1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976
Night Sitting
[ Page 1379 ]
CONTENTS
Routine proceedings
Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates
On vote 26.
Ms. Brown — 1379
Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1379
On vote 28.
Ms. Brown — 1379
Mr. Gardom — 1380
On vote 29.
Mrs. Jordan — 1380
Mr.Cocke — 1380
Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1380
Mr. Bawlf — 1380
Mr. Cocke — 1381
Mrs. Jordan — 1381
Mr. Bawlf — 1383
Department of Agriculture estimates
On vote 3.
Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1383
Mr. King — 1384
Mr. Macdonald — 1384
Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1384
Mrs. Wallace — 1385
Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1388
Mr.Cocke — 1389
Mr. Chabot — 1392
Mr. Levi — 1393
Mr. Shelford — 1395
Mr.Cocke — 1398
Mr. Kerster — 1398
Mr. Kempf — 1399
Mrs. Wallace — 1399
The House met at 8 p.m.
Orders of the day.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 26; corporate, financial, and regulatory services, $5,510,076 — continued.
MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I raised a couple of questions pertaining to the Landlord and Tenant Act under the minister's office vote — vote 10 — and at that time, by an oversight, he was unable...or in any event he did not respond to the questions which I raised. I'm wondering whether he would grasp this opportunity to deal with those questions at this time. To remind him, I'll very quickly go over them.
One has to do with the fact that this legislation has no rules of evidence and that, in fact, the outcome of each case is decided largely by the officer who handles it. Apparently a number of tenants have contacted me to tell me that this is a real hardship because it's unpredictable. Depending on who they get as their officer, the decision may come down in their favour or may not. The other point, Mr Chairman, that the Attorney-General might take into account is the fact that the legislation does not protect young families with children and that, in fact, it is still possible for a landlord to refuse to rent accommodation to a family simply because there are children involved.
The third issue which I raised, and which is really a very crucial one in the city at this time and particularly in the Burrard constituency, has to do with the business of eviction: the landlord maintains that he's going to demolish the building and then, in fact, doesn't demolish the building. The fourth and final one is the business of the rentalsman's office being open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. only, five days a week, which means that the working person really has no access to the very excellent facilities of such an office.
HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Dealing with the rules of procedure, Madam Member, when the legislation was introduced it's my specific recollection that it was intended that the procedure be as flexible and as informal as possible. With that in mind, the legislation was essentially silent as to rules of procedure. Now dealing with that one point, this is a situation that is not unique or common only to the office of the rentalsman. In pretty well all of the administrative boards and tribunals in this province, there are not established rules of procedure. There are really two views of thought upon it. There are differing views within your own party and, I would say, differing views within the other three parties in the House as to which is the appropriate route to take. I think that it would perhaps be advisable in the case of this particular statute that we have at least some greater experience as to whether or not it's better to move in the flexible and the informal route as opposed to an established set of rules of procedure and rules of evidence, because that's what was attempted to be gotten away from.
The point that you have raised of family with children, I'm glad you've drawn that to my attention. It's one that I'll look at as well as the other three that you have mentioned. You mentioned landlords demolishing their buildings and attempting to avoid the provisions of the Act but, in fact, not demolishing and not being subject to penalty. I would say that if it was a designed modus operandi, that is certainly something that should be curtailed within the spirit of the existing legislation. The office hours — I'll look into that as well.
Vote 26 approved.
Vote 27: land registry services, $4,031,498 — approved.
On vote 28: Rent Review Commission, $405,080.
MS. BROWN: Again, I would just like to draw something to the attention of the Attorney-General. As you know, the Rent Review Commission deals with cases filed under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and I have before me a copy of a letter from one of the officers of the Rent Review Commission to a tenant who was awarded an illegal rent increase. This letter from Mrs. Sheehy informed the tenant that she would have to continue paying this illegal rent increase until the matter had been dealt with by the commission.
Now it just turns out that that completely contravenes section 27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act which says that an illegal increase is void and not enforceable and, in fact, is against the law. So what we have here, Mr. Attorney-General, is the Rent Review Commission not really being aware of the Act that it is supposed to administer, and it is giving advice that is contrary to a section of the Act.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Why don't you bring that to their attention, you know?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
[ Page 1380 ]
MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. But, in fact, Mr. Minister, it was brought to their attention and the Rent Review Commission debated this issue. I am wondering whether you yourself would take a look at section 27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and clarify this for your commission.
HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll look into that, but I would mention to the hon. member that when she receives these specific cases, which she seems to receive a great deal, if she would direct them — and she has not done so — to the appropriate authority, I think that that would be perhaps a more expeditious way of attending to the problem, as opposed to, really, raising it cold in the House.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, a letter did, in fact, go to the Rent Review Commission. But there is some debate about section 27 and its interpretation, so we are calling on you with your greater expertise and knowledge in this matter — and as the chief law-enforcement officer, and superior knowledge, in fact, of this bill — to cast your wisdom at the disposal of your own rent commission to deal with it.
Vote 28 approved.
On vote 29: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,016,071.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I noticed the big smile on the Attorney-General's face when he saw me rise in my place. I don't wish to prolong this debate; I would pose but one question and advise the hon. Attorney-General that there are over 300 ears in the Okanagan — not corn, but perhaps somewhat related, I hear, from the debate — poised, waiting for your answer. I wonder if you're prepared to give it this evening. I would refer, of course, to the 300 grape growers in the province of British Columbia.
Interjections.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Not this evening, Madame Member. I didn't quite get the substance of your question.
MRS. JORDAN: I can substantiate the point if you wish.
MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is a very courageous person; he was asked a very straightforward question by one of his colleagues in the back bench of his party. All she asked, indirectly, was: do you support the grape growers in this province in developing better species? If you do, will you show that kind of support in the way they are treated by the listing board of the LCB? Straightforward, Mr. Attorney-General; how about standing up there and letting the world know?
HON. MR. GARDOM: I think the fairest response to the lady member, and also to the member for New Westminster, is to send the member for New Westminster a copy of what I said in Hansard a day or two ago. The hon. lady member was not here, and I'm happy to send one to her as well. It's not the intention, as I said before, of this government to hinder or harm the grape-growing industry in the Okanagan, nor is it the intention of this government to see that the consumer in the province of British Columbia does not receive adequate selection on the shelf.
MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to resurrect the great wine debate either, but I can't allow this matter to pass without a couple of comments.
I might say that I expect I will find myself continuing to be on the side of protecting the grape growers of British Columbia, but I have to give some consideration to the comments and the feelings raised by another hon. colleague, the member for Vancouver South. I'll just draw your attention, perhaps, to a few statistics whereby the solution, the conciliation, of these two points of view might lie.
The total sales for the liquor administration, under the liquor Act, I understand, is $388 million. To put this in perspective in terms of wine sales, there was $52 million last year in wine sales. The revenue profit generated I understand to be $22,800,000.
Now this compares with, by their own account — that being the Association of British Columbia Grape Growers — a cash crop value of wine grapes amounting to about $4 million a year. The grape growers are already being subsidized in a sense, indirectly at least, through the preferential treatment of B.C. wines in terms of pricing. The question is: is that the right form of subsidy? Or, to put it another way, how should this subsidy occur?
In this connection it is interesting to note that the profit on imported wines is 52 per cent versus a profit on B.C. wines of 38 per cent. This means that at today's sales levels an increase of 1 per cent in the share of the market which is held by the imported wines improves the profits to the liquor branch by $75,000. Now that $75,000, in my view, should be available to assist the wine growers in upgrading their quality of grapes. That in turn will very materially assist the B.C. wine industry because by upgrading their grapes which are required to be used by the B.C. wineries, we will undoubtedly open up new doors or new markets for B.C. wines.
[ Page 1381 ]
Now to say that an increase in the number of imported wines which will be listed in British Columbia would contribute to a shift in the share of the market in favour of those imported wines — I think we would all agree that this is true. But the shift has a quantifiable value to the government, which value could go back to the local wine and grape industries. A shift of about 15 per cent, which is what some people predicted as a result of more imported wines being available, would produce about $1 million a year, or roughly 25 per cent of the total cash value annually of the wine-grape crop in British Columbia today.
At the same time, it doesn't necessarily follow that a shift in the share of the market in favour of imported wines will result in lower sales for B.C. wineries. What is at issue there is how fast those sales will increase, not whether they are going to be reduced. My feeling is that we can take a short-run view and say that the status quo works and probably do the wine industry of British Columbia more harm than good. I feel that we should move towards a more competitive environment — atmosphere — with more imported wines, but use the additional profits to the liquor branch to subsidize B.C. grape growers in the introduction of better grapes and thereby bring about a healthier wine industry, a better quality of wine in British Columbia and with the long-term view that we are going to open up new markets and really foster a healthy industry in this province rather than keep it tucked away in a shoe box. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not one to want to
prolong debate but, you know, listening to the information that we were
given by the member for Victoria motivates me to stand up just for a
couple of moments and indicate to him that there has been one heck of
an improvement — an awful improvement — in wine in this province. There
has been a tremendous improvement. The member for Langley laughs but
his area isn't dependent upon a very important industry that I feel is
growing. Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the....
Interjection.
MR. COCKE: Even if they make wine from old shoes, Mr. Member...and I happen to know that, too. But that's not to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we shouldn't be looking at the very best way of supporting.... Mr. Chairman, I resent the word "subsidization" in this regard. I don't feel they are being subsidized in being treated in a different way than those outside of the country. There's no question about it. For instance, they've been making wine for many, many years. There's no question about it that many of the European countries have been making wine for a long time. But when you think of the improvement that has occurred here in the last 15 years or so, then we surely mustn't be off track in treating our own industry just a little bit better than what we would treat an industry from outside. We have given away our economy in so many ways that, as far as I am concerned, a little bit of protection is about due at home.
The hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) tried his best to condemn, and for that matter annihilate, the wine industry in this province.
AN HON. MEMBER: No!
MR. COCKE: His very best, but his best wasn't good enough. We hope that his running mate — that guy who's so easily influenced, if you consider the fact that he jumps at the behest of his colleagues — Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General, will not go for the arguments, will not buy the arguments, about putting everybody on an equal footing. Because if you do, this brand new burgeoning industry will fail because there's a very rich wine industry that's out there ready to carve up this market, just like that! I just wanted to take you back to the fact that we have improved a great deal. So, Mr. Member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), I hope that you'll rethink your advice to the Attorney-General. I hope you'll rethink it as early as tonight.
MRS. JORDAN: I really didn't wish to prolong this debate and, Mr. Attorney-General, my heart bleeds to have to now mention a few words. It bleeds Canadian Duck.
MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): She never did like you.
MRS. JORDAN: But there's obviously a great misunderstanding of this whole situation. I don't intend to go into the figures, some of which have been very ably quoted by my colleagues, but I would suggest, when the Attorney-General talks about adequate selection for the palate of the wine consumer in British Columbia, that he must bear in mind that the grape producer of this province also has a palate, rather a peculiar palate. It wants to eat, and if we cater to this sophisticated palate — and I must question that because we are talking about under-$3-a-bottle wine — then we are saying to ourselves that we are willing to sell down the tube jobs, the investment, the capital investment, of over 300 families in this province, plus the birth of an industry that was encouraged, basically, by every member of this House.
I would suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that this is not a decision that can be made on the basis of facts and figures. This is a political decision. This is an
[ Page 1382 ]
environmental decision, and this is a decision of the priorities of the society in which we live, rather an unusual society because, while we're talking about increasing the importation of $3-and-under-a-bottle wines, we have a society where people earning $6 an hour, $7 an hour and $10 an hour, plus fringe benefits, have said: "We want agricultural land. We want our farmers frozen on the land. We want an agricultural industry, but we want to buy our groceries across the border where they are cheaper."
Let me remind hon. members in this House that whereas most of our labour in this province — and our white collar workers and certainly our management, our teachers, our doctors, our lawyers — are earning anywhere from $6, $8 and $10 up an hour, the income assurance programme, which is not a subsidy programme....
Interjection.
MRS. JORDAN: The programme — I'll explain in a minute — classes the labour of the producer — and in this instance it would be, if it would apply, which it won't, the grape producer — at $4 an hour. And he has no capital investment in his land; that is free as anyone else in this province. Every member in this House, including the hon. Attorney-General, in his home property has more freedom in the use of his land and the sale of his land and the capital return on his land than one single grape producer in this province.
When we talk about imported wine.... And I believe that one member of our party, and a most honoured colleague whom I enjoy, talked about all the foreign objects that were in our wines. Has he never heard of the French Bordeaux wines, where I understand that years of tradition were diluted by the fact that the wine itself was diluted?
We are talking about a unique situation and a unique product. It's a perishable product. There is a lead time of nearly five years from the time that that individual, be it man or woman, plants a grape vine, root in the soil, until they can look to fruition of a crop. Five years! How many of us in this House are willing to invest our money for five years with no returns?
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MRS. JORDAN: Not even a capital return, let alone an interest return. And why are they doing it? They're doing it because the people of this province have said that they want agricultural land preserved. We say if the people of this province want agricultural land preserved then they will preserve the farmer, and the farmer will not be a second-class citizen in this province. It has been suggested that income assurance could be applied for the grape grower.
Let me advise the House that income assurance is not a subsidy programme. It's a guaranteed source of revenue only up to the cost of production on the commodities that are sold. So if there is no market for our grapes in this province, then income assurance, even if the government wished to make it apply, could not apply to the grape producer, because last year we had an excess of grapes that were not purchased and this year we are looking at an even greater crop than in the past. So you are suggesting a programme that simply is not applicable in this instance.
This industry is in its infancy. I'm not a connoisseur of wine but I enjoy a good wine — a good beer, too. I believe that the consumer does have the right to choice, but they already have, if my figures are correct, seven imported red wines at $3 and under a bottle, 13 imported white wines at $3 a bottle and under, and 21 red wines between $3 and $4. Surely for even the most discriminating $3-and-under palate, that is a large enough selection to defend their right of choice.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's not bad.
MRS. JORDAN: I'd say it's not bad. I would say that it is still loaded in favour of the selective palate rather than our grape producers.
MR. LAUK: Except for Pat McGeer.
MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think he's a pretty good guy — he just needs a little education in palates. When we're talking on this business of selective palates, it is my understanding that those who are generally the connoisseurs of wine are those who have travelled recently. They are known, I think, as the Hilton Hoppers; they go from jet to jet. They read the menus, they read the columns in the papers and they sample the wines thusly. I am advised that most Europeans, who are truly the wine connoisseurs now in this country, make their own wines from their own grapes, frequently the stock of which is imported from Europe.
Mr. Chairman, I would advise you that the grape-growing industry is not perfect and they are not saints, but they are diligent pioneers in a new field in this province. They have policed their own industry very strongly. I would cite, for example, that the Bock grape was one of the original grapes introduced in British Columbia because it was hardy and because it was a heavy producer, but it proved not to be a suitable grape for wine-making. The grape growers themselves, recognizing that they have to have a five-year lead time, plus the fact that they are subject to frosts and other unknown weather conditions, did in fact say to themselves: "We must take out this stock and replace it." They have improved greatly the
[ Page 1383 ]
quality of the grapes produced in British Columbia without subsidy, on their own, with their own initiative, with their own daring.
Mr. Chairman, we are a government committed to people. We are a government committed to the preservation of our land to its highest use. We are a government concerning itself in the throne speech with an economy that will create jobs in order that people can be independent in an economic climate which will allow them to exert their own initiative. The grape producers of this province ask nothing more and nothing less. They don't want subsidies in any form. They have never applied for income assurance, even if they had thought it would apply. In all sense of fairness, in all sense of responsibility, I would suggest to the hon. Attorney-General that in all sense of reason there is no choice but to give this fledgling industry the little more time that it does need, and that the selective palate in this province does have a very wide selection. They are consumers. They have a responsibility to the preservation of our environment and our land and our people, just as everyone else does.
MR. BAWLF: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify my earlier remarks by way of response to the preceding speakers. It is interesting to note the concern for the use of about a 10 per cent annual increase in grapes produced in this province for wine when you consider the sales of liquor — and I expect wines continue to be pretty much the same proportion throughout the years. The profits to the government from the sale of liquor in this province have increased from $35 million in 1965 to $155 million in 1977 projected, an increase of 340 per cent in a 12-year period.
I am very much concerned with and interested in the well-being of the small entrepreneurs, the hard-working entrepreneurs of this province. I have experienced what it is to invest money for an extended period without immediate prospect of return.
However, I feel that the position of the wine maker and the grape grower of this province is not endangered, providing some modest safeguards are introduced and those safeguards underwritten by the increased profit to the government from the sale of imported wines. I think that those safeguards could also be extended to assistance for the wine growers to accelerate their programme to improve their wines, and to accelerate it so we're not merely talking about some kind of comparable quality in the British Columbia context, but so we're talking about moving on to a new threshold, an industry which is exporting substantially — something which we are not doing at present.
So I feel very much that the question of the grape growers of British Columbia, British Columbia wineries, is not a question of whether they will be able to sustain levels of activity which they have achieved; it is a question of how their growth is nurtured and it's a question of how quickly they will grow. I feel we can be assured that this government will very much assist in that regard and that the question of increasing the supply of imported wines in British Columbia need not interfere with that, if handled carefully.
Vote 29 approved.
ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
On vote 3: minister's office, $50,728.
HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions on this very important vote, I'd be most happy to answer them.
MR. LAUK: Tell us what you know about agriculture!
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We haven't got that long, Mr. Member. (Laughter.) But I know some of the members opposite are waiting anxiously to ask some questions about this very important industry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps before we go into debate on vote 3 this would be an opportune time to speak with the members of the House and acquaint them with the procedures that would assist the Chair a great deal in maintaining order in the House.
The first one has to do with standing order 36 which clearly spells out the procedure of debate in which members should address the Chair. It has occurred to the Chair, in conversation with some of the hon. members recently, that there is not universal knowledge as to what addressing the Chair really means. It does not mean that you say "Mr. Chairman" or "Mr. Speaker" betimes. To address the Chair means that your debate is directed to the Chair, and ministers to whom you may wish to speak indirectly should not be referred to in the second person singular, being "you", but should be referred to as "he" or "him", in the third person.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Or "it" if you prefer. So addressing the Chair is to avoid the second person singular. It will assist the Chair a great deal in maintaining order because it takes the accusative tone out of the voice whenever the second person singular is avoided.
Secondly, it might assist the Chair a great deal if hon. members would wait with their debate until
[ Page 1384 ]
they are recognized by the Chair. Now I understand that when a minister is as eager to give answers as the last minister was, it is sometimes hard to remember to wait to be identified before the speech begins. However, Hansard has no way of knowing whose microphone to turn up until the member is identified. I'm sure hon. members will remember this. It will assist me a great deal.
Now to vote 3; shall vote 3 pass?
MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, this is a dual portfolio we have before us at the moment, the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Economic Development. The minister neglected to say precisely how the government proposes to proceed with the debate on these two departments which fall under the ambit of his jurisdiction.
I wonder if he'd care to inform the House what procedure he proposes so the opposition might know whether under the minister's vote on the Agriculture department we discuss simply those matters related to Agriculture, or whether that office vote also embraces the Department of Economic Development.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: By way of explanation, would you please discuss the Department of Agriculture under the Agriculture vote; next coming up will be vote 36, which is my salary vote under Economic Development. Under Economic Development you can discuss anything under Economic Development, the railway....
Interjection.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I understood that that was the agreement that was made.
MR. LAUK: It'll take a week for one, and two weeks for the other.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
Thank you for that explanation.
MR. KING: If I could seek some more clarification here, I did talk to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) outside the House and I understood her — perhaps I was mistaken — to indicate that both departments would be dealt with under one office vote. But provided the minister assures us that the latitude will be extended to the opposition to discuss economic affairs under the next vote with the full latitude and the Chair's agreement that that extends the traditional perimeters of debate to the office vote on Economic Development, fair enough.
Interjection.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, unless maybe I misunderstood. But that's my feeling and I will be quite happy under Agriculture to defend anything under Agriculture. The next vote will by my salary vote under Economic Development, at which time you will have a latitude.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Good.
MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, getting back to the...and I am speaking to you; I am not speaking to the minister. But getting back to the great debate, I am wondering why he doesn't — I am referring, of course, to the Minister of Agriculture, in speaking to you — (laughter) do something about improving the quality of vinous grapes in the province of British Columbia. He's been in office now almost five months and he's heard in the House the criticism about the quality of our grapes in terms of wine-producing. He comes running to the Attorney-General's department and wants to sell his whole crop to the liquor administration branch. It seems to me that this is the minister on whom falls the burden of whether or not we have a wine industry in this province.
MR. KING: That minister!
MR. MACDONALD: That minister. So I don't think that the great debate should finish quite as quickly as it seems likely to do, Mr. Chairman, speaking to you.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would be most pleased to speak about the wine industry in the province of British Columbia. Not only is it an agricultural industry but also it is an industry of great magnitude and it's an industry — one of our agricultural industries — that has probably more add-on value for the end product than any agricultural product we produce. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I believe our great wine industry is progressing every year, as has already been said in this House. The quality of our wine is increasing. And I'm all for that.
I want to tell you that not only is the value of the wine increasing but the quality of the grapes is increasing. I also want to explain something else, Mr. Chairman. In those countries that have been in the wine-producing industry for so many years, they can produce wine much more cheaply than we can produce it in British Columbia because, like any other industry, they have their plants — I mean their physical plants and their grape plants — and they are written off, so certainly they can produce. But I want to tell you that all is not so cosy in the world wine industry because in some of these countries, in some of these plants, they seem to be able to ship about
[ Page 1385 ]
eight years' supply of wine from one year's growth of grapes. So all is not so well in the world wine industry. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we don't have that here in the province of British Columbia...
Interjections.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and I think, Mr. Chairman, that decisions will be made. We certainly want to satisfy the palates of British Columbians. I want to tell you that that great wine industry is one industry in British Columbia that doesn't receive...I won't call it a subsidy; I'll say an incentive from the public purse. They support themselves. They are growing and they employ people and I look forward to the great day when, through the Department of Economic Development, we can go out of British Columbia and as our wine industry grows, we will be able to sell that great product on the world market. I look forward to that day, and they'll certainly have the support of the Department of Economic Development.
MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I have been aware for some time that the Minister of Agriculture doubles for the Minister of Economic Development, but I was not aware before that he also doubles for the Attorney-General. Now that we are finished with the Attorney-General's department, perhaps we can move on to Agriculture.
I certainly endorse the feelings that have been expressed about the grape growers and I did make some mention of it earlier in the House. The grape growers are but one of many groups of agricultural producers in British Columbia and tonight I want to get into some of the other aspects of the farming community in British Columbia. It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that in the spring session of 1972 the agricultural estimates represented 0.5 per cent of the total budget brought down in 1972.
In the year just passed, the agricultural estimates represented some 11 per cent of the total budget. I suggest that those figures, Mr. Chairman, indicate very clearly the advances that have been made in agriculture over the past three and a half years.
But it is somewhat disconcerting to note that the estimates for this current year are down — not by just $2 million, really, but down if you consider a 10 per cent inflationary factor, down a total of some $8 million in actual buying power.
Mr. Chairman, during those years that I have spoken about when we did increase from one-half of 1 per cent to 1.1 per cent, I would like to review what this has meant to the agricultural industry in British Columbia. I would like to pose to this House the question, and particularly to the minister, whether or not the agricultural community in British Columbia can stand a cutback in funding — because that is what it is. It is a cutback.
In the Department of Health, where we had a sizeable increase, they are still just not even able to keep up to inflation in that department. The same is true in the Department of Education, where mill rates are being increased locally in order to keep up with the cost of inflation. In those departments there were sizeable increases. In this department there is a decrease, and I suggest that we are asking the farmers to face up to the rising costs of production and to accept declining incomes.
What do the farmers think about this, Mr. Chairman? I have here a quote from The Province of May 1. This is a quote from Ralph Baratello, the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. He says:
"We have trouble in meeting with the minister, and there have been statements by the Agriculture department staff members that indicate that there will be watering down in the income assurance scheme. We have many people in agriculture wondering what is going on."
Another quote, Mr. Speaker, is from Country Life, which is the official organ of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I think you are all aware, Mr. Chairman, that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture represents by far the largest group of agricultural producers in British Columbia. Again, Ralph Baratello expresses disappointment that payments to farmers in the budget were not increased, especially for agricultural credit and farm income insurance.
[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]
It's not just the farmers that are upset, Mr. Chairman. Other people within our community are concerned. This is an article written by Malcolm Turnbull, who is the correspondent for agriculture from B.C.:
"It now appears that what happened to agriculture between 1972 and 1975 is past history and due for some erosion. Not only have there been constant complaints for the last month that B.C.'s fourth industry does not have a full-time Minister of Agriculture, but now there is the provincial budget. While the budgets for health, education and social welfare increased, agriculture decreased by almost $2 million."
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that these kinds of reductions in the budgetary money provided for the rural sector of British Columbia are quite without justification. I wonder what the rationale is behind what seems to be this callous attitude of the government.
Who is the spokesman for the Department of
[ Page 1386 ]
Agriculture, Mr. Chairman? The president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture maintains he has had difficulty meeting with the minister. And yet, very strangely, from a paperback on the prairie I find that the Ontario Institute of Agrologists have been advised all about what the farm programme is going to be here in British Columbia — not by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, but by the director of the Department of Agricultural Services, I believe it is, a Mr. Ian Carne. This is what he tells the farmers back in Ontario:
"The negative aspects of the B.C. plans become apparent during the question and answer period here after Ian Carne, director of general services for the B.C. Department of Agriculture spoke to the 17th Annual Institute of Agrologists.
"Mr. Carne said there was evidence that farmers have taken part of the income from the subsidies and used it to bid the price of farmland and production quotas higher."
He goes on later to say that there is a real concern in B.C. that farmers will farm the farm programme, not their farms. There is also concern that farmers are going to plough profits back into increased capital and technology which will tend to reduce their options and switch producing to different commodity if the marketplace indicates it wants such a switch. Mr. Carne said it's too early to judge the longer-term merits or the faults of the programme, but he said there's renewed optimism among farmers, and so on. Then he goes on to say that the income protection was the prize farmers were awarded to balance the penalty of the loss of their rights to sell their farmland. I suggest that if this is the kind of thinking that really is representative of the Department of Agriculture, then the minister should tell the farmers of this province, but he should not let one of his employees, the director of general services, go out and tell the Ontario agrologists and let it filter back that that is the philosophy that is behind the government's agricultural policy, that that is the ideology that is being reflected in these estimates. We have no other choice but to think that that is the ideology, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the minister, later when he speaks on these estimates, that he advise us whether this is the case and, if not, if he tells us what the difference is.
We have heard a lot of things from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture lately. They are very concerned because they are hearing and getting this kind of an impression from the minister. The Social Credit government, they say, is not interested in the Farm Income Assurance Programme, and this could lead to a food shortage. This is again Baratello:
" 'From conversations I hear, some farmers feel they are on the verge of getting out of agriculture,' he said. Later in this same interview in Vancouver, the Agriculture minister, Don Phillips, said in an interview that Baratello's statement about food shortage is an irresponsible scare tactic."
Well, I don't know, Mr. Chairman.
I have here another quotation. This one is from the president of John Deere speaking in Hamilton to the Canadian Club. He says: "The increasing world population will mean the agricultural industry will have difficulty in meeting future needs for food, particularly in grains. By the year 2000, the world's population is expected to reach seven billion; it's now four billion." He urged governments to step up scientific research because no major scientific developments have occurred in production over the past 13 years.
There are many, many studies that have been made that indicate that we are going to be facing a food shortage, and this is difficult to face up to in a time of surplus, Mr. Chairman. It's difficult to accept, when we have a surplus of food here in Canada at this point in time, that before too many years we can very well be facing a shortage. It's difficult in that era of surplus to gear for a shortage. I would suggest that the thrust of the agricultural programmes over the past three and a half years has been to keep agriculture a viable industry to prevent the erosion of the rural population — the farm community — into the city, to stop that movement of rural population to the urban centres.
I'm sure that all the members of this House, Mr. Chairman, are aware of the kind of problems that are created by the already overburdened cities. If you upset the balance, which has for so long been established here in British Columbia and in Canada where our rural community is a viable and functioning entity, by economic pressure forcing those people, as has been done over the past many years.... But now, here in B.C., that trend has stopped. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that this is a trend that must be maintained to keep those rural communities viable.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to review what some of the programmes have accomplished over the past two and a half years and what the economic position of the farmer in B.C. is today. Let's just, for a first example, look at the comparison of cash receipts to the farm community in British Columbia, just comparative for the last two years, 1974 to 1975: total field crops, $132,203,000; in 1975, $135.4 million. Total livestock in 1974, $230 million; in 1975, up to $251 million. The total cash receipts of all farm products, $372 million in 1974; in excess of $399 million — almost $400 million — in 1975.
I suggest that that indicates the trend that has been taking place in B.C. over the last two years. But perhaps we should look a little further back than two years. This is the Canadian Farm Economic Review
[ Page 1387 ]
published by Agriculture Canada, and there are some very interesting statistics in here, Mr. Chairman.
In British Columbia, in 1961, if you took as an index the figure 100 for the total output from farm production, by the year 1974, which is the last recorded figure here, that index would have increased to 131, or an average annual growth rate of 1.98 per cent. That's the output, Mr. Chairman.
The input in British Columbia, based on a 100 index, 1961, by 1974 had increased to 147, or an annual growth rate of 3.81. I suggest that increased input indicates the position the farmer is in today in British Columbia in the price of the commodities he is forced to buy, many of them from outside of the province, many of them from outside of the country. He is forced to buy on a competitive market the kind of products that he must have to put into his agricultural production.
Just some of these major items I might relate to you, Mr. Chairman. For example, in British Columbia the cost of real estate has increased from an index of 100 up to 193, a per cent annual growth rate of 6.03. You will be surprised at this, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, but labour costs in British Columbia, based on an index of 100 in 1961, by 1974 had reduced to 74. Of course the reason for that is the increased mechanism in the farm production, as opposed to so much hand labour. Incidentally, if you look across the board at some of the tables I have been looking at lately, you will find that labour costs have varied very little in any of the provinces. The labour is the most constant factor that goes into farm products. Mr. Chairman, I think that is another item that the farmer is having to put out money for, though the labour has gone down, actually.
But what about farm machinery? The statistics here are slightly different in the way they are given, but in 1962-66 the average total cost of new machinery and repairs across Canada was $381.3 million. This had increased by 1974 to $845.9 million. The cost of machinery is one of the major contributors to food costs. That has gone up. Labour has gone down because of the mechanization in farm production. But those kinds of costs are continuing to inflate. If we are going to keep a viable industry in B.C., the farm income is going to have to keep pace with those costs.
Now can we look just for a moment at the relation of the cost of food to disposable income? We hear a lot of talk about the high cost of food today. Of course, we go out and we buy our groceries and we realize that it used to take a $10 bill; then it took a $15 bill, and now it takes a $20 bill to buy the same amount of groceries. In relation to disposable income....
MR. MACDONALD: The $3 bill will even buy less. (Laughter.)
MRS. WALLACE: In relation to disposable income, Mr. Chairman, the food costs have increased, from 1961 to 1974, by 180 per cent, but disposable income for the same period has increased by 227.5 per cent. The per cent of disposable income spent on food, by the converse, in 1961 was 21.6 per cent and in 1974 it was down to 18.8 per cent. What I am saying is that we are spending less of our take-home pay on food today than we were in 1961.
How do our prices compare with prices in other parts of the country, Mr. Chairman? These figures are based on Canadian prices, not British Columbia. I couldn't find any British Columbia prices, but we know that they are maybe just a little bit higher here in B.C. I'm sure you've seen them, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman — they are from the brief presented by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on marketing boards, in fact. These are prices for various commodities: a sirloin steak in Ottawa, in U.S. dollars, per pound is $2.19 — the same in Washington; in Paris it's $3.01; in Tokyo, $13.75; in Stockholm, $5.08. So really we are not doing too badly as far as food prices go.
There's another interesting table here, Mr. Chairman, which talks about the average weekly wage, and the amount of time it takes to produce the equivalent to one quart of milk. For example, in 1949 it took the average person working at the average rate of pay nine minutes to buy a quart of milk. In 1959 it was down to seven minutes. In 1969, it was down to 6.4, and in 1975 it was back up to seven minutes, but it's taking less hours of work to buy a quart of milk today than it did back in 1949, and that goes on for various commodities. Eggs: 17.5 minutes in 1949, only 10.5 minutes in 1975. Potatoes — no, that's not available. Sirloin steak: 47.5 minutes in 1949, 30.5 minutes in 1975.
I'm suggesting to you that the cost of food is not excessive compared to the cost of other products. The farmer has been very responsible in keeping the cost of food down. It's not been entirely the farmers in Canada or British Columbia. It's been an international market situation, and it reflects the fact that the farmer does not have the kind of clout in the marketplace that so many other groups that compete in the marketplace do have. He cannot compete with the cartel that sells machinery or the investors who buy and sell real estate, or the makers and vendors of fertilizer.
He has little or no control over the freight rates that are charged, and I know that, through you, Mr. Chairman, the minister has been discussing this whole problem of freight subsidies very recently when he met with the western premiers. But this again is another part of the thing over which the farmer has no control. He is subject to the whims, or the pricing controls, that are affected by the large and powerful groups that control so many of the commodities he
[ Page 1388 ]
has to use.
He certainly is not making a huge return at the expense of the consumer, and he has made, at least here in British Columbia, some gains in the past few years. I'm suggesting that we must make sure that those gains are maintained, because in British Columbia agriculture.... We've been talking about it being the fourth-largest industry, but in actuality it is the third-largest resource industry — forestry, mining and farming. Tourism is third, but that is not a resource industry.
So some of the things that appear to me to be essential are that...first of all, an industry that is the third resource industry in this province merits a full-time minister. I'm very concerned to see, in spite of repeated promises by the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of this province to the farmers that there will be a full-time minister, that there is no provision in these estimates for any ministerial salary or any support staff for a full-time agricultural minister.
There is another thing that bothers me very much and it also concerns the farmers of this province. That is the fact that the Land Commission has been removed from the control of the Minister of Agriculture, which we do not have, in effect. It is certainly the contention, that the control of the Land Commission should be returned to the Department of Agriculture, and that a full-time minister should be appointed to administer both that very important factor of farm production along with all the other factors that go into producing foodstuffs.
We simply cannot have control of our farm land buried in among green belts and urban development, any more than we can have other matters that affect the farmers buried among the mobile home companies and the BCR. Really one of the strongest points that I wish to make in these estimates is that we have a full-time minister appointed immediately, and to that minister be returned control of the administration of the Land Commission.
One of the things that has a tremendous effect on the farm population, and over which they have no control, is, of course, imports. Now I know, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has indicated on the floor of this House that he's concerned about this, but I have seen nothing happen. I have seen no positive programmes put forward.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this has to be a federal programme. It has to have some base in the federal government because we cannot establish international boundaries around our province; we cannot keep imports out of this province. The whole transportation system and the whole item of Confederation are such that there is no way this can happen.
One of the most startling things that ever occurred to me was back in the days when I was sitting on the provincial marketing board, and we were meeting with the Oyster Marketing Board. They were complaining about the Alberta oysters. Well, coming from Alberta I was a little surprised to find that there were any oysters in Alberta. So I made some inquiries about this and discovered that what was happening was that some growers who did not wish to conform with the schemes and regulations of the marketing board were consigning their oysters to Alberta and then shipping them back in. They came in as imports and were not subject to the controls. But then they got even wiser than that and found that they didn't have to ship them; they could simply consign them and then cancel the consignment, and that made them officially from out of the province, so they were not subject, in the eyes of the law, to the controls.
This is just one of the things that happened on this business of imports. It's an impossible thing to control at the provincial level. I would ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, what....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I must notify you that you have two minutes left.
MRS. WALLACE: Where does the time go?
What are the solutions he is proposing, Mr. Chairman? Does he support orderly marketing at the federal level? The only solution I have heard is a $1-a-case subsidy paid to consumers who buy, by the case, B.C. peas, beans or corn off the shelf. I suggest that that is a ridiculous solution, Mr. Chairman, because even with that $1 subsidy they would still be paying more than they would be for the surplus imports that have been flooding in here. And that kind of a scheme for people who just do not have storage space for a case of produce, at this point, would be ridiculous solution, an impossible solution. It would do nothing. I would suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that he should remember the old adage: if he's not part of the solution, he's part of the problem.
HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to try to answer some of the statements made by the previous speaker, and maybe alleviate some of her concerns.
First of all, let's talk about the income assurance programmes. I stated very clearly and very emphatically that with this government the present programmes would stay. I also stated that those programmes which we had committed would be brought in. I've stated this on numerous occasions, and I've stated this at meetings with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I don't know how much more emphatic I can be in that regard.
Now the member is worried about the amount of money in the budget. But in last year's budget we will probably end up with an underexpenditure of approximately $5 million, so we're trying to be
[ Page 1389 ]
realistic in setting our budget for this year. It's a tight year and we're trying to be very realistic, so we have, with the best of the abilities we have and the work in the Department of Agriculture, come up with a figure for income assurance programmes which we feel will be adequate.
Now there's always going to be some variances. If the price of beef takes off this year and goes up, well, we might not have to expend that much money, and there may be some downslides. But I want to assure the member, Mr. Chairman, that the government will certainly stand behind its commitments and certainly pay out money owing to the farmers on this programme.
There also seems to be some concern, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, on the part of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They are a good organization. I've met with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture — they've been to cabinet and they've been to the caucus; I've had meetings with them and I'll have meetings with them again. I can understand their concern, but I haven't turned down any opportunity to meet with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture when they've asked. But they're concerned, and I appreciate that.
Now last week when they were here, of course, and visited our caucus, I was out of town because I was down in Medicine Hat arguing for the agricultural industry of British Columbia at the Premiers' conference where we talked about general trade and tariff agreements and we talked about income assurance programmes on the federal level. I was down there talking about the agricultural industry of British Columbia with the other Ministers of Agriculture from the four western provinces, seeing what we can do to get Ottawa to move on their assurance programmes, what we can do to improve the general agreement on tariffs and trade so that western Canada agriculture will not be suffering undue pressure and hardship from the agricultural industry across the line. We are not asking for any exception. We just want an even break so we don't have any extra tariff when our products go into the United States and a lower tariff when they come back in.
What was the other question, Mr. Chairman? With regard to the cost of farm machinery and the other costs that the member was speaking about, we realize that those costs are going up every year. They are taken into consideration when we sit down with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and negotiate the costs for the coming year. So I don't think the member really has to be concerned about that. We've negotiated and we are still negotiating on some items and we are negotiating in good faith.
I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in the member's remarks about food costs versus disposable income because I made the same speech when I was in opposition. To talk about increased food costs today is not very political because people are concerned about food costs, and rightly so. But when you relate food costs to disposable income, yes, you can work out an equation. It can be argued, anyway.
But I want to tell you that the agricultural industry in British Columbia in many sectors is becoming more efficient and can produce more. That's the way we must keep the agricultural industry. I said this when I addressed the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in Vancouver in February. We must always see that the agricultural industry remains a competitive industry. Otherwise we will have a world food shortage. But as long as the agricultural industry remains a competitive industry where the farmers are looking for new ways to do things and where there is an incentive for that farmer to produce food at a more reasonable cost, then I don't think that British Columbia or Canada or at least the free world is really in danger of starving to death, because they will be able to feed us.
But if we take the incentive out of the agricultural industry, then we will be in trouble, because all we have to do is look at those nations of the world where there is no incentive left in the agricultural industry. You will find, Mr. Chairman, that those countries are coming to us to buy foodstuffs. I don't want to continue on that basis, but I do want to point it out.
Orderly marketing: as a matter of fact, I think the entire agricultural industry, the Department of Agriculture and the provincial government, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the marketing boards, must all — together, combined, separately — be more interested in marketing their products. Agriculture is an industry in that sense. They produce a commodity and we must all work together to see that it is properly merchandised. We have some merchandising programmes going on at the present time, our "B.C. Home-Grown." I hope to see some of those programmes expanded for the benefit of not only the consumer but also for the benefit of the B.C. agricultural industry.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting indeed to have before us a Minister of Agriculture who really historically indicated his position so clearly to all the farmers and all those interested in the future of B.C. in the past three years that sometimes you would wonder about this particular appointment. It would lead one to feel that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is certainly on the right track with respect to the Department of Agriculture.
I would like to go into a little bit of history for the edification of some of those who are more recent acquisitions to this club, as one of my colleagues called it one time, and I wondered exactly how he came upon that particular description. But in any
[ Page 1390 ]
event, we do have some new acquisitions here and I am sure that some of them would like to know how people stood in the past on certain issues.
I can remember, Mr. Chairman, that a couple or three years ago there were meetings all over this province, particularly in the delta regions of this province. And when I'm talking about delta, I'm not talking specifically about the constituency of Delta but anywhere where there is delta land. In those meetings a great many charges were made — charges about what was going to happen to the people in British Columbia. Oh, they were even going to lose their watch, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), certainly their shoes and, of course, any rights to wedding rings. Yes, yes, there were worries about wedding rings....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 3.
MR. COCKE: I am talking in terms of Bill 42 which was an agricultural bill. You were trying to get me back to vote 3, Mr. Chairman, and I was talking about the minister's fitness to fill this particularly important portfolio in this province. So I'd like to pursue my argument.
Mr. Chairman, I contend that B.C. can starve in the very near future. The people in British Columbia can starve in the very near future. That's really what worries me. Because of this past experience that we've had with some of these members of this coalition, how can we trust them, and particularly this member, to do the right thing regarding land use with respect to agriculture that has to be done over the next few years?
I contend that that minister — in those days a member — tried his level best to scare people. He spoke in that corner of this House for 34 hours in opposition to Bill 42 just on the principle of the bill. And shame on the member from Delta (Mr. Davidson) if he's pounding his desk and backing that position, because he therefore continues to place B.C. in jeopardy. I would implore the first minister in this province not to let him near the agricultural or any other portfolio that has anything to do with land use because, Mr. Chairman, this province is in jeopardy.
MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Whose fault is that?
MR. COCKE: Unlike Hawaii and other places that are relatively self-sufficient, B.C. is in jeopardy. Let me tell you what would place us in severe jeopardy now, and what will, in any event, in the future. It's California, Mr. Chairman, recognizing three things — recognizing first that they have an agricultural land attrition that we once had until the last three years, Mr. Member, while you were sunning yourself down there in Hawaii. Until the last three years this province had a tremendous agricultural land attrition, and that very thing is presently occurring in the sunny state of California. We are virtually totally dependent upon that jurisdiction for our food in this province. Therefore as their land attrition develops and grows and there is less and less land for development of food in California, what will occur, Mr. Chairman, will be a thought process that will sort of indicate to the officials down there and to those marketing foodstuffs that maybe we'd better keep our food for those here in California.
The second thing that they face in California — and this is why I feel the response to Bill 42, the Land Commission Act that this minister so wildly fought, was so tremendously thoughtless — is a water shortage. Now we have an attrition of land and we have a water shortage that's growing in the southern states, particularly in California — again, Mr. Chairman, bringing us closer to the day when, if we haven't agricultural land available and developed in this province, we will not be able to feed our own people.
The third thing that we face immediately in the foreseeable future will be not only the cost of fuel, but the scarcity of energy, the scarcity of fuel. Think in terms of those trucking fruit or food from the state of California to British Columbia. Are they going to be particularly motivated — that is, those distributing — to pay the high cost of those energy requirements? I suggest to you, no.
So what do we have? We have a three-pronged reason — far more than that, but just an immediate, three-pronged reason — for saying that the minister in his opposition to this bill was wrong, and the member for Delta today is equally wrong in suggesting that Bill 42, or the Land Commission Act, was not in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. Of course it was!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I don't believe you should be discussing legislation in Committee of Supply. Could you confine your remarks to vote 3, please?
MR. COCKE: I'm sure I shouldn't, Mr. Chairman, but this is part of the reason for questioning the Minister of Agriculture and his ability to handle the kind of portfolio he has. Now we are talking about farmland, so I won't refer, if you would prefer, to that infamous bill, but I will refer to the land-use policy in the immediate future.
The land-use policy in British Columbia must be one that turns an about-face of everything that the old Socreds and the new coalition stands for. It must be an about-face from all that support that I saw during the last election for this minister's position. As I drove through Delta, as I drove through Richmond, what did I see? La-di-da! On every field, a sign! The
[ Page 1391 ]
one that scared me most was the sign that was there in support of the now Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who is also chairman of the ELUC.
You see, Mr. Chairman, farmland in our province is in jeopardy. Farming in our province is in jeopardy. There is no way that we as an opposition can stand still and say to people: "Peace and love. Let this minister prove himself." I suggest to the people in this province, yes, let this minister prove himself. The only way I can see this minister proving himself is to stand up in this House and dissociate himself with every word he said in 1973 standing on this side of the House.
Now I don't expect the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) to do that sort of thing. I don't expect the member for Delta to dissociate himself with something that he said a few moments ago. But I hope that as he thinks....
Interjection.
MR. COCKE: I've watched your municipality just completely wrecked in many areas by the land use that we developed over a number of years in this province, Mr. Member for Delta. I was ashamed of the kind of position that was taken. I can remember when the old planning group went down the tube — in 1967, wasn't it, Mr. Member? Wasn't it 1967 or 1968?
Interjections.
MR. COCKE: I can remember very well. Certainly the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) remembers it with a great deal of embarrassment because that commission had the audacity to want to protect the delta regions of our province. Oh, shame on them! Shame on them!
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What about Tilbury Island?
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Columbia River has woken up. We're pleased with that. I'd like the member for Columbia River, who has been around here for some time, to stand up and tell us what kind of support he is going to give to retention of agricultural land for agricultural purposes in this province. It is a most significantly important decision that every man and woman in this House must make, a decision that, if we don't make it, I suggest even the people in the north, and particularly the people in the south, are in jeopardy.
We have generations to come in this province, Mr. Chairman, generations that depend on the decisions which are going to be made in the next while. I hope the decisions that that coalition made when they were fighting this group, which was then government, are going to be reversed in the immediate future. If they are not, then we are truly in jeopardy. My children and their children cannot look forward to a fulfilled life in a province that is suffering from not only starvation, but a bleak, bleak future. They won't even be able to feed the miners, Mr. Minister who sends notes of defence to the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, the minister, in the strongest possible terms, should stand up immediately and tell us that everything he said during those 34 hours and those 14 other hours — those 14 other hours in committee on the same bill.... I have never heard such a...
AN HON. MEMBER: Harangue.
MR. COCKE: ...harangue. Yes, Mr. Member, that's an excellent word. I've never heard such a harangue in all my life.
Mr. Chairman, let's hear it from him. Let's hear it for his children and their children. Let's hear how he stands on that particular piece of legislation today, and let's hear how he feels his colleagues stand.
Just before I sit down, I was interested recently in a little bit of news. That was the news that the Socreds — that's describing this coalition over here — were criticized over farm income. Mr. Chairman, Ralph Baracello, president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, said Saturday — and I'm quoting from The Province, April 26. "From conversations I hear, some farmers feel that they are on the verge of getting out of agriculture," he said in an interview.
You know, this kind of goes along with what I'm talking about. I listen to attacks on the wine industry. That's part of agriculture. I listen to attacks on different aspects of the agricultural industry in this province and I get worried, Mr. Chairman. Only 2 per cent, or 2 1/2 per cent or certainly no more than 3 per cent of our land is arable, and if we're building houses and exhausting this tremendously important resource in this province, we are in true jeopardy. But here again: "From the conversations I hear, some farmers feel they're on the verge of getting out of agriculture." Now he wasn't talking about the Land Commission. He was talking, of course, in terms of income assurance, and what was the response?
Interjection.
MR. COCKE: No, it was last year, April 26. Mr. Chairman, what was the response of your able Minister of Agriculture, through you to the Premier. What was his response? I don't know what I was talking about, but maybe the Minister of Agriculture knew what he was talking about. He said in Vancouver: "Agriculture minister Don Phillips said in an interview that 'Baracello's statement about food shortage is an irresponsible scare tactic.' " These are
[ Page 1392 ]
indicators, Mr. Chairman, significant indicators that tell me that he hasn't changed his ways, that he still doesn't have an understanding, a handle, on agriculture. How come you appointed him?
HON. MR. BENNETT: You're still wrong. You haven't changed.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I may still be wrong but, you know, in the eyes of my mother I will always be right, and in the eyes of you and your ilk I will always be wrong. So, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't scare me very much. I suggest to you, to those people in this House who take this subject as lightly as the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), that member who is trying to claw his way to....
Interjections.
MR. COCKE: That member who is trying to claw his way into the coalition. Tough beans you didn't start out as a Conservative or a Liberal, but we wish you a lot of luck. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that this minister not only was on record then but is on record now when he accuses a very conservative, careful person like the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture — and there's no one who can propose that the Federation of Agriculture is in any way radical. I don't think anybody can make that proposition stick.
Mr. Chairman, the minister responded that the Baracello statement about food shortage is an irresponsible scare tactic, so really it's right in line with his thinking back in 1973 when he opposed keeping agricultural land for agricultural purposes. I just hope against hope that we're going to hear something positive come from that side of the House as quickly as possible. Certainly he's getting some fatherly advice now from the Premier. Let's hope if the advice is good, that he follows it, if for no other reason than for the preservation of his job.
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have just a few words, Mr. Chairman. I'm rather appalled at the statements from that member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and his great concern at this time vis-à-vis the preservation of agricultural land in this province, because I'll never forget when the former member for Richmond — you remember him; his name was Steves in case you don't remember him — stood in this House and condemned the former government on the basis of their absolute destruction of some of the prime agricultural land in this province by the establishment of an industrial development park on Tilbury Island in which they destroyed 728 acres of prime agricultural land. Class one land, the best agricultural land in this province, was destroyed by that government in the establishment of an industrial development park. They talk about their great concern about the preservation of agricultural land. But we know full well what they did with those 728 acres of prime agricultural land.
And that wasn't good enough. In their pursuit of industrial development in the province, they weren't satisfied with the destruction of that prime agricultural land on Tilbury Island. They moved up to Kamloops — just slightly east of Kamloops — and destroyed some of the best agricultural land in that region, flat agricultural land. They destroyed 950 acres of what was always a very viable hop farm controlled by that great multinational corporation Molson's. It had been purchased by a dozen entrepreneurs from Kamloops who were out for a quick buck. And there's that right. That right is still here in this country. They're out for a quick buck. They found some suckers, Mr. Chairman, in the executive cabinet of this province who were prepared to pay them for the sale of half of the old Molson hop farm, $1 million more than what they paid for the entire tract of land, 950 acres.
The government was anxious to destroy this prime agricultural land in the Kamloops area. Yes, they wanted an industrial development park. That had a priority with that government, Mr. Chairman. They have the audacity to stand in this House and suggest for one moment that they're concerned about the preservation of agricultural land. How shallow those words are, shallow indeed, coming from that minister over there, that former Minister of Health, when we've seen the kind of desecration, the kind of destruction that took place under their government vis-à-vis agricultural land. Any developer that had some prime agricultural land for sale, all he had to do was approach that socialist government and pay him a good buck, and it was a quick buck to be made in the sale of agricultural land to that government that was so anxious for industrial development in this province.
And that wasn't enough, Mr. Chairman. The government took additional prime agricultural land in the community of Richmond. Oh, yes. It was okay because it was for a claims centre for ICBC. It doesn't matter whether it's agricultural land when they are government.
What I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, is that that was a government of double standard. That was a government that suggested that the people had to preserve their land for agricultural purposes, but when it became necessary at the whim of that government to destroy their agricultural land, it appeared to be okay. It was a government of double standard, Mr. Chairman, and all I want to hear from the minister tonight is that we won't, in this government today, have the kind of double standards and the kind of destruction of agricultural land we experienced in the last three years.
[ Page 1393 ]
MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, you know we can always rely on our friend from Columbia River to get up and take us 15 miles off course. One gets the feeling with that member that he's the kind of alter ego of the cabinet. When we're getting too close to the point, he comes in and takes us way over there.
Interjections.
MR. LEVI: Jimmy, don't hide behind Cyril. I can't see you.
MR. CHABOT: I'll follow you.
MR. LEVI: I was interested in the replies that the minister gave after the member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke, and I detected a distant sense of ennui. For the minister's benefit, that's a kind of tiredness, not too much enthusiasm in the way he was replying to the questions.
I have an opportunity to tell the minister that I spent four days in his riding. I came back yesterday and I can understand why he has that feeling of ennui.
They say up there that agriculture has 2 per cent of the land and we've got a minister who is prepared to spend 2 per cent of his time dealing with agriculture. They're very concerned. You know, next time you go back up you're not going to be able to make the same speech that you made to the chamber of commerce — and I understand you've made it twice now. I'm on the agricultural list, but he is the minister. Mr. Chairman, 2 per cent of the time — but he is the minister.
One of the questions that was brought to the minister's attention when he was up there was a form which the assessment branch sent out. I gather that at the meeting the minister was shown the form. I think he thought it was a football pool application because he didn't know what it was. He'd never seen one before. Neither had the farmers. They had never received a farm land return. He said that he would undertake to take a look at it and to find out why it was sent out. It's a very complicated document. It's got a lot of questions like types and quantities of farming unit, crop production, livestock and livestock products production, property leased or rented, how much acreage, your name, where you live. But what I was interested in was that, so far, they have not had an explanation.
It was suggested to them that what they should do up there, if they were in the South Peace River area, is to go down and see the agent at Pouce Coupe and he would help them fill it out. I think that the assessment department forgot to inform the agent in Pouce Coupe, because he wasn't able to help them fill it out.
On April 28 the Dawson Creek News reported:
"Farmers have been urged not to complete a farmland taxation questionnaire recently circulated by the B.C. Assessment Authority. Harry Riedeke, a member of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, warned that the provincial government is considering changing farmland assessment rules to get maximum revenue."
You should listen to this, Mr. Minister, because I'd like you to perhaps respond to it afterwards.
"He told the annual meeting of the B.C. Council of Marketing Boards that officials of the Authority told a recent meeting of more than 150 farmers on Vancouver Island that the government is considering adopting the assessment legislation now used in Ontario. The legislation puts such commodity groups as greenhouse growers, egg producers, chicken producers, turkey producers, nurseries, feedlots on virtually an industrial taxation base.
"Mr. Riedeke went on to say if this happened in British Columbia, food costs for the consumer will have an immediate increase. But even worse is that it will put some farmers out of business and this will cause more control over the food industry from outside of the province."
Now in his response to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), the minister touched very lightly...he did a light touch of disposable income. He said that when he was on this side of the House he used to use the same argument.
Interjection.
MR. LEVI: Disposable income. Well, the disposable income of people in this province has had a very bad time as the result of a number of significant increases in taxation, in ICBC insurance — and the other day we had the ferry increase. The disposable income is shrinking. Let me just relate some of this problem to the small businessman, and again go back to the minister's riding because it is made up of farmers.
As the minister knows, the town of Grande Prairie is about 60 miles away. The small businessmen are very concerned, as the farmers are, that people are now going on regular trips to Grande Prairie to purchase their hard goods as well as purchasing food. I think that some of the members may have seen a recent news shot taken in Bellingham, doing a survey of the number of people that go down to Bellingham to shop — not just to shop for clothes and shoes but to shop for food. We were faced with the interesting phenomenon of literally hundreds and thousands of British Columbians coming back over the border with food that was purchased in the United States. The minister gave a very light touch about disposable
[ Page 1394 ]
income. The reason they are going down there is because what little disposable income they have left appears to go a lot further down there than it does up here.
Now that has to have a very significant impact not only on the small businessman but on the farmer. That's a pity because when the minister first got his portfolio — and as happens with new ministers, they are asked to have interviews — he was interviewed, and I am just saying what the quote was. It may not be what the minister actually said, but it says here: "He indicated that the Agriculture portfolio he sees as an easy one to carry." Well, if he devotes 2 per cent of his time to it, it's going to be very easy.
"In B.C. agriculture has reached a plateau," he says. "I think its operating difficulties are straightened out and I would like agriculture to become an aggressive seller. I would like to see more involvement of youth in agriculture."
When he said that, I was interested in the minister's government, and I looked up the Hansard. I was wondering what kind of monumental contribution this man must have made in terms of agriculture for the Premier not only to make him Economic Development minister but also to make him Agriculture minister. His contribution, apart from the land question, which was adequately discussed by my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), was virtually nothing.
Now I don't think that the farming community, up to the present time, is taking the minister seriously in terms of the efforts that he indicates he wants to make in terms of agriculture. He has a sense of the light touch with this portfolio, considering that the previous minister spent three years full-time trying to get an industry back on track that had been neglected for 20 years.
The present minister talks about initiative and incentives. The incentives were so apparent in 1972 and 1973 that one of the major demands by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was that they had to be helped in terms of incentives. That was one of the reasons that the farm income assurance programme was brought in. You seem to have some feeling that by some magical waving of a wand somehow incentives are going to produce the kinds of things that only money can produce. Most of these people had no money — that's one of the reasons that the farm income assurance programme was brought in.
Since he has been the minister, although he says that he is prepared to meet with the agricultural federation — they are, after all, the spokesmen for the farmers of this province — they are not satisfied. They do not appear to be satisfied at all that the minister is serious about meeting with them.
There's been a succession of press releases from the agricultural federation about the difficulty they have in meeting with the minister. They are concerned about the arbitrary fashion in which he discusses things, in which he makes statements. I don't think the minister really can say that he has really behaved as an agricultural minister in the first five months. We will get to his economic portfolio later on.
But, you know, when you travel around — and we in this caucus have travelled around quite a bit and have had an opportunity to talk to the farming community — there is a great deal of apprehension out there. If the minister thinks that he can be taken seriously by the community, then he's going to have to be a lot more assertive in the things he says. I had expected from him tonight when he got up to speak that he was going to go into one of his flights where he would be speaking firmly, mostly to the back bench just to spur them on a little bit, but he wasn't. He suffered, as I described earlier, from that feeling of ennui because he's been battered quite a bit by the farmers.
Now the thing is, Mr. Minister, you're simply going to have to come clean with the farmers and tell them exactly what you're going to do. You know, the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture issued a press release March 9. They said, in part: "The chairman also criticized the arbitrary manner being imposed by the government in its dealings with the farmer. All previous plans had been settled through negotiation, and my committee remains willing to sit down and discuss the problem." This is from Mr. Turner. "We must have the assurance, however, that whatever agreement is reached, our actual production costs will be the basis of the income assurance plan." This is in relation to the sheep producers committee.
The thing is that this kind of atmosphere did not exist in the past three years. It's no coincidence that this atmosphere exists today, because you said one thing in the election and you're doing an entirely different thing. You know, perhaps the farmers were grateful for the kind of programmes that will be introduced, but we were not convinced in any way that because we introduced these programmes they were going to vote for us. It appears that most of them didn't. But the point is, what we were looking at was supporting an industry which is crucial that it be supported in this province. We have no indication from that minister at all, no indication whatsoever, that the farmers can look forward to a continuation of the kind of progress they have made.
After all, the minister said in one of his earlier interviews that he thinks that farming has reached a plateau. I presume from that that they'll just have to rest with what they've got, and he's going to go out and do a selling job for them. In the meanwhile, their costs are going to go up. In the meanwhile, their disposable income to consumers is going to drive them over the border and, of course, the farmers and the small village men are not going to benefit from
[ Page 1395 ]
the policies of this minister, not going to benefit at all.
You have an obligation to tell us in this House.... We don't want to know about your economic policies; we'll do that later on. But tell us what it is you're really going to do for the farmers, apart from not really seeing them as often as you should.
You know, I just want to make some reference to the land question — if I can relate it very tightly, Mr. Chairman, because I see you're looking at me — in terms of the kind of thing that we were trying to do in this province. We had the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) after we had his answer to the Bill 42 legislation, get up and tell us about Tilbury Island. He was a member of the previous Social Credit administration that wreaked havoc in this province, particularly in the lower mainland area, particularly in the member for Delta's (Mr. Davidson) riding. But he, of course, is opposed to the land bill and I'm sure would like to see it disposed of. I'm sure that we'll probably see that Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) presiding over the dismantling of the Land Commission.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are speaking on vote 3, Hon. Member.
MR. LEVI: Yes, we are, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about land. That's in farming, isn't it?
The tragedy with the Land Commission, of course, is it's a little dicey because it used to be under the Minister of Agriculture. Now it's under the Minister of Environment. But he ...
Interjection.
MR. LEVI: ...has to have some concern about that, as the farmers have concern, because now they have to deal with two ministers. They have to deal with a 2 per cent minister and they have to deal with the Minister of Environment who says: "I don't know anything about the environment." He's responsible for the most important committee that the government has, Environment and Land Use Committee, and he's also responsible for the Land Commission. Aren't you a little bit concerned, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, just a little bit concerned on behalf of the farmers? You don't appear to be, but they are concerned; you know that they're concerned. When they have been able to see you they've expressed that concern.
So I would hope that as you go to put your pen to paper you'll make a note to respond to that and give us some assurance along with your colleague the Minister of Environment, that the Land Commission is safe and that farmland is safe, because so far we've not heard anything from you in respect to that very important question.
MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): It's certainly been an interesting discussion so far. I must say I haven't heard too many suggestions that are going to help the farmers of this province.
I hope that before this discussion ends we'll have many ideas because there are certainly many problems facing the farmers — more than ever before, possibly, in our history. I don't want to take up the time of this House in discussing the Land Commission. I would expect that most members in this House support the preservation of farmland; certainly the majority do, at any rate. I would only ask those who are levelling criticism on the former Social Credit government who did the mapping of the farmland throughout this province.
MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The federal government.
MR. SHELFORD: The federal government in conjunction with the B.C. Department of Agriculture, yes.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on, Graham — give him that one.
MR. SHELFORD: He better give it to me, because we did it. He knows he's not telling the truth if he doesn't.
MR. LEA: I heard you on TV during the campaign and you were wrong there, too.
MR. SHELFORD: You should have heard lots before 1972, when I was already talking about the preservation of farmland. It was something that had to be done. The government recognized it had to be done and that's why the government in conjunction with the national government, carried out the survey of farmland.
I must say I was surprised, in listening to the debate on the Attorney-General's salary vote, at the lack of support for B.C.-grown products, and especially grapes, because this is one industry I think we all should be very proud of. It started from a very small start and certainly is a good industry and employs a lot of people. I would say that B.C. wines, for the price range they are in, are certainly better than what you would buy from foreign countries. There's a lot of people who like the foreign bottle, but I don't think the wine in it....
I'm glad to see the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has changed his mind. I remember him standing in this House when I was Minister of Agriculture, and "you're certainly making some lousy wines," I think were his words. He said that they weren't any good. I will say that after he flunked out on the test he was man enough to get up and admit
[ Page 1396 ]
he was wrong. So I am glad those tests did some good. We certainly got one convert. B.C. wines are good wines.
I think it would certainly be a shame to see too many cheap foreign wines come in and put our own people out of work. When you think of it, we are not all that frank when we spend millions of dollars in research on agricultural products of industry that we might be able to develop, and we also spend millions of dollars in trying to get industry established in various parts of our country, and then the first thing we do is turn around and encourage foreign products to come in and destroy the industry we've spent so much on to try and bring in. Sometimes you do wonder exactly what we're doing in our educational system — somewhere we seem to be going wrong.
We certainly are facing many problems in the expansion of the agricultural industry into the north country. Many changes will certainly have to be made. We are often told by the boards, especially the Egg Marketing Board, that they will attempt to shift production into the north as recommended by the Garrish report. I think the Garrish report was an excellent report and gave some good ideas that certainly government should look at very carefully. However, I would like to see the northern producers pay up their dues so that we can get on with the job of trying to help them out. I think everyone has to pay his way in a marketing scheme.
In my opinion expansion won't happen in the egg industry, with the present restriction of 200 cases. I don't think, personally, that 200 cases in that north country, where they have the high cost of grading plants, feed mills, et cetera, are enough. In the lower mainland they can move their eggs to a grading plant without cost or with very little cost, and there are plenty of feed plants where they can get their products. In the north country, they have to have their own plants. For instance, in Terrace we only have one producer. It's not practical for him to send his eggs to Prince George to have them graded or to bring in feed from Prince George. It's a must that he has to have his own plant. I would say the bankers in the area wouldn't look at a young man who came in and said that he wanted to start a new farm for egg production, because of the 200-case limit. The bankers tell me that it is not sufficient production to carry the high capital cost involved, especially in that area. So I do hope the northern producers with get in with the board and then we can get in and try and help them get production moved into that area.
I would again recommend an economic survey of the industry by an independent team. I don't think we should expect the producers of one area to resolve a problem that government should be doing in another. I think it is something like asking Ford Motors to resolve a problem with General Motors. As I said before, it just won't work. I think an economic survey to find out exactly what it does cost.... Maybe 200 cases is okay — but I think the people of the north should know whether it is a realistic level or not.
Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks from across the way, and it is certainly not my intention to spend all my time criticizing those who have spoken earlier. I would say that we must face the facts of life that neither the federal nor the provincial governments had any changes in policy so far, or only Band-aid policy changes. I would say it is a little like trying to patch a fishing rod while the boat was sinking.
Now the federation of agriculture, the other day in their presentation to the caucus, made some good points such as the need and the function of marketing boards. I think they made a very good case. Unfortunately, they did not deal with the overall policy, as a completely new policy in agriculture has to be developed. This was attempted by the provincial ministers between 1968 and 1972. I would say that it was one of the few times where the ministers representing four political parties agreed that the Band-aid approach had failed miserably in serving not only the farm industry but also the consumers in the long run.
I always regretted that most of my time was taken on minor issues, and far too little could be spent in developing long-range plans for the future. That's why earlier, Mr. Minister, I recommended that we should strive for shorter sessions so the ministers can get out and develop worthwhile programmes, not just in agriculture but in all fields. I still believe it is very necessary, and I think ways will have to be found to try and keep our sessions short. Any other government coming in, following us, would find the same problem. I'm quite sure some of you found it when you were there — you didn't have enough hours in the day.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): We should have more committees.
MR. SHELFORD: That might be one solution, yes.
I would say we should take a look at the brief by the federation of agriculture. I think it would be a surprise to any of us who once in a while browse around the chain stores, like I do. I got in the habit. My good friend Sig there I think took me around once in a while to show me what was going on. I think it is an eye-opener when you take a look at the figures in the federation's brief where apples, last year, averaged 3.6 cents a pound. Now the average selling price in the chain stores throughout the district where I come from...you are mighty lucky if you can get three pounds for $1, and that has to be a sale. I'm quite sure it's that way in Prince Rupert,
[ Page 1397 ]
too. Now this is 10 times, of course, what the producer receives.
MR. COCKE: They're 29 cents a pound.
MR. SHELFORD: As a percentage of total selling price, this is less than at any time in our history, even lower than what it was, say, back in the Depression, as far as the percentage of what the consumer receives.
We spend nearly a third of our total budget, as I mentioned earlier, on education. And by the serious problems we face in this country in agriculture, housing, the whole economic system — unemployment, and the income-spread between the rich and the poor is getting greater and not less, and many other issues, and quite a few of these with no apparent solution right at this moment — we must all wonder: have we wasted our money? I think we all want to sit up and take a real serious look at what we have done in our spending.
We still, as I mentioned, don't seem to be any closer to a solution than we were years and years ago. I remember going to Courtenay one time to an agriculture convention, and we dug up three resolutions that were passed in 1917. I read them out at the convention and they thought they were current resolutions, because one of them was on the price spread, the other one was on the rail transportation from east to west — and I just forget what the other one was, but it's the same type of a problem that we are facing today. As I say, really, we haven't resolved the problem of a price spread between the consumer and the producer in 100 years.
I would recommend to you, Mr. Minister, that you immediately meet with the federal government and all provinces to set up a small committee of practical people with no other duty for one year but to map out a new approach for agricultural policies for the next decade. As I said before, you, yourself, I know very well, don't have that kind of time to spend on such a committee, because there's a lot of work to be done, and there's a lot of real serious problems that you run into — when you think you're finding an answer, all of a sudden you find yourself in an obstruction.
I think we might as well clearly understand that major solutions will not be found at the provincial level only, so I make the following suggestion for possible new approaches to this whole question — and I know I'm not going to get agreement from many members in this Legislature.
First of all, study the method to ensure that the primary producer receives not less than one-third of the total consumer price. This would encourage efficiency at the wholesale and retail levels. Of course, there has never been any encouragement in the past because all you had to do was build another blacktop parking lot and charge it up to the consumer. Our giant retail chains have grown up with little thought of cost saving in a system where fixed markup is cherished at the wholesale and retail level. If this was done by the producers on top of production price, farm prices would be two or three times and, in some cases, 10 times as high as they are today.
What I'm saying is that if the wholesale and retail levels can take this approach, why not the producers? I can just hear the screams if a farmer put in a two-acre parking lot and charged it against his production cost of apples or potatoes. We have a free market system on one hand and a fixed markup on the other. How stupid can we really get to expect that this system can go on forever without really breaking down and seriously affecting all of us? You can't tell me that it should cost up to 10 times more to move a product from the farm to the consumer than to cultivate the land, fertilize, plant the crop, pay for the machinery, harvest and move it to the market. There just has to be a better system found.
I should point out before I start on my second point that the Prices and Incomes Commission say that they'll hold the profits of the major chains to 7 per cent. I would say it's a laugh. It doesn't mean a thing, because if you own your wholesale chains, which are mainly owned across the line, all you have to do is up your wholesale price and you can still fall within the guidelines. So we shouldn't be kidded that we're really resolving anything in this regard. I brought this to the attention of the minister in Ottawa and he said he recognized I was correct and that they were trying to find ways to resolve this very serious problem.
My second point is that with social unrest and endless strikes and lockouts, which by all indications are getting worse, governments must change their approach from allowing local production to disappear and rely on foreign imports of even bare necessities. This must change and policy be developed to see we produce enough at least to keep us from starving until production could be started again. A serious strike, for instance, in the transportation system of another country, or a war, flood or any other natural disaster could really put us in a serious position in trying to feed our people. I would say we simply can't afford this, even though more of our income will have to go towards food production. We should be able to afford this, as pointed out by the Federation of Agriculture. We spend about 17.5 per cent of our income, compared to most European countries, where 20 and even 30 per cent of disposable income goes for food. Of course, in the Asiatic countries it's far higher than that. So I think we have to be prepared to do this.
A third point, I'd say, is the most important of all. We are spending a lot of time in Ottawa trying to resolve ways to use our own food first before we get
[ Page 1398 ]
into imports of food. We quite often see where food is brought in just to cut the price in our own area, and then of course that's the level of the price to everyone. So I think what we should do is consider the need of setting up a food import corporation with branches in each province — this was discussed by the ministers during the time I was there — which would bring in all the foreign imports, thus ensuring the sale of our production before bringing in any imports.
This is a must if we are to develop our own industry. It would have many advantages over tariffs and duties which upset our foreign trading partners. They wouldn't get particularly upset by us using our own products first, but they do get upset if we do put a tariff on their products. This wouldn't leave the imports to the whims of unscrupulous traders who wish to bring in cheap carloads of food just to undercut the local producers so that they have to sell the rest of their crop for less.
I've seen this happen in the apple industry, where one carload would be brought in from the state of Washington at a lower price just to show the fruit board that they were selling too high and they had to get down to this import level. It wasn't really a real price and they couldn't have got large quantities at this price. But if you can pick up one carload, it can do an awful lot of damage to the boards which, generally speaking, do a good job. So far we haven't found a better system. I think we should try and help them instead of tearing them apart.
I've seen this, as I've said, many times and it not only destroys the agriculture industry, but it also destroys the processing and does away with quite a number of jobs in our industry.
I realize that some of these changes some of you may consider quite radical, but I would say that unless we're prepared to make changes such as I recommend — of an import corporation, so that we use our own products first — then I would say we'll only have a Band-aid approach for agriculture forever. I think we have to make up our minds. We either have to make real changes or we're not going to really change anything at all. I think it's that simple. And I hope everyone recognizes it because if you get out into the federal field of what has happened in the importation of products into Canada, whether it be peas, beans, corn, or anything else, we pretty well always only bring in imports to cut our own price down and, unfortunately, destroy our own industry we've been trying so hard to build up.
We not only have to maintain our farmland. We have to increase production, which, of course, means an increase in employment in our province. This would lower our welfare rate, hopefully, and ensure our independence in this nation. Because if we give away our production unit, we also give away our nation, too. Thank you.
MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just briefly. You'll recall that I spoke a few moments ago, talking in terms of the capacity to deliver of the new Minister of Agriculture, talking in terms of his opposition to agricultural land retention in this province, talking in terms of the fact that we face the strong possibility of placing ourselves in a position where we can starve because we're totally dependent upon an outside nation, particularly the state of California which, by virtue of energy reductions, that is energy resources being depleted — and it requires energy to move agricultural products and, for that matter, to reap them and to sow them — and, Mr. Chairman, the attrition of land in that state and further the fact that water is also a resource that is depleting in the United States. Therefore we are in jeopardy, I suggested.
Then I sat here and I was refreshed, not listening to the remarks of the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who tries to smoke every proposition that he can by using specious arguments, but, Mr. Chairman, listening to that highly responsible, responsive discourse on agriculture that we heard from the member for Skeena. Obviously he is a person who has thought out the needs of our province, thought out the needs for the future. Oh, yes, he may be wrong on some things. One thing he's very wrong on, I feel, and that's politics. But other than that, he gave a fantastic account of himself, an account of himself that can come from a responsive person. Why wasn't he appointed Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman?
The present minister obviously isn't interested, hasn't even got up to suggest what he's going to say in defence of the former opposition to land retention. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that member over there put it straight on the line. He agrees with the retention of agricultural land for agricultural purposes. He believes in giving that priority to agriculture that the present minister talks about and does nothing about.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that everybody understands clearly that there is support from this side of the House for progressive, able thinking in agriculture. Thank you.
MR. KERSTER: Mr. Chairman, I am happy that you refer to me as the member for Coquitlam. The hon. member for New Westminster refers to me often as the MLA for Hawaii. It seems to me that by now he should be able to accept the fact that, in reality, I am the MLA for Coquitlam. And I'm darned proud of it. Sooner or later, I guess, Mr. Member, you will accept that fact.
AN HON. MEMBER: I doubt it.
MR. KERSTER: On vote 3, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind that hon. member that he tonight has
[ Page 1399 ]
spoken with somewhat of a forked tongue regarding the preservation of agricultural land. His government, when it was government, ruined one of the most viable, one of the most productive, one of the best agricultural areas in Coquitlam by slamming....
MR. COCKE: Burke Mountain?
MR. KERSTER: No, you were on that one next. Your minister of paper housing, or the former minister of paper housing, was going to destroy that next. They rammed a four-lane highway right through the middle of that area much to the chagrin and against the desires of many of my constituents. I want to bring that out and make that a point of record. I don't believe that that is preserving farmland. They are talking out of two sides of their mouths. I don't agree with that because that is the old "do as I say, not as I do" theory in approaching people. That was the approach that that government took. All this pontification by those members tonight on Bill 42 and farmland preservation to me is just another example of hypocrisy and irresponsibility.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Terrible!
MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on vote 3, the estimates of the Minister of agriculture, and I will be very brief. I wish only to bring to the attention of the hon. minister again the plight of the northern egg producer, the producer in the north of whom there are very few. However, they must be recognized. Their problem must be known by the hon. members of this House. They are fighting for their very existence, a life-and-death struggle which, if something is not done, will result in their going out of business — going completely out of business.
We will lose in the north a very viable industry, lose a group of hard-working northerners concerned only with making a living for their families, building up a small inheritance for their sons and daughters, and producing a quality product for the consumption of northerners. Mr. Chairman, these egg producers are doing all these things while braving the elements and the high costs in that part of British Columbia. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, this must be recognized — this must be recognized. The high costs of the north must be taken into consideration.
AN HON. MEMBER: Like ICBC did.
MR. KEMPF: We must be concerned about the fact that these egg producers do not, in most cases, have a quota large enough to sustain their operations and their families.
MR. KING: Where was he when the automobile drivers needed him?
MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the hon. minister, as a northerner himself, to initiative an economic survey of the northern egg producer operations which would result in these individual enterprise endeavours, these non-subsidized operators, being fairly treated and allowed to produce a product which, incidentally, is in short supply in the north.
MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Don't you guys caucus?
MR. KING: They don't let the northern members in to caucus.
Interjections.
MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't really want to get involved in the pros and cons of the egg-marketing situation, but there have been a few remarks made here tonight that, I think for the record of this House, I would like to present a few facts as I have them and as I see them.
First of all, when the egg marketing board was instituted, it was done under the former Social Credit regime. That government saw fit to announce to the egg producers of the province that the quotas would be set on the basis of the number of laying hens that they had at a given time in the future. It certainly was not the fault of any egg marketing board, which was not even then instituted, that that information became more prominently known in the Fraser Valley than it was in the north. If, in fact, that was the case, and if, in fact, there was some building up of flocks in the Fraser Valley, it was certainly not the result of anything the egg marketing board did. It was the result of the policies of the former Social Credit government which took that method to institute the egg marketing board.
When the egg marketing board was formed they inherited rules and regulations as to how quotas should be established, and that is how quotas were established. The north got the same treatment as the Fraser Valley from the egg marketing board. That was the initial history of the establishment of that board, and that's how those quotas were established. They cannot be blamed on the egg marketing board which was not even in existence at that time.
Since its inception, the egg marketing board, in my opinion, has tried very hard to accommodate the northern producers within the lines of their terms of reference, within the concept of their terms of reference. They cannot do the things they are not allowed to do. They have doubled, and more than doubled in some instances, but every one of those northern producers has received, without any
[ Page 1400 ]
additional charge, double the amount of their original quota, and with the exception of one of those northern producers, they are well above the average quota issued to the farmers across B.C. generally.
Now I think those facts should be written into the record of this House, Mr. Chairman, because I have great sympathy for people who are having problems trying to beat the system and keep in business. But I think we must know what the facts are before we just get carried away and overly enthusiastic about someone who has, supposedly, suffered. Those people had their day in court many times over and they may still have some problems, but I would say that we cannot condemn the system of marketing boards because of some problems that have occurred within one marketing board as a result of the method and the terms of reference under which that marketing board was established.
While I am on the subject of marketing boards, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the minister for his apparent intention to maintain the B.C. Marketing Board. I see the estimates provide for that again this year. Of course, I am particularly aware of the kind of service that board has been able to provide in the past, inasmuch as I was a former member of the board. I am very glad to see that he had seen fit, in spite of some words to the contrary, before he became the minister of Agriculture, that that might not be the case, to carry on with the marketing board.
[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]
I think there is a lot of misconception about how marketing boards are established and what their purpose is. First of all in every instance they are the representative of a growers' cooperative group. The growers band together in a cooperative, and that cooperative proceeds to elect the marketing board.
It seems to be in the minds of consumers that those boards set prices. Marketing boards do not have that power within the international marketplace to set prices. A marketing board's prime purpose is to control production so we do not have great quantities of surplus food produced that we have to destroy, throw away or waste, or that we get into a position where one farmer is competing against the other to try to dispose of his products at a higher price than his neighbour. This is the basic purpose of the marketing board. This is the basic concept of the board. It was established to prevent that kind of cut-throat competition between farmers who were growing the same product, and to ensure that all farmers would have an equitable return equally distributed among those growing any one given product.
As a person who is able to remember the pre-marketing board days and the kind of chaos that we experienced on the farm in trying to sell our product without the marketing board, I am a very strong convert to this concept. It is, in effect, the farmer's method of presenting his product in the marketplace, controlling it, packaging it and presenting it to the wholesaler.
While in some instances marketing boards may actually set prices, they are always very much influenced by the market price, not only in British Columbia but in the United States and in other provinces, because they must compete with those places. There is no way they can completely control. As is often the case, and we know is the case, because of the number of times we read about companies coming before the commission on the Combines Act where prices are fixed and controlled, the farmer has no such power with the marketing board to move in that direction.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to note that this concept is to be maintained. I would hope that it is one of the thrusts. The minister talked about marketing as being one of the items that he wants to really involve the department with, and I would hope that he uses the existing machinery for doing this, or as a part of the method of doing this, because that is the farmers' duly elected body to represent them, and they speak on behalf of the farmers of this province.
I wanted to speak, too, Mr. Chairman, about income assurance. There have been some references made to income assurance earlier, and I am very concerned when the minister indicates that, you know, it's just going to stay as it is. Some of the negotiable items in income assurance — the variable costs — are to be, as I understand it, negotiated annually on the contracts. The information I have is that the labour costs are not to be increased this year. We are expecting a farmer.... I think the farmer who manages his operation has to be a bookkeeper, an accountant, veterinarian, have managerial skills. He has to be a practical man who can get out and actually participate in the farm activity as well. We expect a man with all those qualifications to perform for $6 an hour. Now that is less than janitors are getting in many instances, and we are not even allowing him an 8 or a 10 per cent increase in the income assurance contract this year. I would urge the minister to reconsider that particular aspect and allow the farmer at least the increase to keep up with the inflationary costs that he is being faced with, at least in the portion relative to his own salary, Mr. Chairman.
The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) made mention of the payment factor of income assurance, and the fact that it is not a subsidy. Perhaps you could call it a Band-aid measure, but it is no more a Band-aid measure than any other form of insurance. It's a programme that's around to provide help when something goes amiss. As such, the farmer
[ Page 1401 ]
contributes, the government contributes, and it is based on the cost of the production, the costs that go into producing that product.
But do you think for a minute, Mr. Chairman and members of this House, that the farmer is going to get out of that scheme more than the cost of production? He gets, in fact, as I understand it, something like 75 per cent of the cost of production in the event that he claims anything at all, because it is not paid out at 100 per cent. I think the figure is 75 per cent in most instances, and that is based strictly on costs as agreed to between the Department of Agriculture and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who negotiate these schemes. They're based on costs which are supposedly to assure a reasonable wage rate — and that's why I'm concerned about no inflationary factor being provided for the farmer in his wage rate this year. It is also to provide a return on investment and a management fee. These items are negotiated on the basis of variable costs, non-variable capital, miscellaneous revenue and marketing cost. All these factors are taken into consideration.
Formulas are worked out for each plan, Mr. Chairman, and it seems a very practical way of approaching this problem where we have a farm community which is not an economic entity at this point in time because of a surplus situation presently existent, at least within North America, in the food supply. It's serving a purpose. It's keeping that community viable, keeping them operational, and keeping them on the farm so when we are faced with a position where those imports are not available, or when we're faced with a famine in some part of the world, or a drought, as has been indicated may be occurring in the States this year, we will have an ample supply and have the potential to provide supply of food for British Columbia, and we will be able to feed ourselves.
Now just a few specific points I wanted to deal with, apart from the major general principle. One of the things that concerned me is the 15 per cent staff reduction that your department, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is applying. It seems to me that if we are going to be able to carry out the kind of programmes that are established, we cannot really anticipate cutting back 15 per cent on our staff.
Another point that concerns me about the staffing, particularly in the agricultural department, is the fact that there is a very large provision in one of the votes for temporary help — much, much increased. I would ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to clarify to this House what the purpose of that large sum of money for seasonal and temporary people covers.
You know, when things like this occur, rumours get started, Mr. Chairman, and lots of ideas that are perhaps wrong, and that's very unfortunate because it creates a bad impression. I have had farmers approaching me, since this has been publicized that all these temporaries are being hired, concerned about who these temporaries are.
We heard earlier, Mr. Chairman, about sleuthing gooks, and this is the feeling that some of the farm community has — and I think it has something to do with what Mr. Ian Carne has been saying back in Hamilton — that this is a group of sleuths who are going out to check up on what the farmers are doing, whether or not they are cheating on their income assurance, on their agricultural loans and all the other things.
MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Are you suggesting they're cheating?
MRS. WALLACE: No, Mr. Chairman, but they are afraid that this is what this is for. I've had reports of people seeing strange people out measuring their chicken coops and such-like. I would ask the minister to advise this House what this money is for, who those temporary people are, how they're going to be used and why we have so many temporaries.
Another concern about the temporaries, Mr. Chairman.... And this takes me back to the pre-1972 days when this was a policy of the former Social Credit administration to keep down the regular staff so the number of civil servants would not appear so great, and hire temporary people. In one instance that I recall, this person had been temporary for some 22 years.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that it would do this House and this province a great service if the minister would explain to the House just what that temporary money covers, who those temporary people are, what their purpose is and why we are going to temporaries.
Another question that concerns me is the fact that the $350,000 aid to developing countries, while it is included in the Minister of Agriculture's estimates, is not really at the level for which accountability for budgets and expenditure is made by the minister. The accountability is made at the level of the total vote, and the fact that this $350,000 aid is simply a part of that vote...there is no real safeguard that that may be underexpended where some other portion of that vote may be overexpended, and still the total vote, at the level of accountability, will not really show us this or make certain that the $350,000 aid is available and used in aid to developing countries.
I would ask the minister whether or not the committee, which functioned when this was a special fund to hear applications and to decide how the money is used, is still active — whether it has been disbanded, whether or not any requests have been received, whether they are being heard. If not, when will they be heard, and just what is the progress
[ Page 1402 ]
relative to that fund for aid to developing countries? I have the same kind of concern for the $5 million World Food Relief Fund, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the minister to provide the House with any information he has as to proposed expenditures under this $5 million world food fund.
Another item is the biological control banks. I noticed that the funding for this biological control has been cut exactly in half. Now my information on this is that this programme dealt almost in its entirety with the coddling moth, where sterile males were released to eliminate the coddling moth population. This was done, as I understand, through the Summerland Research Station in the Similkameen Valley. I noticed in an excerpt from the March, I think it was, Viewpoint, issued by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, that they say that by getting the coddling moth to work in frustrating its way, it is hoped that 20 years of biological control work will result in sterile moths, reducing growers' dependence on insecticides. If this programme is successful," it says — and I hope the minister is listening — "it will be extended to cover the entire Okanagan Valley."
Now my question is that with the funding cut in half, how is this programme going to be extended? I would hope that you would answer that, Mr. Minister.
Another item that I note missing from the budget this year, and which was included last year, is the $1 million for the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. It simply seems to be gone. Now I'm sure it must have gone somewhere; perhaps it's gone to the Department of Economic Development. But would the minister be good enough to answer that question? I just can't see that he would wipe that right out completely.
Another question deals with the new technology. I think there is $100,000 provided, which is no change from last year. But I understand, Mr. Minister, that that $100,000 is already committed. It was committed, in fact, at the beginning of this fiscal year with onstream programmes. My information is that a request that was put to the minister to do some work under this programme....
lnterjection.
MRS. WALLACE: Fine. We'll do it under the individual vote. But I'm warning you — I'm giving you notice.
Two other very small items. It was you, I think, Mr. Minister — someone said we must help out the youth. It is very disturbing to me to find that the money allocated for the 4-H youth programme is reduced by some $30,000 this year. I would hope, Mr. Minister, that there is provision for that in some other spot.
I notice the hour is now 11, Mr. Chairman. I move the adjournment of this debate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again. Those in favour say "aye."
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed say "no."
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.
HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Division! Division! I heard a "no"!
Interjections.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to find out who voted no.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are we really going to have one?
MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.
MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear anyone call for a division. I would ask the person who called for a division to stand in his place and do so.
Interjection.
MR. LAUK: Do you mean the Premier of the province would call a division on a frivolous thing like this? I can't believe it!
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
HON. MR. BENNETT: These frivolous noes have got to stop. They're constant. Let's see if the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) votes no.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Can we just dispose of the point of order? There was a no and a division was called and the Chair is duty bound.
Interjections.
Motion approved unanimously on a division.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported resolution, was
[ Page 1403 ]
granted leave to sit again.
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11: 05 p.m.