forage rather than grain which is very marginal in some of those areas.

MR. GARDOM: In numbers, how many do you envisage it will involve?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the South Peace Dehy, in the plant itself, something like 10.

MRS. JORDAN: In your projections what did you anticipate the return per ton would be to the producer? I'm sorry I haven't got his name here, but the individual who was going to put one of these in the Okanagan — did he discuss it with your department? Because he came up with a figure of $20 per ton to the producer, and then the right to purchase back the quantity at $48 a ton, I believe it was, in pelletized form. There was no interest on the part of producers at all. I think he could only sign up three people.

But I'll like to know the figures for the north and also whether this individual came to see you, and how these returns would compare.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The figures as I recall them — on the growers who signed contracts, of course — but the figures, as I recall them, ran from $18 to $20 for the crop standing in the field, and the growers seemed quite happy to grow at that price. But beyond that, of course, they own a major portion of the plant. The people who have signed contracts and deliver their crop to that plant are shareholders in the plant itself.

I've never heard before of the buy-back figure. That's a new one. I don't know about that.

MRS. JORDAN: I think it was $48 a ton, pelletized, up to the amount that you delivered. But are they short-term contracts? Are they two-year contracts?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm trying to recall. I think it was three-year contracts they signed. But, of course, they own the plant so it would be in their own interest to renew the contracts there would be changes in price, of course.

MRS. JORDAN: Just on this point. In the contracts this gentleman was offering our producers there was a clause whereby if their equipment broke down on your land, then you were responsible for the cost of the equipment. I just wondered if your staff was aware if this was a traditional inclusion in this type of contract or not. Certainly this was a factor that concerned our producers because they had no guarantee that the equipment might not have been hanging together by threads when onto their property.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The particular plan that you're talking about was privately owned. I'm talking about the north — the Peace River one. This one was a private operation. They tried to put together plans that would interest the government and would get some financial encouragement. So far we have not been very favourably impressed with reports that we've had, and at this point have not agreed to go ahead with any kind of help at all for that project. One of the reasons is that we feel the growers should have some involvement in the plant so that there will be some inducement for them to send their crops. At the very least the fellow who's proposing to build a plant would have to have fairly long-term contracts to supply materials so that the plant will have access to materials. None of this has been forthcoming in satisfactory form. That's where that project lies.

MRS. JORDAN: I think this is probably true, and quite a good observation. But in your studies has it really been felt that there is opportunity for the producers themselves to develop a viable pelletizing plant in the north section of the Okanagan — from

[ Page 728 ]

Vernon right up to Revelstoke?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There was a study that identified this as one of the areas where a plant could be quite successful.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to know, in item 20, what was shifted — the $105,000 that was taken out. I'd like to know what's left back in — what the $45,000 in that vote is. There's a $105,000 reduction — what came out of there?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Crop insurance has been moved out of there: it was vote 9 last year. Crop insurance is the thing that has been taken out of that "professional and special services."

MR. MORRISON: What's still in there then? What is it made up of now?

HON. MR. STUPICH: If you look at salaries, the professional and special services, codes 01 and code 20 are comparable.

MR. MORRISON: Say that again.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Salaries last year are $48,000 and then $150,000 in professional and special services. This year we're hiring our own staff to do the crop insurance work, so the figure shows up in salaries rather than in professional and special services, which are services that are hired. That clear?

MR. MORRISON: That part of it's clear, but I'm still concerned as to what the $45,000 that is still in item 20 is made up of. That's not clear. What are the professional services that are left in there?

HON. MR. STUPICH: For example, at the moment in order to get one of the Acts that come under this going, we have hired a man to start work on the farm credit Act regulations. He's not on staff, but he's been hired to start the ball rolling while we do hire staff to develop the programme. So he is one of the items that would come under this vote.

Vote 7 approved.

MR. WALLACE: To me it is important that we should have some information from the Minister on this vote, in particular as to how the Land Commission Act which was debated so bitterly in principle is functioning in practice — or not functioning, as the case may be. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) could have very well said yesterday or the day before that we all talked on the principle of supporting the preservation of agricultural land and that the consequence of supporting that principle was to give the farmer an economic return and a fair reward for his labours.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said that already farm income support programmes of one kind or another added up to $15 million at this point in time — I can't remember the exact figure; perhaps the Minister can correct me. He pointed out that the dairy farmers were to receive farm income support under the income assurance plan programme first. We know other producers are in the line-up seeking the same kind of implementation of support.

I'd like to ask the Minister one or two questions in light of the fact that in Alberta, I understand, there is something in the order of $100 million a year provided for support of one kind or another. Thinking back to the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound's comments that we are already up to $15 million, in the light of this basic philosophy that we preserve farmland under the terms of the Land Commission Act by taking away from the farmer the inflated price of his land if it were resold for other purposes, which is exactly what the Land Commission Act does, we would assure that he, on the other hand, received a fair income and a fair return for his labours.

Now, have we any projected figures beyond this year or next year or the year after as to where these income support programmes are going to end in terms of dollars, maybe even — to use the slang phrase — in ballpark figures? If it's $15 million at this point in time, what do we think it will be by this time next year and the next year?

The point I'm trying to get at rather laboriously is that the people of this province by and large have said they support the concept inherent in the Land Commission Act that agricultural land shall be preserved. But to do that, there is a price. I just want to know, in some kind of approximate way, what the figures will be for farm income support on an ever-widening scale. I want to know how much of the cost is going to be reflected in the price to the consumer or how much is going to be reflected in straight subsidy of one kind or another out of consolidated revenue.

I think these are pretty basic questions and they have some pretty far-reaching ramifications. As was mentioned earlier in debate, many of these other people in the other industries are applying for support through the farm income assurance programme. Is it something that is going to grow like Topsy, or are there, not actuarial figures, but some kind of guidelines by which the Minister is making decisions and developing these programmes? On that kind of basis, what is the likely financial cost to be? How much more year by year by year? Are there, taking the optimistic outlook, times when the people in these programmes will not need the actual provisions?

[ Page 729 ]

The theory is that in tough times, when costs are rising and the cost of production is greater than the price they receive, the programme supports them with subsidies. On the other hand, sections of some of these other industries, whether it's tomatoes or hogs or whatever, are getting ready to seek such a programme. Is it going to be just an ever-increasing payout of the programme which evidently means a larger and larger amount of consolidated revenue being allocated to the Minister's department year after year for this purpose?

If that's the way it is, my reading of continuing inflation and the difficulties of the farmer meeting the cost of his production year after year after year, there will be more segments of the agricultural industry applying for this kind of programme. The amounts of money that will have to be put in out of consolidated revenue will be a steadily-increasing sum. If this is the case, I think the people of British Columbia should find out as accurately and as regularly as possible that this, in effect, is part of the price of the Land Commission Act.

Another consequence has been mentioned in this House already. However laudable and wise it might be to freeze farmland, there is little doubt that the Act in itself has further helped to drive up the price of land available for housing. I'm sure we'll get into this when we debate housing. I'm not suggesting for a moment this is the only reason costs have rocketed as far as the cost of housing is concerned. But it seems to make pretty reasonable sense that there is only so much land; if you restrict the land available for housing you increase the value of the land still available for housing. So I would like the Minister's comment on that and the degree to which he feels this is a realistic and logical consequence of the land Act.

I've had many people complain to me that there are parcels of land in which a portion is agricultural but another portion is completely unsuitable for agriculture. These parts of the total parcel should surely be readily available for housing development or whatever other type of non-agricultural development seems suitable. In that regard, I would like to know from the Minister how the machinery of the Land Commission Act has worked out in practice.

I understand that in the Kelowna area most of the appeals sent to the regional board were sent on to the Land Commission, whereas in the greater Victoria region the regional officials attempted to deal with most of the applications as best they could on their own and only sent on a small percentage. The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) is probably better equipped to speak on that than I am.

How many applications in total have been submitted to have the land removed from the freeze? Of the total that have been submitted, how many are presently awaiting decisions by the Land Commission itself? The impression I get from speaking to people affected is that there is some very considerable delay. This may be due to the fact that this is the first year the commission has functioned, and that would be a reasonable explanation.

But if there are pieces of land in the province which are frozen when they are quite suitable for agriculture and when there is a great shortage of land for housing development, surely it must be a matter of the greatest urgency that the Land Commission itself take whatever steps are needed to ensure that land presently frozen and unsuitable for agriculture should be made available for housing development.

I'd just like to mention the whole question of the Minister's attitude to the inclusion of golf courses in agricultural land reserves. The assessment situation — and I'll just brush on it lightly, Mr. Chairman — is a very difficult one for golf courses, as it is for owners of undeveloped lots. One of the techniques which I believe is being tried in certain parts of the province is for the golf course to seek to be included in an agricultural land reserve. I don't know how accurately one can describe golfing as an agricultural pursuit, but there is certainly a lot of excavation involved at times. It seems to me that this would not be an unreasonable way in which to bring about a level of assessment of golf courses lower than would be applied if the golf course could be considered suitable for subdivision, for example, or whether indeed the special committee on assessments might come up with a completely different proposal. I wonder if the Minister would care to express his opinion or his department's opinion on the validity or otherwise of including golf courses in the agricultural land reserves.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'd say, generally speaking, that golf courses are on land that has a high agricultural land reserve. It doesn't permanently remove that land from agricultural production if you have a golf course on it. On the other hand, it wouldn't protect it from having anything else happen to it. So my feeling is that in general and at the very least it should be in the agricultural land reserve.

How much will the farm income assurance programme cost? We're back now to the discussion we had last fall when I was unable to tell the Members just what it was going to cost. There are factors and some of the things are clearing up, but we have to wait for more information of course.

We know, for example, the promises the federal Minister of Agriculture made to bring in some sort of farm income assurance programme are now repeated in the Speech from the Throne so it would seem we are one step closer to knowing what the federal government is going to propose and to what extent they would share with us the responsibility of maintaining a farm income assurance programme. But we still don't know the dollars and the number of

[ Page 730 ]

zeros after the figures that are involved.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

With respect to the milk programme as first on the farm income assurance programme, it's my belief that the community through consolidated revenue should share some part of the cost of ensuring that the farmers do have a reasonable income because the community, in passing Bill 42, has taken away some privileges farmers previously took advantage of. I think the community has some responsibility.

With specific reference to the milk programme, the share of the premium that has been accepted by the government to this point in time, at 20 cents per hundred-weight, works out roughly to a million dollars a year. The programme is costing a good deal more than that, as was mentioned by one of the other Members; it's costing at the moment at the rate of roughly $1,250,000 a month.

But it is an income assurance programme; it is a five-year programme. It's still my belief as Minister of Agriculture that consumers, in paying for farm products, should pay a price that relates to the cost of producing those products and that it should relate to the income the farmer should be getting for producing them.

If the community as a whole wants to make it possible for low-income groups in the community to buy those particular products, well, that's something else. That doesn't come under the Minister of Agriculture; that comes under some other Minister. However, I do recognize there should be some contribution out of consolidated revenue. To that extent the premium idea in which the government participates is the contribution.

The fruit programme will not be as expensive in total, for the dairy industry is much larger in the province than is the fruit industry. But I can't tell you how much. I think the participation from the federal government, from the discussions we've had so far with the federal Minister, is that the participation is likely to be quite a different calculation with respect to fruit. Those are the two big industries when it comes to income stabilization.

I won't even try to hazard a guess today as to the total cost. I'd like to wait until we see the federal legislation. I will say that the dairy programme right now has an outgo of about $1,250,000 a month. We have provided for the funds through special warrants for the first three months: December, January and February. The budget speech announced a $10 million fund. Legislation gives the authority to the Minister of Finance to add further amounts as they are required during the year. What those amounts will be we'll find out when the time comes.

MR. WALLACE: What about the applications to the Land Commission?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry. It's true there is a good deal of land frozen right now that would be more suitable for residential construction than for agricultural land. The main thrust of the Land Commission up to this point has been to try to establish the actual agricultural boundaries within each regional district, to try to define the zones. That was the thing we talked about last spring. Unfortunately, the work has gone a good deal slower than any of us had hoped, I would think, when we got to the point where we all agreed it should be done. It would have been better had we been able to do it much more promptly.

But, on the other hand, it means the job is being done better: more opportunity for local discussion and local consideration of the plans than there would have been had they been rushed through. Hopefully, they will be better plans than they would have been, but, admittedly, in some cases still not all that good. Corrections will be made.

As you say, the handling of this is quite different from one regional district to another. The Capital Regional District has taken the responsibility for dealing with appeals and have sent on relatively few to the Land Commission. Other regional districts, as you say, have sent them all on. The latest information I have in rough figures is a total of 1,800 appeals, 700 still outstanding — which is bad in that there are so many people waiting and wondering what's going to happen.

The Land Commission, dealing with the appeals now, is still putting its emphasis on establishing the agricultural zone district by district. One established; eight more referred by the Land Commission to the Environment and Land Use Committee for consideration. Some of those are very near the point of being formerly approved by cabinet.

The rest, I think, are all expected in the office of the Land Commission within a month now, and they are working with them as hard as they can.

The appeals are suffering. People waiting on appeals are suffering in the meantime. In the interest of the greater good they will have to.

MR. CURTIS: A couple of points. The description at the head of vote 8 on this page and page 23 reads in part, "The objective of the commission is to preserve and encourage the establishment and maintenance of lands for their optimum use as family farms, greenbelts, landbanks for urban or industrial use, and parklands."

I would appreciate it if the Minister would outline for us in practice the flow in terms of reviewing a particular piece of land which might be suitable for parkland, for greenbelt. I obviously understand that the Department of Recreation and Conservation can

[ Page 731 ]

be involved in some instances; the Department of Municipal Affairs will be involved; your department may be involved; the Land Commission may receive it first. But who sees in which direction these suggestions or offers are to go? The Premier, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) suggests, and that may in fact be right. But I would like to hear the Minister's answer, whether we accept it or not. That would be an interesting point to cover.

I think there are individual owners in the province who would like to make land available to the public in public ownership but seem to be bounced from one point to another, referred from one department to another — perhaps from the Land Commission back to another department of government. I think the Minister could help us in explaining that.

Another point for obvious reasons. There was a zero figure in the 1973-74 column on this vote because the Land Commission was not established when the estimates were originally prepared. Could the Minister give us some general idea of how much the Land Commission has cost or will have cost by the end of this fiscal year?

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: The Attorney-General says he doesn't have the faintest idea. Well, that's the kind of irresponsible comment we're getting used to from the Attorney-General in matters relating to the.... Is he being frank, facetious, or is it just Friday afternoon for the A-G? Perhaps he should have gone home, Mr. Chairman, at the regular time; I think he's tired.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are any major personnel changes foreseen in the immediate future in the Land Commission? We hear rumours from time to time that some individual or other may well be leaving the Land Commission. Is there any knowledge on the Minister's part to substantiate this?

HON. MR. STUPICH: When you ask, about the change in personnel, do you mean the Land Commission itself?

MR. CURTIS: The Land Commission itself, and individuals leaving.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have no information that any of them would be retiring from the commission. I would certainly hope that they don't at this point. I think the first job of the Land Commission was to establish the zones and I would certainly like to see them finish that before they leave.

As far as the administration of the Land Commission to this point, it was provided for in the Bill 42 legislation. The first nine months of the administration of the Land Commission cost $154,000. This included everything: salaries, travelling expenses, per diems and all the work they did.

As you say, for obvious reasons there's nothing in there last year. It was my wish that we do deal with it in this form as a separate vote rather than dealing with it under the Minister's salary. Putting this separate vote in and providing money for administration I thought would be the ideal opportunity for Members to discuss the Land Commission. I think that's something we want to keep in front of our minds when it comes to estimates.

MR. CURTIS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, the coordination from department to commission?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, any requests for land purchases or from people who want to sell, the approach should first be made to the Land Commission. The Land Commission has sent letters out to all the regional districts asking them for suggestions for property acquisition for purposes other than agriculture; that is, for greenbelt and for parkland in particular, not for landbanking. Some of the regional districts have responded, some haven't. The Land Commission is considering these. The direction, at least so far, will be to assist and encourage regional districts, to assist them financially and encourage them what way to acquire land for these two purposes, greenbelts and parks.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in the event that the regional district concerned is for one reason or another not sympathetic to the offer, assuming we have a willing seller, what happens? Can the individual go directly to the Land Commission and say, "This is the situation. Are you interested?"?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Certainly the individual could approach the Land Commission, but the Capital Regional District proposal that came to us very recently at an ELUC (Environment and Land Use Committee) meeting in the Saanich area was received very favourably by the ELUC.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, one final question for the moment: Under code 20, professional and special services, could we please have an elaboration on that? Are these consultants who are brought in for specific tasks or does this cover payments to regional districts for work they have done on behalf of the Land Commission?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It could cover payments to regional districts. It could also cover special consultants or appraisers brought in to look at specific propositions.

[ Page 732 ]

MR. KELLY: Just one single question. I am going back to the land moratorium in north and central B.C. I am wondering if, in fact, the Land Commission might be going to take the moratorium off the land and if the Minister might know about that because it is agricultural land that is concerned. Again, his department is involved.

I think that what happened previously is that many potential farmers did obtain quarter sections, up to a section or several sections of land; they harvested the timber, then after they reaped the profits they allowed the land to go back to the Crown, and it was a considerable loss to the people generally. Now that the moratorium has been on for that length of time and because there are that many potential farmers there, I would really urge the Minister to work along with the Land Commission and whichever departments necessary to at least give some relief to the people who don't have existing farms which are, of course, the qualifications now to apply for further agricultural leases. Maybe something like this could be done.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We are simply waiting in this particular instance, waiting for the land reserve to be established. No doubt some of the areas this Member is referring to will be included within the agricultural zone, then there will be a very good case for lifting the moratorium in that situation. In other cases where they are outside of the zone, the case would be a bit harder to make. I'm sure a lot of them will be in the agricultural zone and a very good case can be made for lifting the moratorium and making them available for agricultural purposes. That's the purpose of the whole thing.

MR. SMITH: Just a couple of questions to the Minister. Now that the secretariat is set up to deal with this matter of farmland and classifications and so on, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister just a couple of areas where we do have continual and recurring problems.

One is the land that is classified as farmland, zoned farmland, where we have a farmer who is about to retire and wishing to subdivide a 5- or 10-acre plot which contains his homesite from the rest of the farm so that he may maintain that. This is a problem to a number of people who are reaching retirement age. There should be some way of overcoming that problem so that they can maintain their home, their place of residence, turn their farm as a farm unit over to whoever wishes to farm it without contravening this Act or being put into an impossible position. That's one area.

The other area is where we run into such things as I have run into recently where the school district wished to purchase 10 acres from a farmer to locate a consolidated school — a new school building. They got it sorted out finally, but it was a difficult problem because the land was classified as farmland and under the freeze and existing situation they were not permitted to purchase a piece of farmland in a rural area to build additional school facilities. So all I want to point out to the Minister is that there are problems involved that the blanket classification of farmland does not recognize. And I hope that the secretariat will be given some flexibility in settling these problems where there is really no detriment involved as far as maintaining farmland is concerned.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, one of the questions about... raising the school matter, for example; the legislation ranks very high in pecking order. There is only the one above it — the Environment and Land Use Act itself. It is all very well to say that this applies to farmers but does it apply to the government and does it apply to school districts? Indeed it does. They, too, have to go to the Land Commission and make a case for a removal of an area if they want to build a school on it. I think it's only right that that should be the case. If a case can be made and if it isn't going to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. The procedure is there. For the removal of the homesite: again, we want to get the zones established first. Having established them, then the question in that particular instance is — and it will have to be done situation by situation — is that destroying the viability of an economic farm unit to remove that? If it isn't really interfering with it, let it go. If it is, well then that is something that will be denied.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, just a short question to the Minister. I see under the description of this vote that the Land Commission may purchase and administer land in its own right with funds provided from consolidated revenue or from special purpose funds. I wonder if the Minister might give a very general account as to how this programme is working, the plans and prospects for the programme for the coming year in terms of acreages or dollars or general location — the general direction and thrust of this particular programme.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Again the acquisition of farms in particular will be at the present owner's.... If he wants to approach the Land Commission to sell, well he does. The Land Commission is not going out in the market seeking actively to purchase farms just in response. As far as the administration — if it is farmland, it will be

[ Page 733 ]

administered by the Department of Agriculture. If it is parkland that is required, it will be administered by the Parks Branch.

MR. GIBSON: I was thinking in particular of the acquisition plans in respect to parklands.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It would be, as I answered the previous Member, in co-operation with the regional district.

Vote 8 approved.

On vote 9: Milk Board, $121,796.

Vote 9 approved.

On vote 10: farms, $10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

MR. GARDOM: Certainly not! My goodness me. Just sit down there a moment.

There has been a lot of digging noises in the Legislature this afternoon. I don't know whether this is the Hon. Minister's department or not, but it being the Speaker's birthday, I happened to take a look at his horoscope — and apologies, Mr. Chairman, for a slight transgression of the rules — it says "the key now is to prepare to plant seeds for the future because you are on the brink of making a coup." Now, I really don't know what that means and I think that the Members of the NDP caucus had better have a chat with their Speaker, and certainly watch out for their backs.

I've got a suggestion here to the Hon. Minister. It involves a new level of education, and it will involve an operating and functioning farm, not an experimental farm. It would involve something that I think would be a very practical and viable economic farming unit, and it would involve a portion of the University Endowment Lands.

The proposal to the Hon. Minister is this: I see in this vote it just talks about Colony Farm and Tranquille Farm, and it says that they provide farm facilities for the use of the rehabilitation department of the Associated Provincial Mental Health Services Institution, which is very good work indeed.

I would suggest to the Minister that there are no end of city dwellers, especially many of the young people plus those who are facing early retirement, who are demonstrating a very terrific degree of enthusiasm about a return to the land. But except for those people who have had some farming experience, say in their youth or what have you, there is some, if not a total, lack of knowledge by any of these people of even the very rudimentals of agriculture.

I think that this kind of expertise should become readily available, and that the agricultural training courses outside of the very limited course that are offered through our university curriculae should be available. The idea is chockfull of educational relevance which is a term we often hear from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). So I would ask the Hon. Minister of Agriculture to institute, say, a vocational programme which would be on a day-school basis for agricultural education where people could learn animal husbandry, care and control and plant culture, soil qualities, cropping procedures, handyman skills, agricultural economics and 101 other things that a farmer has to know. These courses could be utilized for high school or vocational credit.

I suggest for a trial run that a small portion of the University Endowment Lands be set aside for just that purpose — say 400 or 500 acres out of the 1,700 acres that exist there at the present time. It should be a practical course. I think you would find that people would be lined up left, right and centre to take this very kind of a thing. I think it would be far better than any kind of high-density housing as is presently being proposed by the Housing Minister for this area. I'm certainly not suggesting all of the lands, but a portion of them only. I think this would well complement the park concept for these University Endowment Lands which has been so very clearly discussed and desired by the people in the City of Vancouver.

I think the proposal is a good one. It's imaginative and innovative, and it would perform very good services. I think it would be exceptionally well received.

HON. MR. STUPICH: (Mike not on) ...University Endowment Lands. The rest of your remarks I agree with. I think there should be this training available and if the Member opposite is still here next year, and if I'm still here, I hope to be able to tell him of a great deal of progress made in the field of agricultural education.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, when we were travelling with the committee, we talked a great deal about the possibility of a vocational school ranch, at the vocational school, in Dawson Creek. The Minister may refer me to the estimates of the Minister of Education, but I would like an updating on that proposition. It was an opportunity, as I recall, to really assist in development of the cattle industry in the Peace River area. I'm sure if he were in his seat now, the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) would be talking about it. Could you update us on that, please?

HON. MR. STUPICH: This matter is being studied not only in B.C. but in Alberta, and it's being studied

[ Page 734 ]

jointly. There's some question in our minds as to whether the Peace River area is the best one for the sort of programme that we have discussed. We're working on it. The current programme at Dawson Creek is being expanded. There are not new projects, but projects on line are being expanded.

Beyond that we feel it's deserving of more study both in B.C. and in Alberta and, if possible, joint action.

MR. CURTIS: We can take it that it's under active, not passive, consideration. It's not on the shelf.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Active.

Vote 10 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again. I would like to report that a division took place on vote 3 and that the committee requested that this be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:05 p.m.