[ Page 1405 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Mineral Royalties Repeal Act (Bill 40). Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 1405

Water Improvement District Assistance Act (Bill 41). Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 1406

Oral questions

Food price increases. Ms. Sanford — 1406

Non-medical people making medical decisions. Mr. Wallace — 1406

Result of meeting between government and VGH administration. Ms. Brown — 1406

Press release on firearms control. Mr. Gibson — 1407

Glendale Hospital budget cut. Mr. Cocke — 1408

Replacement of bridge on Highway 27. Mrs. Wallace — 1408

Increased body shop rates. Mr. Barnes — 1408

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 3.

Mr. Gibson — 1408

Mr. Hewitt — 1411

Mr. Lloyd — 1412

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1413

Mr. Lauk — 1415

Mr. Davidson — 1418

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1422

Mr. Cocke — 1424

Mr. Levi — 1424

Mr. Barber — 1425

Mr. Nicolson — 1426

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1428

Mr. Nicolson — 1429

Mrs. Wallace — 1429

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1433

Mr. Wallace — 1433

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 1434

On vote 3.

Mr. King — 1434

Mr. Wallace — 1434

Mr. Gibson — 1436

Mr. Nicolson — 1436

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1437

Mr. Bawtree — 1437

WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the gallery are a group of students from the great constituency of North Peace River. I would like to ask the House to recognize a group from the Fort Nelson Secondary School in your constituency, Mr. Speaker, with their teacher, Mr. Larson. The group includes 16-year-old Eddie Streeper who was the 1976 British Columbia champion sleigh-dog musher. His distinction was won racing at Fort St. John. He was in competition with 25 other top dog mushers and teams from across all of Canada and the United States of America. I would ask you to welcome the class and give a special tribute to Eddie Streeper and each of the students and the teacher, Mr. Larson.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to welcome a group of senior citizens who are here from the constituency of South Okanagan. They are the Mother Seeton Retirement Centre group. They are here with a group of men and women with very much enthusiasm. They are going to be visiting the Provincial Museum and Butchart Gardens, and they are in the Legislature this afternoon. I'd ask you to welcome them.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are situated six very important people. First, Mr. Lorne Fingarson, MBA, my campaign manager and close associate. He's a vice-president of the Burnaby-Willingdon Social Credit Association.

Also there are Mr. and Mrs. W.L. Stephens. Mr. Stephens is a long-time resident and engineer from Burnaby and New Westminster. He also represents one of the original pioneer families on British Columbia's west coast.

Mr. Stuart Fingarson, an eminent citizen, and his wife, Mrs. Evelyn Fingarson, who is a past candidate for election to this Legislature. Would you welcome, please these fine people?

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the House today Chief Billy Roberts and Mrs. Roberts of the Campbell River Indian band. Would the House join me in making them welcome?

Mr. Speaker, later on this afternoon there will also be a group of students from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at Courtenay. They will be accompanied by their teacher, Pete Sanford. I would like the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two people from my riding of Boundary-Similkameen, or I should say, one from Boundary-Similkameen, Mr. Alan MacDonald, the secretary-manager of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, and with him today, from Salmon Arm, Marvin Persson, the president of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association. Marvin is also the manager of the Federated Co-op in Salmon Arm. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like the House to join with me today in welcoming the new executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association. In the group of the executive is the newly elected president, Mrs. Hamilton, and also the past president, Mr. Berg.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, having lost out, in all good honour, to the democratic process, I would like to lend the support of welcome from the government members of the House to the new trustees, president and the executive that are here today.

I might also draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Hamilton is a very accomplished woman, a lawyer, a mother and a homemaker as well as a very interested citizen.

It was interesting to note in the paper today, the Province, that they announced broadly: "Woman Elected As Trustee President" and in the Sun they announced: "Lawyer Elected As President." But the question with lawyer elected president was: who is he? He is she, and we welcome them all.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it's not very often I have the privilege of introducing some students in this assembly. However, a little later on this afternoon we'll have 35 students from the Alexander Park School in the community of Golden along with their teachers, Mrs. Seward and Mrs. Ambrose, and I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the gallery today, from Omineca, Mr. Jim Togy. Jim is an alderman on the council of the village of Fort St. James, and I ask the House to welcome him.

Introduction of bills.

MINERAL ROYALTIES REPEAL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 40, Mineral Royalties Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

[ Page 1406 ]

today.

WATER IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT ASSISTANCE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Nicolson, Bill 41, Water Improvement District Assistance Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

MS. SANFORD: My question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair). Yesterday, in response to my question in the House on your department's monitoring of food prices, you indicated that you had filed the most up-to-date information in this House. That information was for the week of March 24, and this is May 5. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us on what day the next information will be available on monitoring of food prices.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to take that question as notice. I should have an answer for the member tomorrow.

NON-MEDICAL PEOPLE
MAKING MEDICAL DECISIONS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question with regard to the strike at the Vancouver General Hospital and the fact that Dr. Key has stated that the hospital cannot guarantee their medical and surgical care as safe under existing circumstances. And in view of the fact that the government has set up machinery, through the Labour Relations Board as monitors, has consideration been given to the fact that the government is contradicting legislation in having non-medical people practising medicine, or, at least, reaching decisions about medical standards?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker. There are no non-medical people reaching decisions about medical standards, and those instructions are only carried out on the request of the hospital to the Labour Relations Board. You are, I imagine, quoting from a newspaper report when you quote Dr. Key, but Dr. Key has assured me that medical standards will remain at a safe level; otherwise he would not allow the changes to take place.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question. I have obtained statements and opinions from a variety of people in the hospital field, and just to correct the minister's comment, I am certainly not just relying on newspaper comments. There has been concern expressed in the pediatric department that young babies now have to be cared for in an adult-care area, that contaminated laundry is not being adequately handled promptly and efficiently and this obviously introduces the serious possibility of cross-infection. I wonder if the minister could tell us what mechanism has been set up so he can be informed by medical personnel at the earliest possible moment as to when that point of danger is reached.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member: I appreciate the concern, and certainly it's ours as well. From my point of view, the only advice that I'm taking is from the medical people and the executive at Vancouver General Hospital, not from any other source whatsoever, Mr. Member. If I am informed that an unsafe condition exists that can't be tolerated, then some action will have to be taken at that time. But my advice is coming from the hospital and not from anyone else.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplemental, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that when I dialed the hospital switchboard today, a recorded response stated the following: "Due to a strike situation at the hospital, telephone service is restricted to emergency calls only; if your call is an emergency, please keep dialing until your call is answered"? Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: since this could obviously lead to a person in an emergency situation — for example, with a child who has swallowed poison or whatever — having to dial, re-dial and re-dial, this, in effect, negates the essence of dealing with an emergency. If the minister is not aware of this, would he please tell the House that he will deal with this problem immediately?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Member. I was not aware of it, but I will look into it immediately.

RESULT OF MEETING BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT AND VGH ADMINISTRATION

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): A supplemental question to the Minister of Health: the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) informed us yesterday that you and the Minister of Labour would be meeting with the administration of the hospital to come to some kind of an agreement about helping the administration meet and settle this strike as soon as possible. Are you going to make a statement to this House telling us what the results of that meeting

[ Page 1407 ]

were?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a supplemental question. It's a question on a different matter altogether, but we will accept it as that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, sure, I'll make a statement to the House when I feel that I should make a statement to the House, Mr. Speaker. I have not met with the administration of the Vancouver General Hospital yet. I am meeting with the chairman of the board today at 3 o'clock, and depending on the results of that meeting, then I'll decide whether I'll make a statement to the House.

PRESS RELEASE ON FIREARMS CONTROL

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry: in view of the minister's demand on March 7 of this year for the federal government to immediately enact gun-control legislation and forget about further procrastination in the form of studies and observations, does the minister sanction the recent press release by Dr. Hatter of her department, on press release letterhead bearing the minister's name, to protest the firearms control section of the bill to amend the Criminal Code?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Minister of Recreation and Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for North Vancouver–Capilano for the question. The comment was made in the context of a television show, I believe. A question was asked and I said I believed at that time that I agreed with the federal government enacting legislation immediately, or as quickly as possible, because a lot of procrastination had taken place regarding gun registration.

At this time you are asking about Dr. Hatter's press release, I believe. Yes, it did go through my office. I read the release and approved of it, and I think it is a fairly accurate statement of that branch of the department. It is not a personal statement from myself; that is why it is over the name of Dr. Hatter of the Fish and Wildlife branch.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, just so I can understand: was Dr. Hatter expressing the official stand of the government in his release?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I cannot say that Dr. Hatter's statement is an official government stand. It was the department's view of the proposed gun legislation. It was given to me for approval and I did approve it going out. I do not say that it's a reflection of the government's policy on that subject.

MR. GIBSON: On a final supplementary: are we to understand that press releases no longer represent the official stand of the government?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think that the nature of Dr. Hatter's release was one which I could approve in terms of further investigation of that particular bill and further comment on the bill as far as British Columbia's stance is concerned, and that is the essence in which I approved that press release.

I hope you will understand, when you consider the nature of that legislation, that this government at this point in time has not had time to form that policy. We definitely have very strong points of view which we would like to, with time, put before the people of British Columbia. But it was in the essence of approving that we felt the federal legislation should have more input from our people of British Columbia that the press release was approved.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Does the Provincial Secretary believe that a civil servant should issue statements through your office on what is obviously a policy on a political matter?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think that if you read the release you would understand that it was to elicit debate within the province of British Columbia and to say to the federal government...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...that this government....

MR. MACDONALD: That's a political argument.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I have given to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano covers the subject. I don't believe in stifling the expression of civil servants in our service.

The Fish and Wildlife branch has a very good record, and I'm not stifling that expression. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, through you, in answer to the former Attorney-General, that the reason it was given to me for approval was that if it did express public policy I would not have let it go out, because our government hasn't made that particular point of view known as yet, and when it does it will certainly have a government policy on that subject.

[ Page 1408 ]

GLENDALE HOSPITAL BUDGET CUT

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Human Resources. I wonder if the minister would confirm a report that Glendale Hospital for the retarded had a budget cut of 25 per cent.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that as notice and I'll provide an answer tomorrow.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is taking it back to his department to look into the matter, I wonder if he'd also confirm that admissions have been cut to the point where there will be no further admissions until such time as the patient population is down from, roughly, 300 to 100.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will table the answer in the House.

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE ON HIGHWAY 27

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the Minister of Highways and Public Works, and it is in connection with Highway 27 in the northern area of this province, near Vanderhoof, where there is a bridge that is a one-way wooden structure. My question would be: is this bridge to be replaced, and if so, when?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): To the member: the answer to your question is no, there is no provision to replace that bridge at the present time.

INCREASED BODY SHOP RATES

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Education. The reports in the press indicate that the autobody shops will be requiring additional per-hour increases, which I'm wondering if the minister took into account when he raised the insurance rates some 700 per cent for insured automobile operators in the province of British Columbia. And can they be assured that there will be no increase in those rates during this fiscal year, despite any agreements made between the government and the autobody shops?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the rates for ICBC were calculated to be on a break-even basis so the corporation would lose no more money this year. That was the policy of the corporation, and it differed to the policy of the former government.

With respect to body shops, the policy of ICBC, as with towing and all other services rendered to the corporation, is to get the lowest prices possible in order to bring the lowest real prices to the motorists of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's concern to have ICBC break even, but he didn't answer my question. I'm wondering if the insured individuals will be required to pay additional money in this fiscal year — in addition to the 700 per cent they've already been required to pay.

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely not, and if the good-driving record of the people of British Columbia continues throughout this year, we may even be able to bring real reductions next year.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission of B.C. on minors' contracts, and also the report of Messrs. Bain, Black and Wyler, "An Ombudsman for British Columbia."

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)

On vote 3: minister's office, $50,728 — continued.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to make a few general remarks at this time. I was listening carefully to what the minister said in his opening statement last night, which was nothing. I think it's very sad, you know, that....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Did you follow it?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I followed it, and I think he told us all he knew too, Mr. Attorney-General. But I think it's a shame that there's no opening overview on these kinds of things.

Just a short digression: I've been looking at this practice in some of the other provinces, in Ontario and Alberta, and at the opening of each estimate we're privileged to have at least two or three pages of Hansard debate with the minister telling us something about the plans of his department. I would have hoped, since we were told on December 11 that this government had a policy, that there would have been

[ Page 1409 ]

an agricultural policy. All I can say is that I didn't see one last night.

Now looking at the basics, Mr. Chairman, the very basics, I think we should all start out by saying how lucky we are here in British Columbia. We don't produce all our own food by a long shot, only a fraction of it, but we're awfully well fed. When you look at the plight of other nations of the world — most of the world is living on something like 400 pounds of grain equivalent for a year. We are privileged in British Columbia and in Canada to have over 2,000 pounds grain equivalent per year, much of which we take in well-marbled steaks and that kind of thing. We are very, very fortunate in our country. But in countries that have to get by on 400 pounds of grain a year per person, there's no slack at all. If there's any higher prices in things like energy inputs, if there are significant failures in world crops, if there's a lower supply of any kind, it just doesn't mean more expensive food; it means starvation to a lot of people because the income isn't there.

Many members may have noted in the newspaper the other morning a headline saying: "World Chaos Predicted" — talking about climatic changes around the world over the next 40 years. There's an article from the Wall Street Journal of March 25 with this headline: "By 2000, Prevention of Starvation May be Chief Global Concern." So we're lucky in that context, Mr. Chairman, and because of that, I very much commend the government for the $5 million in the estimates for world food considerations. This isn't just a thing that we should do; it's a thing that's a moral imperative.

I would ask the minister if he could tell us, in a little more detail than appears in the estimates, how these moneys are to be distributed and what kind of plan he has, not just for this year but for future years, to reflect British Columbia's responsibilities in these areas. We're just one province of a nation in this world that extends foreign aid on its own account, but because we're one of the richer provinces, I think it's right and proper we should do our part. I'd be grateful if the minister could tell us in greater detail what his plans are in this regard.

The next basic, when you're talking about agriculture, which is food, is the question of waste. I want to make a little quote here from Viewpoint, which is the magazine or the pamphlet of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, because they had something very wise to say the other day in the March 29 number.

First of all they quote from Trade and Commerce, which is a monthly report on western industry. Here is the quote they make:

"Conservatively, 25 per cent of the food purchased in this country for human consumption will end up in garbage bags or be dumped in pet dishes as an extra ration for this country's overfed cat and dog population."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against dogs?

MR. GIBSON: I'm not against dogs at all, Mr. Minister; I'm against food waste to the extent it is wasted. I'm going to give you another figure later on. It goes on with this kind of talk:

"In thousands of Canadian kitchens, the amount of food prepared at mealtime for a family of three or four would adequately fill the bellies of six or seven people. This propensity to overfeed by indulgent homemakers leaves unconsumed on plates and serving dishes millions of tons of food annually that is thrown out. This criminal waste of food in a world where half the population starves or suffers from malnutrition is repeated in the country's commercial dining rooms and restaurants."

Then they mention what the federal Minister of Agriculture had to say a little bit ago. He quoted from a more conservative source gleaned, Mr. Chairman, from municipal garbage disposal figures. From that source the average wasted food per person per year amounts to 300 lbs. It means more than 18 per cent of the food we buy gets thrown out — not fed to pets, Mr. Minister, but thrown out into the garbage can. Viewpoint says: "If a business firm or municipality or a government's department or a marketing board, for that matter, were to have a wastage rate of even half that amount there would be scandal notices and heads would roll."

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that every parent and every school should mention those kinds of figures to their children and think of them themselves. The Department of Health should take a few ads to pound this kind of fact into the heads of our citizenry, because there is no question but that we are a very well-fed population and we should, at a minimum, discourage waste.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about agriculture production in this province and the reasons why our production must be somewhat related to economics but also somewhat supported by the general taxpayer, if necessary. The main reason, of course, is the reason of security. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was talking last night about the security of our food supply. It is not something that need bother us this year or next, but looking down the road it is something we have to be concerned about.

The next reason is our need for a balanced economy in this province, because the farm community is a very important addition to our economy — the third resource industry, I think the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was calling it last night.

[ Page 1410 ]

Thirdly, there is the question of social factors. It has long been believed, and it is a view that I subscribe to, that the farm community is an important social and, indeed, political factor in our society. They bring a set of very common-sense, down-to-earth values to our society that we have to hang on to. Above all, we have to maintain the agricultural sector because we can't turn the clock back if we ever lose it.

I would like to ask the minister a kind of a broad question: Mr. Minister, how do British Columbia's costs compare sector by sector in the agricultural field? Where do we have an economic advantage? Where do we have an economic advantage that we are not, perhaps, exploiting enough? Where, in the various fields that we are producing, do we have an economic disadvantage but nevertheless for internal British Columbia reasons of the kind I have just cited we should carry them on? That's just a general kind of question.

Getting a bit more into the economic side, I will quote again the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat, who said it last night: the prices of food, when you compare them to our personal disposable income, have been going down, not up. I think that very, very few consumers begrudge the farmer a proper income commensurate with his labour. There are two goals, I would think, of our financial policies in the economic field. One is a decent standard of living and income protection and stability on the farm, and the other is the goal of efficiency. Those two aren't always compatible in the short run but in the long run we should be able to find ways to always make them compatible over generations. That is the basic long-term challenge facing the minister.

You heard a former minister, the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), say last night that during his time in office he had been so bedevilled with immediate problems that he had difficulty turning his attention to the longer range. That is always a difficulty, but I hope this minister will be able to get onto that.

There are three basic routes in going after this goal of income stability with efficiency. The first is not to regulate the farm economy at all. Mr. Chairman, that simply will not work. It won't work because the farmer is a relatively powerless force in the marketplace. The farmer is powerless against the forces that confront him — a world market situation, continually escalating costs of supplies, inputs into the farm process and relatively little market power of his own. That's in an unregulated situation.

So there are two other kinds of things that have been developed. First of all there is a system to protect specific groups of farmers, and those are generally called marketing schemes.

Then the second concept that came along was protection not of groups so much as individuals, and that was the income assurance scheme. British Columbia, I think, was a leader in moving towards that, and I've been very glad to see that the new government is endorsing that concept — probably with differences in detail in the various income assurance packages, but endorsing the concept.

I think that's right, because while in economic theory the idea of protecting a group of, let's say, milk producers may be the best for efficiency, in practice, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't work out that way. At least it doesn't work out that way when the group has its own monopoly powers and where the control of those monopoly powers rests solely within the group that's being protected, because there, rather than leading to the kind of efficiency you would expect when the lowest-cost producer got most of the market, the way the quota systems are set up it becomes a case of making sure that the highest-cost producer has enough to live on, and therefore the lowest-cost producer does a great deal better than that.

That leads to a situation, and I'll come back again to the milk field, where there is a capitalization of, and trading in, monopoly quotas, monopoly quotas which are issued by the state to individuals, giving the right to sell a certain amount of product.

Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that about a year and a half ago the marginal price for an extra 100 pounds of milk quota was in the neighbourhood of $2,500 to $3,000, and today it's more in the neighbourhood of $7,500. That's the marginal price, and I'm told that the average quota price is around $4,500 for a 100-lb. can. That, to me, is really an unconscionable feature of any marketing scheme, where monopoly powers which are conferred by the Crown for the protection of a specific group are capitalized at very high amounts and traded. What was given freely as a gift of the province in order to protect a specific group becomes a capital asset to be traded.

This has been a very bad part of this industry for a long time. I know the government recognizes it, and the problem is how to get out of it. I'd like the minister to give us some comments on that, because he knows, I know, and everybody in this House knows that if a part of your capital investment is this kind of quota, which has no real value except for a monopoly right conferred by the province, then the consumer is paying part of the cost of that capitalization with every quart of milk he buys.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same with the taxi licences.

MR. GIBSON: It's the same with the taxi licences — I agree with you, Mr. Member, but we'll handle that under the taxi vote.

So that's the problem I see there with marketing boards. They have many merits, Mr. Chairman; I

[ Page 1411 ]

would suggest we cannot do away with marketing boards in the preservation of an orderly industry, orderly conditions of supply and so on, but, Mr. Chairman, this government, I would suggest, has to find ways to either far better control the price-fixing powers in the public interest and in the consumer interest, or else find ways of doing away with the price-fixing powers and leave the more desirable functions of marketing boards in place.

The other general economic approach I spoke of, the means of protecting individuals as opposed to groups, is one that, in my view, has great potential. We've only seen it working for two or three years now in British Columbia, but it has great potential for protecting the individual, their income and stability, and since each individual is protected, the whole group is protected, but at the same time permitting and encouraging change and efficiency down the line.

Those are just some general concepts I want to place before the minister now. I'd be grateful if he has any comment on them, and I'll be coming back with more detail on subsequent votes.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): The grapes of wrath!

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I have two items I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. One deals with the grapes of wrath, I guess, but first of all the item I would like to bring to the attention of the minister is in regard to blue-tongue disease. I expect somebody might make a comment that maybe they've been drinking B.C. wine, but I don't want to put any humour into this discussion, Mr. Chairman, because it is a serious matter for the people of Boundary-Similkameen, the Okanagan and, as far as I'm concerned, possibly the province of British Columbia and the rest of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, there is an article in the May 5 Province: "Blue-tongue Slaughter Hits 600 Head of Cattle." It is under, I believe, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, which is a federal Act that deals with one of the contagious diseases of blue-tongue virus. This has been identified and has been acknowledged to be in the Similkameen-Boundary country, I believe in herds from almost to Princeton through to the Sunshine Valley, near Grand Forks and, I believe, on up the Okanagan. It has now been identified and 600 head have been slaughtered.

The concern, Mr. Chairman, by the cattlemen's association is that what is happening is that these herds are being tested in the Similkameen area and the Okanagan area, the test comes back identified as positive and the cow and the calf are slaughtered.

Now the federal government is paying $475 for that cow and the calf, but there are two problems. One is that right now those cattle are being turned out to open range, and most of the financial input the rancher has made is past. He is now turning them out to open range, that calf will fatten up and will be able to be sold on the open market in the fall and the cattleman will receive a fair return on his investment. That's one of the problems: the calf is taken before it has time to grow.

The other problem is that if the brood cow is slaughtered, it decreases the breeding in the herd the cattleman has. In some cases it creates a problem because it's very difficult to replace brood cows in a herd that you've taken years and years to build up.

The cowmen, in essence, recognize the disease, they recognize that it could be a problem, they recognize the concern of the federal government, but what they are saying is: "Let us determine just how widespread this problem is before the officials go out and slaughter cattle within the Similkameen-Boundary area."

If they slaughter those cattle, and then find it is widespread all across Canada, then cattle will have been slaughtered without any reason, because, for the members of this assembly who aren't aware of it, blue-tongue disease does not affect the meat of the cattle — in the United States they live with blue-tongue disease — but it does affect the import or the export market. Some countries will not allow cattle in from any country that has blue-tongue disease in that country — will not allow the cattle or the semen to be imported because of the record of blue tongue.

Mr. Chairman, I'm really saying to the Minister of Agriculture...asking his office to communicate with Ottawa to point out the concern of the cattlemen in British Columbia, and ask Ottawa if they would please determine by sampling to what extent this disease has spread in B.C., in Alberta, in Canada, because in the marketplace, where there are sales of cattle in the Okanagan and Kamloops, many of those cattle are sold to Alberta ranchers. They even travel as far back as Ontario. If the disease has spread, it seems senseless to slaughter brood cows in the Okanagan or in the Similkameen when, really, they haven't got much of a chance of containing the disease in that area.

One of the other problems is that the disease is also in sheep and deer. The deer know no boundaries; they wander throughout the area. The disease is mainly transmitted by what is known as a no-see-em, or black fly, which can bite one cow or deer which has the disease then pass it on to another one. We are, in my riding bordering on the United States, and since there is no concern or no control of blue-tongue disease in the United States, cattle and deer can wander across the border, and therefore we haven't got much hope of controlling it from that area.

[ Page 1412 ]

So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the minister use his good offices to point out to the federal government the concern the cattlemen have on their herds, the concern we have as to how farspread this disease is, and that we would like a sampling done of all the cattle herds in the area, throughout B.C. and Alberta, to ensure that we are not dealing with something that, on a moment's notice, somebody in Ottawa has said that we must curtail it, yet it's too farspread to curtail.

One of the other items I would like to bring up, and again I bring it up, is the famous comment about the wine industry and the grape-growing industry, and this is under the Minister of Agriculture's estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I was not dealing with the quality of our local wines; I was not dealing with the charisma of foreign wines the other day when I rose in my place. I am, in effect, dealing with two B.C. industries which I believe have a long way to go in promoting their products, and which I believe will do a great deal for the people of British Columbia, their employees and the public. I find it damned hard to understand why we aren't prepared to support B.C. industries.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who I respect a great deal, made the comment that we will ensure that the wine industry and the grape-growing industry will survive. I say that's not good enough. I say that we should make every effort possible to allow those two industries to prosper. I can't understand the effect on the consumer, when you relate B.C. businesses versus the introduction of foreign labels under $3 a bottle.

I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to support the efforts of the B.C. grape growers, the efforts of the B.C. wineries, in relating this message to the Attorney-General because it is under his offices that the liquor distribution branch falls. I would hope that the Attorney-General would give further consideration before allowing more foreign wine labels under $3 to appear on our liquor store shelves.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on vote 3. A matter of very grave concern to my constituents was brought up in the House yesterday by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) concerning the situation with the B.C. Egg Marketing Board.

I have a short wire from my constituents which I would like to show to the House to show the interest and concern that does exist up there. It's a short wire of some 36 feet long and 6,058 names. I think it really shows the interest and concern that is held up there. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I think this really illustrates the genuine concern among all the constituents of the ridings of the north for this very serious problem that has existed for some five years, ever since the egg board was structured.

I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) touched briefly on the setup of the board. It wasn't quite as clear cut as she indicated; it was a setup that was taken advantage of to a certain extent by moving the quota available to everyone ahead six months and then establishing a quota system. It certainly appears to the members of the board from the north, the producers from the north, that the situation was taken advantage of by some of the producers in the Fraser Valley. They built up their flocks far beyond the quota they required at the time the egg board was structured.

This famous, or infamous, chicken-and-egg war has gone on pretty well ever since the inception of the board. The members up north feel that more quotas should be able to be shifted up north on the original concept that the quota wasn't going to have a value. However, like a lot of other concepts on an idealistic situation like marketing boards, this soon disappeared and dollar value was established on the quota. This resulted in a misunderstanding and controversy that has existed right down to this day. I'm sure the House and the people of the province are quite aware of the legal and political battle that has been going on ever since.

This problem was handed to our laps, as the MLAs for the area, shortly after the election, and we certainly have to agree with the Minister of Agriculture, the member for South Peace, that until the back levies situation has been paid up — it's a legal levy instigated by a properly constituted board of the province; the courts have decided in their wisdom that it is a levy that was due and payable — there hasn't been very much anyone could expect in a way of government intervention.

However, as the last decision of the court has come down, there isn't too much doubt among the producers from the north that there is going to be any way of beating this in the courts.

I think, Mr. Chairman, at this time that the northern producers have pretty well resigned themselves to sitting down with the board. We have arranged a meeting with the board for the northern producers on May 13 to give their side of the story and to hope that the communication within the board can be re-established again. They've asked for certain conditions if they pay the back levies, but as everyone realizes, when a court decision comes down there aren't any conditions attached to it. It really is a payment that has to be made.

But, still, it doesn't say that the board, as a democratic board, can't give the northern producers some assurance that the movement of quota will be on a more realistic basis, that greater production will be allowed in the north. We are quite hopeful that at this meeting there will be a proper dialogue

[ Page 1413 ]

established.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, through you, if the Minister of Agriculture can give an answer to some of these people on this wire, to these northern producers — if he can't give them some kind of an indication that a proper economic, independent study will be made of the egg-marketing situation, particularly in regard to moving quota from one area to another, in regard to producing more at a local level to ensure the consumers and the people of the province that they can get fresh eggs at their local market.

A lot of argument from the northern producers has been that they don't really see why they should have to subsidize the egg-breaking because they don't even supply all the local market now. Their argument is: "Why should we be subsidizing the breakage of eggs in other areas that are overproducing?" I think, to a certain extent, they have a very logical argument there.

In any event, the strife that has existed since the inception of the board has put a lot of pressure on marketing boards of all kinds. Are they really all that good for the producers? But further than that, are they all that good for the consumers? A lot of consumers are starting to get into the act now and wondering if all their rights are protected, too. So I think a proper independent economic survey, particularly in the egg-marketing situation, is long overdue. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of these people who sent the wire and on behalf of the northern producers, I would certainly like some assurance that there is going to be a proper study made of this entire situation. Thank you.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, in answer to some of the questions that have been asked, with regard to the remarks by the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), I'd like to say that the department has been cooperating with the federal government. I think we must all recognize that the settlement as to the value has to be determined between the federal government and the industry itself. We have communicated with Ottawa and we have offered our support in any area that we can assist. I think Ottawa is probably reassessing the situation at the present time as to whether they should be continuing to do tests at the auction marts or whether they should be testing on the outside area. However, again, we will certainly work with them and give them any cooperation that we can give them.

With regard to the wine industry — and I don't wish to get into a lengthy discussion of this — as I have said before, I look at the wine industry...

AN HON. MEMBER: Your cup runneth over.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...not only as an agricultural industry but I look on it as a thriving industry, a part of the great economy of the province of British Columbia. I look forward to when that industry improves and improves and improves its products, to the day when we can be selling our wine produce aboard and competing — abroad, I mean — and competing...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Why not aboard, too?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...with those well-established industries in other countries.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But, as I said last night, those wine industries in those other countries are not all lily white and pure.

MR. WALLACE: Some of them are red.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We had a case here not too long ago where certain of the higher-grade wines were having additives. We've read stories about where certain vineyards have produced enough wine that would normally take eight years of grapes to produce. So those industries are not all lily-white pure.

But I'll have to admit that among some of the more travelled persons sitting in this House it has a great charisma to have a nice bottle of French wine and pay $16 a bottle for it. But I want to tell you that I've sampled both good French wines and B.C. wines, and I want to tell you...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You can't tell the difference.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...that B.C. has got some real.... Well, that depends on what bottle it's after. But I want to tell you that British Columbia has some wines that it can be proud of and that will compete with many of those imported wines.

I think that our whole endeavour should be to improve the vineyards, which they're doing. The Department of Agriculture is working with the vineyards to upgrade their quality of grapes. But I want to tell you that you don't improve a vineyard overnight. It takes a long time to grow good grapes and we are working towards that end. And I think that the wine industry in British Columbia has made great progress and I am proud of it. Also I am proud of the fact that probably, of all of the agricultural products that we produce, the add-on value is the greatest with the grapes. I think the figure is something like 800 to 1.

[ Page 1414 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Then not only do we get that add-on value, we make money when we sell it, too. So I don't want to see our grape industry fold up. I don't want the Attorney-General's department to be pressured today by those other countries and those other wineries that have tremendous surpluses. I know the pressure might be on our Attorney-General. I hope he won't succumb to that pressure because, whether you to go Ontario or whether you go to Portugal or whether you go to Spain or Australia, there is a surplus today of wine. Why?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why? This has been caused not because — I don't think — people are drinking less wine but because there have been good yields from the vineyards. Maybe some of that surplus is caused by some of the wineries. I wouldn't want to accuse any of the wineries of those foreign countries, but maybe they've been getting more wine from the grapes than they should normally have got from those same grapes.

There is a surplus and I know that the pressure will be on the Attorney-General to sell those wines here in British Columbia. I know that maybe in some of those cheap bottles — those bottles that sell at a lower price, I should say — maybe some of the higher-priced wine might be in them. Maybe some of those countries that normally keep their best wine for drinking in their own countries are going to put some of their better wine...and sell it here. Now they call that dumping. I am not going to accuse them of dumping but I am going to say this could be the case.

I think that here in British Columbia we must withstand those tremendous pressures that might be on us to accept some of those wines. When there's a shortage, they'll draw back. They'll draw back. It's just like the rest of the agricultural industry. Oh, they want to give us lots and they're going to give us a good deal when there's a surplus!

But I want to tell you, as soon as there's a shortage, and we don't have our own wine industry, then the price of those foreign wines will go up. I don't care whether you're talking about wine or lettuce or tomatoes — you name it. It's the same, because it's an agricultural industry in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you make wine out of lettuce?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, you don't make wine out of lettuce. We talk about the future needs of British Columbia and the need to preserve our agricultural land. That's all I'm going to say about the wine industry, but I hope that the Attorney-General won't succumb to that great pressure that might be on him from all of those foreign wineries to list some of those cheap wines to compete with our own British Columbia product.

I want to talk for just a short moment, and I just want to answer the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) with regard to the eggs and the chickens and the Egg Marketing Board. I want to tell you that I don't want anybody to upset this very delicate situation that exists in British Columbia today, because I look forward to the time in British Columbia in about three weeks or a month when the chicken-and-egg war will be signed, and peacefully signed.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Under Bill 22?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. There's been tremendous pressure and it's just about to be settled — peacefully. This situation has been with us for a number of years — great pressure on the Minister of Agriculture to move in and ask people to break the law, but the answer is no. So it's going to be settled — I hope peacefully.

MR. LAUK: If not peacefully, how?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said in this House before, and I'll say it again today, laws are made to be amended, and when they don't work for the good of the people we have to take a look at them. I say we'll take a look, and we'll take a second look, because if the situation is good for British Columbia we want to be able to come out and say the situation is good, and in spite of all the criticism, marketing boards are good and they are protecting British Columbians, and they are protecting the consumer, and they are protecting the producer.

If, on the other hand, they are not protecting the consumer and they are not helping the producer and they're not protecting this great industry of British Columbia, then we'll take a look at it — we'll take a fresh look.

MR. LAUK: Not another royal commission?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not talking about a royal commission — I'm just saying we'll take a look!

MR. MACDONALD: Why don't you go into politics?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to take a look,

[ Page 1415 ]

but first of all the law must be obeyed. I can't ask anybody to break the law. There has been a lot of pressure, but I look forward to that day when the situation will be settled, not with interference from the Minister of Agriculture, not with interference from the executive council, not with interference from the government, but in the great democratic way, among the appellant and — what do you call it? I'm not a lawyer, but you understand what I mean.

MR. LAUK: The plaintiff and the defendant.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The plaintiff and the defendant, yes — in the democratic way. That's the way it should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the legal way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's the democratic way. Now I think that I've answered all the questions that were asked.

MR. MACDONALD: You have to tell us what you said.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about the tremendous agricultural potential of all those window boxes in the west end of my riding. (Laughter.)

We're discussing the Minister of Agriculture's non-salary, Mr. Chairman, because as I look at the estimates there's no salary listed for the Minister of Agriculture.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Good.

MR. LAUK: Having regard for the performance of the Minister of Agriculture in the last four months I can see why. I think that any amount of money would be overpayment for the service that that minister has given to the farmers of this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ho hum.

MR. LAUK: I think that his steadfast refusals to meet with farmers' organizations in the beginning, and the lack of answers when he did meet, demonstrate an abysmal lack of understanding of the plight of the farmer in this province.

I'd particularly like to speak about this particular minister's attitude over the last several years to the preservation of farmland.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ho hum.

MR. LAUK: Yes, the minister can go "ho hum." He's embarrassed, and he should be embarrassed, after he stood in this House hour after hour, day after day, opposing the Land Commission Act, which is a far-reaching Act, one of the first in the world among the democratic countries to preserve farmland from the ravages and pressures of industrial and residential growth.

I'll tell you what happened. Since that time the Land Commission Act has been followed and emulated in other democratic jurisdictions throughout the world. What was the need for the Land Commission Act? Was it just to curtail land speculators for the sake of curtailing land speculators. No. It was a recognition by the government and, we thought, eventually by the opposition of the day, that farmland was absolutely necessary for our survival. Now that seems like a simple proposition, a proposition that should be easily understood. But it's not a proposition, Mr. Chairman, that's obviously understood by that government and by that minister.

He spoke for days, filibustering — or Phillipsbustering — the Land Commission Act, the Bill 42 of that day.

MR. WALLACE: Where's the cabinet, Don?

MR. LAUK: It was a shame, Mr. Minister. It seems to me that that is the last minister that I would choose to be the Minister of Agriculture unless the Premier is of the view that the Land Commission Act should be totally and utterly emasculated.

There was the promise — a black cloud of a promise — in the last election campaign that the Land Commission Act provisions would be administered at the municipal level. This would be a total emasculation of the bill because it would not work that way. We had that situation before the Land Commission Act when municipalities were, I must suggest, more susceptible to municipal pressure and pressure from developers, many of whom joined city councils — democratically elected, of course — but many of whom had interests in the development of land that could be used and should be used as farmland.

It was for that reason that this government took the bold and creative measure by legislating the Land Commission Act. Now the Land Commission Act was a just and fair and democratic Act. It had appeal provisions: it had provisions for hearings at the municipal level, at the regional district level and at the Land Commission level, with an appeal to a committee of cabinet. All these appeals were available to landholders and developers throughout the province so that there wasn't a total cut-off from planned and reasonable growth in farming communities.

During the time of the debate of that Act it was clear that the greatest pressure for the use of farmland for industrial-residential purposes was occurring in the Fraser Valley and in the Okanagan

[ Page 1416 ]

area. Those two areas were our greatest concern.

The pressure that was being put on governments at the municipal and provincial level to bring that land into industrial or residential use was monumental, Mr. Chairman. The developers of this land became panic-stricken, as did some members in an irrational moment, and they attacked the bill with all of their strength. The bill has since, as I say, Mr. Chairman, proved to be an excellent one, but what has happened to it since? What about that promise during the election campaign by the now Premier of this province?

Is the Land Commission totally emasculated? Are we to ignore the demands upon farmland that are increasing exponentially every day for food production? Are we to ignore those warnings? I think that very seldom on this side of the House would you hear one of us quote the CIA as an authority.

MR. KERSTER: Old Rubber Tongue.

MR. LAUK: But the recent report by the CIA, who did research into the possible climatic changes of this country, could bring total economic disaster and social destruction to Canada. Far be it from me to say the sky is falling, based on none other than a CIA report. I'm not asking you to rush and light your hair on fire, Mr. Minister, but what I am asking you to do is take the reasonable approach. You, as the Minister of Agriculture, should take the strongest possible stand with your colleagues with respect to the provisions of the Land Commission Act.

I think that you are the best equipped, being recently described as "the power behind the throne," to take charge of this most important issue. We know, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. minister pulls the strings in this government. We know that he has the political judgment, the intelligence and the intestinal fortitude to carry through with this important task, putting political expedience aside. Never mind the pressures of the developers — you will become known as the finest Minister of Agriculture and the finest cabinet minister of all time if you stand up against your colleagues against these encroachments onto the provisions and the protections of the Land Commission Act,

Already we can see people not associated with opposition parties attacking the change in attitude of the Land Commission. How did that change take place? I leave it to your own imagination. How did that change take place?

What about in Kelowna? The Kelowna Daily Courier — and I'm sorry that the Premier's not in his seat today — dated Saturday, April 3, 1976, said:

"Vern Hopkins, president of the Okanagan Naturalists' Club, says the Okanagan's agricultural land base is being eroded in spite of the Land Commission Act. Mr. Hopkins, who is also a forest ranger, said he was speaking as a private citizen and apart from his official position. He feels that snowjobs are lopping off areas of arable land for subdivision purpose. On marginal land, he said, he could understand farmers and orchardists wanting to capitalize on the artificially high prices being paid in the Okanagan particularly, although the problem existed throughout the province itself.

"'But in a few years — a decade or so — I have a feeling we will need all land upon which it is possible to grow crops of some kind, even alfalfa. A case in point is the 408 acres just off the North Glenmore road. The Central Okanagan Regional District recently approved a submission by 20 owners of that land to have it removed from the Agricultural Land Act.'"

Mr. Chairman, I think you and I and many British Columbians have travelled to Kelowna, have travelled through the Okanagan and seen the heartless strip development that has taken place. We've seen the magnificent fruit orchards of the Okanagan being eaten up by residence and industry. We've seen that over the past 20 years, and it was for that reason that the NDP administration brought in the protections that we did. Already, since December 11, we see this being eroded. We see the Land Commission being disregarded and we see that the governments at the municipal and provincial level are giving in to the development pressure. They're giving in.

There's always great pressure on governments. We must be ever vigilant, not because we're opposed to people making a profit. We're not opposed even to people maximizing their profit within reasonable bounds. This party's not opposed to wealth. It's opposed to poverty. Now, Mr. Chairman, we're opposed to starvation. We're opposed to being anything less than self-sufficient in the production of foodstuffs in this province.

I say to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, that he must be ever vigilant and avoid the politically expedient decisions that can be made from time to time and apply the law fairly in the purpose for which it should be applied. Friends at court must not have any special advantage in this regard. Friends and associates in one's political party should not have any advantage under the Land Commission Act.

When we became government and when I was appointed to the cabinet, Mr. Chairman, there was great pressure in the lower mainland and the greater Vancouver area for the outspread of industrial growth to create jobs and to create badly needed housing. There was great pressure particularly from the municipality of Delta — not the government, but private landowners there. They came by the dozens to me as Minister of Economic Development and they said: "We need this land to be put into industrial use and into housing projects. Can you influence the

[ Page 1417 ]

Land Commission? Can you influence your colleagues to release some of this land?" I explained to them the tremendous importance of the preservation of farmland within this province to the future generations of our province, to our children and their children. I explained to them that it was regrettable indeed that they felt that their farmland could be used for speculative purposes, but that now we must take a higher road. We must protect those future generations and we must say to you that that land must be cultivated and used for the production of food.

I did say to them that when the development corporation was established, we would make every effort to assemble some land in Delta — most of which is excellent arable land — to relieve the pressure of industrial growth and to give them a higher tax base. This was understood, although they went away saying that they were less than satisfied. They felt that at least something was being done from the point of view of industrial expansion. This was done. An assembly was put together. Part of the land is still an agricultural, or what we would call an industrial, reserve and a small portion of the land, 160 acres or so, is being developed as an industrial park, an exemplary one indeed. At least we hope so.

It was around the time before the British Columbia Development Corporation was established that a man by the name of Spetifore approached me with a project, a project for a housing development on some of his land in the municipality of Delta. It was an elaborate project. It required several acres of No. 1 prime agricultural land. It was a good project from the sense that it was aesthetically not unattractive. I explained to Mr. Spetifore that the position of our government was that we must, at all costs, preserve farmland within the Delta municipality, that we did not want to see unbridled growth continue. I explained to him that for industrial purposes there would be an assembly of land put together by the new, as yet to be established, Development Corporation of British Columbia. Now I appreciate that he was not satisfied, but I also appreciate that at least he took the answer and went home.

Now the new government....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How much pressure did you get from Harrison?

MR. LAUK: Don't know the man.

Mr. Chairman, as soon as this government was formed, we find a new project. Let me go back a year or so. After this housing project was put forward and there was an indication that it would be refused, Mr. Spetifore had some other land, land which has recently been discussed in the newspapers, for a potato factory. But he approached me first as a member of the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation — at least some of his people did — with the potato-processing concept.

We looked at it carefully. At that time the consortium wished to borrow a great deal of money — many millions of dollars — from the development corporation to proceed with this project. We did several studies through the development corporation. We discovered first of all that the need for the processing plant may exist...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Who else pressured you?

MR. LAUK: ...but at the same time, we could see that this project should not be financed with so many millions of dollars from the development corporation and that there would be some problems with pollution from the effluent of such a potato-processing factory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get pressure from anybody else?

MR. LAUK: As many people know, certain food preservatives and other chemicals are used in this process. It became untenable for us, without further study, to proceed with the project. The project was withdrawn from consideration by the development corporation. But never at any time, Mr. Chairman, did we say that the land could not be made available under certain conditions of pollution control and other financing arrangements — never at any time — so that we could keep industrial growth within the particularly designed area of Delta and avoid the unnecessary use of farmland elsewhere in the municipality.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many did you get into?

MR. LAUK: Now we find.... I notice I've woken up the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman. If he's awake now, he'll be alive in a few minutes. This project could, and still can, go on that already zoned industrial property owned by the development corporation. They talk about a sewage problem. The effluent from the sewers of the plant to go on the property that they claim it should go on will create an algae problem in the bay, in seawater, and create other pollution-control hazards the like of which we haven't seen so far.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Not so.

MR. LAUK: It is also close to a residential district and will become an eyesore, but maybe that's up to the municipality involved.

The land upon which this potato factory is to go is

[ Page 1418 ]

60 per cent class 2 and 40 per cent class 3 agricultural land — valuable agricultural land that should be used for the production of food.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman, we wonder why the Land Commission has approved this application — a very serious application indeed. I say the friends of court of this government should not get special advantages. I say that the minister should investigate immediately the fact that Mr. Spetifore contributed a substantial amount of money to the Social Credit candidate — now the MLA for Delta (Mr. Davidson) — a substantial amount of money to his campaign funds.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Unwarranted attack! Withdraw!

MR. LAUK: It's been confirmed that Mr. Spetifore....

MR. KERSTER: Where's your proof?

MR. LAUK: It's been confirmed that Mr. Spetifore has contributed a substantial amount of money to the candidacy of the now member for Delta. It's been confirmed.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The member will not deny it. The member is in the House; he can stand up and deny it if he wishes.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What are you inferring?

MR. LAUK: What I am saying is this: that justice and fair play must be seen to be done in this province. It must not be behind doors.

MR. KAHL: Bring back the files.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You must stand up and show that the law is being applied fairly. Let me point out to you that it is well known that Mr. Spetifore is a Social Credit supporter. He has been appointed to the B.C. Marketing Board by the minister. He has contributed funds to the Social Credit campaign, and now he is getting his potato factory in Delta on prime farmland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. LAUK: I say that's a shame! I say that at least the minister should stand in his place and explain why Mr. Spetifore is receiving so much attention from this government. I thought that Mr. Spetifore would be satisfied with my detailed explanation of how we should preserve farmland. I thought he accepted my regrets and my sympathies that he could not make all of this fantastic amount of money by developing his own land in Delta that was good farmland. But no, he was not satisfied. He worked for the Social Credit Party, which is his democratic right. He contributed a substantial amount of money to the candidate of the day for the Social Credit Party, and that's his democratic right. But is it his democratic right to receive the release of his land from the Land Commission Act — prime agricultural land — when we have already established an industrial assembly by the BCDC, a Crown corporation under the control and now under the chairmanship of the Minister of Agriculture?

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that some questions should be answered in this regard. Don't get the backbencher from Delta up to explain your actions, Mr. Minister. You get up and explain yourself. Don't let him get up and be the Minister of Defence. You stand in your place and tell us about Mr. Spetifore. It may be perfectly appropriate, but all of the evidence that I have seen today, Mr. Chairman, has indicated to me that the potatoes are a little overripe in this case.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to stand here and deny the fact that Mr. Spetifore supported me in my campaign or supported me in my candidacy for the Social Credit Party. The term "substantial donation" was used, and that is something I feel is possibly best described by the member in terms of dollars. If he has some information as to the amount of money that was used, that would be fine and dandy, but I can only say, in speaking on the particular ministerial bill before the House, that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They are all there; make the charges.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there was some, I feel, hint of impropriety laid by the member opposite, would it not be possible for me to have a short period of explanation in regard to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are on vote 3, which is a minister's salary vote, and....

MR. DAVIDSON: That is so and this, of course, relates to the fact that before the ALR was a proposal

[ Page 1419 ]

for a specific potato-processing unit, and this is directly related to Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I know the member will relate all of his remarks to the vote, vote 3.

MR. DAVIDSON: Certainly.

MR. LAUK: What do you consider a substantial amount?

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, may I just at the outset say that for myself, I never did and never have seen any amounts of money that were contributed to my campaign other than....

Interjection.

MR. DAVIDSON: That, Mr. Member, is a fact. That's an absolute fact!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. DAVIDSON: Anyhow, going back to the minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Spetifore has been an exemplary member of the community for many years in the Delta area. At one time, as chairman of the potato cooperative in Delta, he made application on behalf of that co-op for an approximately $10 million development to the Minister of Agriculture at that time, and subsequently it was understood that a $10 million guaranteed loan would be forthcoming. However, it seemed that the government somehow or other ran out of money, and all they would actually come through with was one-third, up to a maximum of $3 million, and the project was subsequently scuttled.

There has been some suggestion that Mr. Spetifore should move his plant from his own property, property that he owns, to that of the industrial development site which he would have to pay for. In addition, it would be approximately two years before that property would be serviceable.

The proposal that was put before the British Columbia Land Commission.... By the way, Mr. Chairman, it's a Land Commission which still in its entirety is made up of members appointed by the previous administration, not this administration. On April 2, 1976, the British Columbia Land Commission, their Land Commission, gave approval in principle to the project as outlined. And I should say that that was dependent upon some areas of their requirement being met. Those areas were met, and on April 7, 1976, the British Columbia Land Commission — again, their members, not our members — gave final approval to the proposal to establish a frozen-food-processing plant at the location in question.

The landscaping was to comply with the aesthetics of the surrounding area and was very carefully outlined and discussed with council. Subsequently, a public hearing was held and as a result of this public hearing certain facts were brought out. It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that during that public hearing....

MR. LAUK: Who was there?

MR. DAVIDSON: I'll get to the individuals who were involved.

MR. LAUK: Who was Les Peterson acting for?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite has asked in what capacity Mr. Leslie Peterson was acting at that particular meeting — Q.C. He was, in fact, acting for the Spetifore family and their development, which was held before the particular Delta council.

MR. LAUK: Who was Mr. Hyndman acting for?

MR. DAVIDSON: Wait!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Delta has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDSON: Now, Mr. Chairman, during that particular hearing it was interesting to note that there was not one environmental move or one environmental opposition point made — and the reason was very simple.

At that particular meeting, and present and acting on behalf of the Spetifore family, was a Mr. Lash, the vice-chairman of the environmental division of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and technical author of approximately 50 publications on pollution control, and, by the way, a recognized world expert on pollution control.

Also present was Mr. Flauden, of Flauden Inc. of Washington, who was there to also answer questions on environmental pollution control.

Very great detail was taken to spell out the actual procedures that would be used in this particular plant. Of interest, too, is the fact that this particular project will cost approximately $4 million, which is being put up not with a government grant, not with a government subsidy, but with private-enterprise money. It's Mr. Spetifore's gamble that he's taking that this is going to be useful.

During the comments of the hon. member across

[ Page 1420 ]

the way during his.... He said something about that the need may exist for a potato factory — may exist. Mr. Chairman, at this present time Mr. Spetifore has in his barn over 4,000 tons of potatoes that have not been able to be marketed in this province because there is no market for that product. If ever a need were great, then certainly this is the case. We talk about Bill 42. Land which lacks viability in virtually every respect has in many cases been placed in the Agricultural Land Reserve — areas that would be ideal for almost anything other than agriculture. The particular section, the Spetifore section within the area of the old Imperial farm, has been subjected to approximately 16 different expropriations, whether it be for highways, hydro rights-of-way, whether it be rail lines, whether it be for power lines — 16 different expropriations. By the time they are finished, anyone who can turn around and say that while that soil may be class 2 or class 3, the viability access is simply not there. There is no way that that can be classified as an agriculturally desirable area, because of the number of obstructions that are around just for the simple case of trying to farm it with implements.

MR. LAUK: That's not what the Land Commission says.

MR. DAVIDSON: Now because of the proximity of this plant to one of the most desirable residential areas in Canada, certain measures over and above those provided in other plants have been taken to prevent pollution and to protect the environment in this particular case. The environmental impact expenditures are estimated to approximate three-quarters of a million dollars in this particular project.

There will be no noxious odours nor air contaminates being discharged from the plant's processing operation. In addition, this plant will have enough waste to feed between 6,000 and 8,000 head of cattle per year. The plant will also employ directly between 70 and 80 people, not including administrative staff. The Spetifore payroll will be in excess of $1 million per year. The sewer will, however, have to be extended to accommodate the project, and that extension — estimated to cost approximately $1 million — will be paid for by the Spetifores. The construction of the plant should be completed by August 15 of this year, and the plant should be in full operation not later than September 15 of this year.

You know, Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot say to the farmers of this country that we're going to put a freeze on their land so they can only use it for agricultural purposes, and then prevent the agricultural people from processing their products. You cannot blame a farmer for wanting to sell what he produces.

We give a lot of lip service to the importance of the farmer in our society; without them we'd all go hungry, yet we do little as a society, it seems, to help them.

There is a very serious problem in the potato-growing industry in this community today, a problem that will be extremely critical if this plant is not built this year. However, today they have not been able to sell their crops, and at the moment there are, as I mentioned, some 4,000 tons of potatoes in this particular storage area, and this represents only one farm. Other potato growers face the same problem at the present time: the only way these potatoes can be salvaged is to have a plant of the kind we've been talking about during this presentation.

In 1976 it is estimated that British Columbians will use more than 35,000 pounds of frozen french fries. When you couple this trend towards processed food products with British Columbia's annual growth rate, the project gives a ray of light and hope to the farmers not only in the Delta municipality, but in the Fraser Valley. The best way to keep the farmer on the land is to let him make a dollar.

It's interesting to note as well, Mr. Chairman, that this particular processing plant, once it goes into effect, will put approximately 3,000 additional acres into production, and, in terms of dollars-and-cents poundage, that's approximately 30,000 tons of potatoes additional each year and represents almost $2.5 million to the agricultural community in the Delta and adjacent areas alone.

The member across asked several questions during.... He asked who was at this particular study, who was at the public hearing.

There was Mr. Les Peterson, QC, who acted for the Spetifore family. If any sort of connotation is being drawn by that, I would only say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Peterson is a most competent legal mind and certainly because one individual represents a group, that certainly should draw no lines as to their political affiliation. I'm sure that the member opposite would not turn down a client if he were other than his own political philosophy.

You know, going back to vote 3, the potato industry, several points were made again that Tilbury Island would have been an ideal site for this project. Unfortunately, the Tilbury Island was not owned by Mr. Spetifore, as I mentioned, but it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to go back into the history of Tilbury Island. How did the previous administration acquire the land at Tilbury Island?

It is very interesting to note that the land that was purchased for Tilbury Island development was purchased, I believe, by an out-of-province agency who were acting on behalf of the former administration. They purchased that land at agricultural prices and then zoned the land "industrial." Where was the concern for the

[ Page 1421 ]

agricultural community in that instance, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many acres? How many acres?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I inquire of the minister, ought this to be debated under Economic Development?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. DAVIDSON: Approximately 728.

In addition to the individuals mentioned beforehand at this public hearing and those who spoke in favour of this proposal, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the Envirotech people and the former hon. Mr. Les Peterson, was Mr. Victor Reynolds of the Delta Farmers Institute; Mr. Jim Harris; Mr. John Friesen, president of the Delta Chamber of Commerce; Larry Jorgenson, B.C. Coast Vegetable Marketing Board; Dan Wallave of the Tsawwassen Business Association; Mike Guichon, long-time farmer in the area; Leslie Abramson, a businesswoman in the Tsawwassen district; Alan Barker, B.C. Coast Vegetable cooperative. The list goes on, Mr. Chairman: Ken Bates, Milt Kelly, Jeannine Acheson, Noel Ruddick, Matt Kennedy, Gary Morris, Bill Zylman, B.C. Certified Seed Growers, Bill Robertson, Bill McGeachie, Ed Gilmore.

MR. LAUK: And Peter Hyndman.

MR. DAVIDSON: The name of Peter Hyndman has been mentioned, and I would like to clarify for the hon. member that Mr. Hyndman was not speaking in favour of this proposal, nor was he speaking against this proposal. In fact, Mr. Hyndman, who you rightfully identify as the president of this party, was speaking on behalf of an individual whose property was not in question at this public hearing. All he wanted to do, Mr. Chairman, was relate this to the future agricultural needs of that particular area in saying that, if the Spetifore proposal was going to be considered in this light, his client should possibly have similar consideration in the future.

You know, of interest also, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Spetifore has made previous applications on Bill 42 to have land removed and, of course, as a result and, possibly rightly so, his application was turned down. The reason was that this was zoned "agricultural," and, as Bill 42 states, could not be used for "residential," as was the application by the municipality in his behalf.

So what has happened is that Mr. Spetifore has come before the Land Commission and said: "Now that I have land that is zoned 'agricultural ' I want to use it for agricultural purposes." And the members opposite say: "No, don't use it for agricultural purposes."

Mr. Chairman, if we turn around and say to a farmer, "save your land for farming," and, as soon as he wants to do something agriculturally related, turn around and say again, "don't do anything with your land," where does it leave the farmer? Is there any reason to doubt that farmers in this province are very confused with the interpretations of Bill 42?

I was delighted to hear that the Environment minister, the minister responsible for the Land Commission, had indicated in the speech that I attended that economic viability would be considered in the future. This is a very important aspect of Bill 42, because without economic viability there is no farming in this province.

MR. LAUK: Does the minister agree that it's economically viable? We haven't heard from him yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. DAVIDSON: You know, Mr. Chairman, if I were to stand before this House and propose a private member's bill that would say something like this: "I want to freeze every piece of land in British Columbia over two acres and leave it in its existing form; I want to put into the hands of five individuals the ultimate decision for the use of all land in this province and, as a result of these moves, the pressure on available land would rise four times in value over the next year and a half to two years; and I further state that the government can buy, sell, lease or any other way acquire individual land," I daresay that the members opposite would be standing in their places and shouting that that was a terribly unfair piece of legislation with far too much control. That is exactly what happened in Bill 42 when it was before the House.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) — who I see is not in the House, unfortunately — yesterday indicated that this member should be rather remiss to defend the previous position in opposition to Bill 42 by the Social Credit government. I would only say that I would oppose that kind of legislation at any time.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it very clearly understood that I support the preservation of farmland in this province. But let us consider farmland in other than just one sweeping mass of zoning. In the case of Delta, why was 70 per cent of Delta zoned agricultural? It couldn't possibly have been that the former Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams) was discharged by that municipality and that this was a sweeping vendettta on his part. I wouldn't suggest that for one moment.

[ Page 1422 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. DAVIDSON: But there had to be a reason why land that is no more fit for the growing of vegetables because of a high salt content, because of a high rock content, because of an inaccessibility factor...these things were never taken into consideration. That is why Bill 42, and rightly so was changed, and without the opposition that went on in this House that bill would not have been changed. Those members who spoke in defence of freedoms in this province and particularly those who spoke for 34 hours should be complimented on their approach because it gave people a time to see what was happening in this province.

MR. LAUK: How much did Spetifore give you for your campaign?

MR. DAVIDSON: I honestly don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you get?

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three other very brief points I would like to make regarding agriculture before I take my place. There is no question that cheap imports that are flooding this market are having an adverse effect on the agricultural marketplace of British Columbia, and I refer specifically to Taiwan. While there is no international trade agreement with Taiwan, we still have not been able to get the federal government to take action on these products. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will be effective in bringing this inequitous position before the next General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.

I was also very pleased to see that the minister had committed himself and his department to an aggressive marketing programme for British Columbia products and produce. I compliment him on this and I look forward to successful initiations in that project.

I would like to make one other comment before closing, Mr. Chairman, and that is that I would hope that there could be some way of pointing out to the people of British Columbia the harm that is being done to the British Columbia system of marketing by those who would choose to shop in the United States rather than at home. I am sure that if these people understood the overall effect it's having — and not just now, Mr. Chairman — but the long-term effect that this could have in our own food-producing areas.... An education programme should be commenced that would make people aware of the damage that they are causing this community by shopping for cheaper goods in the United States.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and try and answer a few of the questions that have been raised.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, this afternoon. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer briefly to Bill 42 and the Land Commission Act, and I will be brief.

I also want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I did not know that Mr. Spetifore had even applied to the Land Commission. I plead ignorance. I suppose I should have known that, but in all sincerity and honesty I didn't know. I didn't know and, of course, I don't follow every application that goes before the Land Commission. But it's ignorance on my part and I suppose I should have know.

However, I have listened to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), talk about Bill 42, and how, when I was in opposition, I opposed this bill.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I stood on a principle. They seem to forget, and I'll have to tell them time and time again, and I have to keep reminding them, that when they brought in that original bill, the sole purpose of that was to take over not only farmland, but to take over all land in British Columbia. It was a completely dictatorial bill, and it usurped the rights of all individuals who held land in British Columbia, usurped all the rights.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Where are the secret police?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, that original bill did not give anybody any recourse to the courts, and that dictatorial government, had we not stopped them in their tracks...

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...they would have gone on and they would have taken over all land in British Columbia. They would have had no respect for any of the rights.... This would have been just the first act on the part of that government, and thank heavens, Mr. Chairman, we did stop them in their tracks, and the farmers came and they went outside the Legislature here, on the front lawn, and they put that government in their place. Then they brought in an amendment. Now they like to keep referring to the present Act, the present Bill 42, Mr. Chairman...

MR. MACDONALD: That's the one you spoke against.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...which doesn't even relate to the original bill, and they like to keep

[ Page 1423 ]

on.... I tell you, they wish, Mr. Chairman, they just wish that they were half as effective back in opposition as we were. This bothers them, because I've listened to this whole debate. I've listened ever since this House...and they can't seem to grasp onto an issue; they're grasping for straws.

But we realize, Mr. Chairman, that they're leaderless; that poor little group over there are leaderless. They knocked at the door for 20 years. Eventually they got in, Mr. Chairman, and then they were thrown out because they couldn't govern. I can understand they trying to grasp onto little bits of straws, trying to get something they can hang on to. I feel sorry for them, Mr. Chairman, because I remember I was faced with the problem as Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman.

The vegetable growers in the Delta area came to me...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You wouldn't see them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and I met with them. I met with them, Mr. Chairman, and we are moving to solve their problem. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that problem has been around for a long time, and when you read the report of the great agricultural committee, which travelled the width and breadth and the depth and the north and south and east and west of this province in 1973...read the report of that committee, Mr. Chairman, and what did it say? What did it recommend that that government do about the agricultural industry and the vegetable industry in the Delta area? It recommended solutions.

MR. LEA: What did they do?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That government that wants to protect farmland, what did they do? Talk, talk, talk, and no action. What did they do about that problem, Mr. Chairman? They did absolutely nothing, and I want to tell you this government is moving solidly and steadily and surely to solve that problem, because this government will bring action. We won't just talk about preserving farmlands in glowing terms for the press.

I'll tell you, this government will be judged, Mr. Chairman, by the results of the actions it takes — and we will take action. We just won't talk about preserving farmland, we just won't talk about helping the farmer, Mr. Chairman. We will help the farmer. We will preserve agriculture and we will get the economy rolling again so that the agricultural industry will be able to sell its products at home, here in this great province of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention one other little item. Just one little item. Here was that great strong government, with the crushing majority they had. They talk about preserving farmland, and they talk, the second member for Vancouver Centre just a moment ago talked about taking — how many acres is it? Is it 10, 12 for this potato plant? It was 10, 12, 20 acres out of agricultural production to put an agricultural industry on it. They're talking about 10 or 12 acres.

What did that government do? They were going to plump an oil refinery right in the middle of the best agricultural land in all of Canada. They were going to put an oil refinery in there.

Oh, I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, their arguments seem so shallow and so weak and so fictitious. You know, we're going to be judged by our deeds. I want to tell you that we will move positively, and we will preserve farmland. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. LEA: But for what?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're not going to do like they did and be fictitious. We're not going to put in that agricultural reserve rock piles and gravel piles. I want to tell you something else, Mr. Chairman. You know, they're so fictitious; they really are, Mr. Chairman. Because literally thousands of acres of farmland were taken out of the agricultural land reserve while they were government. Thousands and thousands of acres were taken out, and here they were going to plump that polluting refinery right in the heart of the best farmland in all of Canada — in the lower Fraser Valley. There's the minister over there, there's the then minister, who was going to plump that oil refinery right in the centre of the Fraser Valley and pollute. There would be no agriculture there at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Where, where, where?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I want to tell you...and what did they do about bringing farmland back in the Nicomekl-Serpentine area?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, they knew about it. Did they build any dikes? Did they do any studies? They could have put thousands of acres of the best farmland in Canada back, but they talked and they talked and they did absolutely nothing.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I really feel sorry for that group over there. I really feel sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's obvious.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't mention some of the others — land that they wanted to take out for

[ Page 1424 ]

ICBC and Tilbury Island. Tilbury Island — they were so anxious to buy that, Mr. Chairman, and get it out of the agricultural land reserve before anybody noticed it, that they had some fictitious company buy it and borrow the money from B.C. Hydro before BCDC was even formed. They were in such a mad rush to get that out of agricultural production. But as I say, Mr. Chairman, I can do nothing but really stand here and feel sorry for that group over there.

I didn't intend to get carried away this afternoon, but I do feel that those poor people over there.... You know, Mr. Chairman, we will relieve the pressure on the lower Fraser Valley for housing because the housing policies of our greatest Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) will provide housing on land that is already available, land that is already alienated out of the ALR. We will see that that land is serviced and we will see that houses are built on that land and we will take the pressure off of the lower mainland. That way, there will not be that continuing pressure, because there will be houses for everybody on land that is already available.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, just a word or two to the Minister of Agriculture. Most of the things that I wanted to say I said last night. I charged that minister with ignoring the fact that we're so totally dependent upon a state in the United States — California — which has a depleting water supply and an erosion of agricultural land similar to what we enjoyed in British Columbia under the old, Socred government and what we contemplate now under the new coalition.

The third thing, Mr. Chairman, I suggested that energy sources are depleting as well and that there would be further difficulty in getting food to Canada, particularly when California requires all they can produce themselves, and so what did that minister do? He jumped up today and he charged the old NDP government for doing what we did properly.

If that minister, and member at that time, had really had any interest, he would have watched what happened after the bill was brought in and after his dissertation by the hour. The whole question of what land should be left in the ALR and what land should be out was the question that was taken to each of the regional districts, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, but you had no interest. You're not really interested in what happens to land in this province. There was a lot of land taken out of the ALR, and it was taken out because it was the will of the regional districts. They were supposed to have done a job. Some of them did an excellent job on seeing to it that only those lands that were considered to be good agricultural lands stayed in and those lands that were described in this House as rock piles were taken out.

Mr. Chairman, that's the democratic process in good working order. Now we see an entirely different approach. We see members around this House, on the other side, who were supported during the last election by people who have a vested interest in getting some of that land out — some of the good land out — and that's what's terrifying us. That's what's terrifying us. The member for Delta, getting up and making that speech, with respect....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, an excellent speech.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Delta epitomizes the problem this province has had and faces now, in that the Member for Delta comes from the richest land in the province, a land capable of growing six crops in some areas — six crops — and, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Don't give me that Tilbury Island stuff. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) indicated the pressures that were on, and you had to put an industrial complex somewhere.

So, Mr. Chairman, a few acres in Tilbury Island to offset the thousands of acres that were being lost to blacktop, the thousands of acres that were being lost to houses. Developers don't want to build houses up the sides of hills. Developers want to build houses down in valley bottoms and thereby rob us. Laugh, Mr. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), but the fact of the matter is that that's exactly the way it's been in this province and that's the way it'll be with this high-handed, mighty, laughing situation that you've developed around agricultural land.

MR. KAHL: Who owned all the farmland that the NDP bought?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, isn't it interesting the way they react to this situation? The Minister of Agriculture should bow his head and solemnly swear to do something more than he's done in the past around the whole question of protecting farmland for B.C.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): There he is — he's in position. You know, I thought he was going to go into a speech similar to the one he made over here when he was speaking against the Land Commission.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the minister a brief that was submitted to the B.C. cabinet on December 18, 1972, when you were over here. It was by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and they said at the bottom: "It is well known and widely

[ Page 1425 ]

acknowledged that incomes received by farm families have not kept pace with the rest of society. You may be aware that 82 per cent of the farmers in British Columbia receive less than federal unemployment insurance benefits, while a substantial number of farm families make do on income below current welfare rates." That was in December, Mr. Minister, of 1972. After 20 years of your party's governing, that's what the farmers said then.

In December, 1975, Charles Bernhardt, who was the president of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, was speaking at the National Apple Conference in Ottawa on December 17 and 18. This is what he said: "Enactment of the B.C. Land Commission Act in the spring of 1973 and the passage of the Farm Income Assurance Act and other companion legislation in the fall of 1973 will be recorded as historic milestones in securing the future of agriculture and farmers in British Columbia." That's what Mr. Bernhardt said.

He first reviews the circumstances leading up to these events — disappearance of the best farmland, industrial growth, and other factors. Farmers, through the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, had been expressing their concern for preservation of farmland for 10 years to the government of the day — the Socred government. They repeatedly pointed to the impossible competition which development represented in the use of land. We have that minister and his colleagues, including the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who got up last night and in a moment of pique made a speech.... I'm sure that he doesn't remember what he said, but he....

MR. CHABOT: I'll repeat it.

MR. LEVI: No, you haven't got the floor. He doesn't remember. He presented himself as the hero or the defender of the preservation of farmland. They are the preservers of farmland. This is what the farmers said in 1972 and what they said in 1975: Enactment of the B.C. Land Commission Act and the Farm Income Assurance Act will be recorded as historic milestones in securing the future of agriculture and farmers in British Columbia. We haven't heard yet from that minister whether those farmers can feel secure in the future.

Yesterday, in the debate on the Attorney-General's estimates, he made reference to the grape growers, and he made a point of saying that they don't need farm income assurance. They work hard and they have initiative. I concluded from that, Mr. Chairman, that what the minister was saying was that all the people who needed farm income assurance have somehow not the same kind of initiative and drive that the grape growers have.

Again, I want to repeat what the farmers said in 1972: "It is well known and widely acknowledged that incomes received by farm families have not kept pace with the rest of society. You may be aware that 82 per cent of the farmers make less money than they do on unemployment insurance." That's why they needed farm income assurance, Mr. Minister. You cannot compare the efforts of the grape growers, who are recent comers here, to the people that have been here for years trying to develop a farm industry with absolutely no assistance from a government that was indifferent to their future — completely indifferent. Then he has the gall to stand up in the House along with his colleagues and say that they're going to do great things for the farmers. I think it's an incredible thing to inflict upon the farmers of this province that minister, the 2 per cent minister — just an incredible infliction that they're going to have to bear, hopefully not too long.

The difficulty that we have in this debate, Mr. Chairman, in respect to this minister, is that we can't even reduce his salary. We would love to do that, but we can find no mechanism that we can reduce his salary by. That's very unfortunate. He can smile because that's the only way. If we could change the rules, we'd move the motion right away that your salary be reduced not by $1, but to $1. Then I think we would have a further debate on the merits of that. Of course, the minister would sit there smiling and know full well that he's got his other portfolio that will carry him through anyway, so he'll be okay.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): The Minister of Agriculture said that he intended to be judged by his actions, and I can assure him he will. He will be judged and found wanting. I grew up in Victoria and spent my first 13 summers on a farm. I have some familiarity with it, have some familiarity with the concerns of farmers in this province.

The land farmers and the real estate farmers who appeared on the front steps of the Legislature are not going to prove to be the same group of farmers who next appear on the steps of the Legislature. I predict that the next group of farmers to appear on the steps of this building will be the farmers that ask whether or not they have, in fact, a minister of Agriculture.

My colleague from Burrard mentioned that it was unfortunate that the minister doesn't have before us a salary vote that we can talk about. That was a symbolic significance, too, and makes a larger statement than the minister himself may realize, Mr. Chairman. There is no salary vote for the Minister of Agriculture because by common account we have no Minister of Agriculture. So I would like, through you, Mr. Chairman, to commend the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for his job in holding the department together while the Minister of Agriculture spends 98 per cent of his time administering his other portfolio. I congratulate the deputy minister and I ask the House to join me in doing so. We recognize your

[ Page 1426 ]

achievements at least, Mr. Deputy Minister.

The minister did tell us that he was a minister who intended to take action. Well, I have a constituent who asked the minister to take action, through myself. I wrote a letter quite a while ago. I received originally a letter from a gentleman. I won't use his name but he is an orchidist in Victoria. You may recall the correspondence. He lives on the Trans-Canada Highway; he is a respected businessman in the city of Victoria. He asked my help in dealing with a problem that he has with the credit branch of the Department of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, who today tells us he is the first one to take quick action, has so far taken no action at all.

I received a phone call yesterday concerning this matter again, because it is one, Mr. Chairman, of some urgency. I would like, if I may, in the Legislature, although I had not intended to, to draw it to the attention of the minister because I am hoping that the man of action will take some action on this one. I received my first letter on April 7. I made some inquiries and forwarded my letter to the minister on April 30, the letter hoping for some quick assurance that a deadline, which, through no fault of his own the owner of this orchid business had missed, could be extended by the minister's personal intervention. If I might, briefly I will read from the letter — again, not using the businessman's name, but the minister does have the correspondence, the minister who takes action on everything that comes his way. I would ask if today he would be willing — or perhaps the deputy minister on his behalf would be willing — to make a commitment to allow this responsible businessman in Victoria, who through no fault of his own missed a deadline, to come in under that deadline in order to obtain the benefits that by accounts are rightfully his, offered by the credit branch of the Department of Agriculture.

The letter is as follows:

"Mr. Proctor of Westcoast Credit Savings Union suggested that I contact you with a problem which neither the credit union nor I can solve. The problem is with the B.C. Department of Agriculture, credit branch, and relates to grants in regard to rebates on interest paid on moneys borrowed from a lending institution to carry out farm business.

"Late in 1975 I visited Mr. M. Thompson, head of the credit branch, and found out that our enterprise" — this orchid business in Victoria — "qualifies for grants in this respect. I was given all the necessary information and on January 20, 1976, I asked Mr. Proctor of the credit union to fill out the application forms. They can be obtained from any lending institution and are to be filled out by them. Westcoast did not have any because they never received any from the Department of Agriculture. On March 4, the forms were still not available so I visited the Department of Agriculture and was told the deadline, March 1, had now passed.

"Now according to the Department of Agriculture there are two ways in which a person can find out about the deadline. The application states, though, that those forms are not available. Second, the department advertised in 40 British Columbia newspapers about the deadline (but not in Victoria's three papers and not in any of the trade journals which I receive).

"For these reasons I asked Mr. Thompson if we could fill out the forms and backdate them. But this was not to be considered."

The letter goes on with some personal remarks. The minister has received the entire correspondence. I would like the Minister of action and Agriculture to tell the House that he is willing to make an exception for this respected Victoria businessman to allow him to come under the date which he missed through no fault of his own, and to inform him today by phone, if you wish, that he will have an opportunity to apply for the grants which rightfully and reasonably are his. Will the minister give such an undertaking today?

I was hoping for a phone call. As I mentioned, there was some urgency to this matter. As every day passes, he's missing business opportunities which I know, as a private enterprise supporter, the Minister of Agriculture does indeed endorse. I hope today he might make a statement to this House. I would be delighted if he would be willing to call the man himself and tell him that the deadline in his case will be extended. Will the minister reply?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member who was to follow is not here. The member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I yield to the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is not in his place.

MRS. WALLACE: He's in his place now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

I'm glad to see that the minister is responding a little bit more today. I'd like to have a little bit of information. There is a lot of concern. I think that the comment has been made earlier about failure of ministers in general to get up and give some sort of an overview of their department and how they see the responsibilities, particularly in this first session of the Legislature. For these ministers, new to their task, it would be good if they would follow what I

[ Page 1427 ]

understand to be pretty well parliamentary traditions in giving some overview and giving something of an idea to members so that they can respond instead of having to probe and make accusations.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

In fact, it might even keep the level of debate a little bit higher when he attempts to set things off on a bad footing. For instance, the minister might have referred to the policy handbook of the British Columbia Social Credit Party and could have given us a little progress report on how he's doing on the points of the platform.

He was talking about how our abundant supply of home-grown food products must be preserved and what he's doing to preserve these products, about establishing a performance programme which assures the primary producer independence and equality of work and living standards, assuring the adequacy of food supplies through the development of family-operated agricultural units.

What is the minister doing, Mr. Chairman, about an emphasis on the family farm and offering B.C.'s Crown-owned farm lands to private ownership by Canadians? Well, even that's their policy.... What progress is he making? I'm sure particularly some of his backbenchers would be interested in hearing about establishing young people in agriculture under conditions which ensure the development of viable production units, providing economically feasible farm-income assurance programmes based on actual cost of production formulas.

We see that everything is going up this year, except allowances for farm-income assurance. We see that energy costs are going up alarmingly, that in fact it seems to be with the concurrence of government that some items which are very necessary farm items have not been exempted from an increased sales tax. Everything is going up, and the cost of production is going up, but the formula hasn't been changed. Yet these are points in the Social Credit platform

So these are some of the things we might have expected to hear in opening remarks. We do see that it's creating concern. In Farm News, for instance, the B.C. correspondent to the Farm News, Malcolm Turnbull, moonlights for the Province when he's not engaged full time with the Farm News.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking the press!

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's complimenting the press.

MR. NICOLSON: He says: "It now appears that what happened to agriculture between 1972 and 1975 is past history and due for some erosion." He says: "For the province's farmers, the good life didn't come until the election in 1972 of the NDP. The socialist hordes, as W.A.C. Bennett called them, gave the industry a strong minister and cabinet cooperation, and from this the agricultural industry got many beneficial farm reforms such as the preservation of farmland, income assurance, provincial credit and programmes for secondary farm industry."

Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — it's absolutely in contradiction to some of the statements you've just enunciated. In fact, the closing note is to quote one senior civil servant, "who is not an NDP supporter, put it: 'We don't know where we are going.'" That's a pretty sad state of affairs. This was after the budget was out, and they don't know where they're going.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know where I'm going — right down the tube.

MR. NICOLSON: But it certainly looks like a return to the good old days. They've only been in power for three months but it's hard to keep their spirits up. It's hard for people with government jobs to keep their spirits up. Think what it's like for people in the farm industry, people who have equities, people who have loans, people who work long hours for really little return on their investment. How must it be for them to keep their spirits up?

This same civil servant — not identified in this article — and I'm sure there is a basis in fact, said: "Maybe they should announce that they want to do away with farming in this province."

That's what it looked like at times under W.A.C. Bennett. It also mentioned some concerns of Mr. Wessel and others, and a lot has been said about what might be unwillingness of the minister to meet with farm groups, or his reluctance.... I understand some of the difficulties that minister might be facing. You cannot meet with everybody when you are in the position of being a minister, and I guess it's doubly so when.... At least you can't get around to meeting everybody in the first six months of office that you would like to meet with. In fact, you'd like to meet with everybody.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): He just met his deputy. (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Is he meeting with anybody? What are the problems? Why has this minister perhaps been less able to meet with people? I don't think we've heard this same criticism that municipal councils haven't been able to get to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis). He has a double portfolio — but in this double portfolio there's an extreme difference.

[ Page 1428 ]

I've looked at this, Mr. Chairman, and I have tried to be constructive, and I wondered. I do know that in addition, and something that might have escaped notice, is that the Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development is also on the board of directors of B.C. Rail, and I believe he's on the board of directors of BCDC.

In order that I can try to understand some of the problems faced, I ask the minister to just answer this one question: what other boards are you on? I'm not asking about Aspol Motors; I'm asking in line with your duties as Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Economic Development, what other boards are you required to sit on as a director, and what other duties do you have? That's all I want, just a very simple little summary. If you are on any other boards of directors, tell us if you are or aren't, and then if you are on some...if you'd let us know which ones.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the problem mentioned by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I want to say that your problem is not an isolated case in the province; there were numerous farmers who applied after the deadline. You realize that we have to set a deadline; otherwise we can't compute the interest. If we consider it for one farmer, we have to consider it for 300 other farmers in the province. We have to consider it for all the others, and if we set it back this year, then what do we do? I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we're going to take a look at it. As a matter of fact, about 10 days ago I asked for a complete report of all those involved, and the dates, and certainly we'll take a look at it.

I'm not saying we're going to change; I'm not saying we're going to back up on our deadline this time, but I'm saying we're going to take a look at it — always take a second look. We'll take a look at the principles involved — it won't happen today and it won't happen tomorrow, but we'll take a look at it.

Mr. Chairman, there's been a lot of talk here about the Minister of Agriculture spending 2 per cent. Well, that's political, you know; they have to have something to talk about. They're a poor, frustrated group and they have to talk about something.

I'm not going to read it, but I've a long list of the number of agricultural groups — and it's growing every day — that I've met with since becoming Minister of Agriculture. I haven't refused to see any group but I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I haven't been available to go out to speak to every luncheon and every banquet I have been invited to. But I don't think any agricultural group that has come to the door of the Minister of Agriculture...that the door hasn't been opened wide. I've offered to see them, and I've been willing to sit down with them. I've talked to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and I'll talk to them again. We're negotiating with them; the door is not closed. We're negotiating and they know where they're going.

I want to tell you that we just can't say yes, yes, yes, to everything they ask for, and they understand that because that great agricultural industry out there in the last real bastion of free enterprise in this province, and we want to keep it that way. We're not going to move in to take control of the agricultural industry, as was that group over there when they were in government.

There's a lot of talk emanating from those benches about new programmes. I want to stand here in this House and tell you that there were new programmes we wanted to bring in for the agricultural industry this year, but because of the way that group over there, when they were government, squandered the taxpayers' money and left the cupboard dry, we are unable to bring in those new programmes that we wanted to bring in this year. That doesn't say that we won't bring them in next year, Mr. Chairman. But the agricultural industry recognizes full well how that government squandered the money.

I was listening to the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi), the $100 million overrun man, stand up and talk about agriculture. I want to tell you: it isn't only agricultural policies in isolation that have to do with the great agricultural industry in this province. Agriculture has to be taken into the whole concept of government policies. Many of the policies that we've implemented so far, and many of the policies that we will implement, will be of great benefit to the agricultural industry in this province. We'll give them security of tenure; we'll preserve their farmland and make it a viable enterprise. We will continue with new programmes as soon as we get the economy rolling and the taxpayers' dollar rolls in and the industry flourishes so that we can have the money to implement those programmes that we wanted to implement this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that we will.

Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, the agricultural industry is secure. We need agricultural industry in this province, and we will protect the farmland. But we will bring in new policies which will bring in new farmland on stream. We won't just talk about it in broad general terms; we will implement new policies to bring in new farmland to make it viable.

We won't skirt around the issues so the cattlemen don't know whether they are coming or going because they have no tenure. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I could talk to you all afternoon about other policies that are not necessarily directed to agriculture — other policies that will make this great agricultural province enthusiastic. They will

[ Page 1429 ]

have security of tenure, they will know where they are going, and they will know that they are going in concert with the rest of the economy of this great province in which we live.

It saddens my heart, Mr. Chairman. There were new programmes that we wanted to bring in this year to help this great industry, but the cupboard was dry. There was no money! No money was there to implement those new programmes. I want to tell you that money was wasted and squandered by that group over there, but I want to tell you that this province is on the march. Every single day that goes by, the economy is gaining momentum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 3, Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and you will see that when the coffers fill up again we will instigate new programmes to help the agricultural industry in British Columbia — new, innovative programmes and programmes to strengthen the industry, based on a strong economy.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, we heard another eloquent address by the Minister of Agriculture, and now we hope that he will perhaps respond to some of the questions. I didn't try to launch into any sort of a political attack except to ask for some very simple information. Various ministers get burdened down, some more than others. Some just have one simple portfolio; others are looked upon as willing horses, I suppose, and they are burdened down with as much as the Premier can load upon them and they never say "enough, enough." They never turn down anything. They've a sense of responsibility and so on.

So I am just asking the minister to let us know if, besides BCDC, B.C. Rail and, of course, his two portfolios, he has other directorships in line with his duties as Minister of Agriculture and BCDC. Does he have any other directorships? It's a very simple question and I hope the minister will respond.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to yield to the minister if he wishes to answer the question from the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. LAUK: No wonder he doesn't have a salary in his vote.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend both yourself and the Deputy Speaker, when he was in the chair, for the great degree of indulgence you have exercised in the discussion of vote 3. We are discussing in very broad terms the minister's salary, which is non-existent in vote 3 — there is no minister's salary. We also have, on both sides of the House, become involved in a very lengthy dissertation regarding the Land Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the committee agreed to that, I believe, in advance. Please refer to vote 3.

MRS. WALLACE: We are also discussing at great length the Land Commission, which is not even included under the Minister of Agriculture's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the Land Commission as it relates to agriculture is included.

MRS. WALLACE: That is my point, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly my point. When members on both sides of this House get up and discuss the Land Commission in the agriculture estimates, it proves that that is where the Land Commission should be and should remain, and it strengthens the request that I made last night to return to the Department of Agriculture and under the stewardship of the Minister of Agriculture the operation of and responsibility for the Land Commission Act and the Land Commission itself.

I want to refer to the remarks made by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) last night when he was speaking. He was the former Minister of Agriculture under the former, former government. I am always very impressed with what he has to say. It's obvious that he understands the situation of the farmer. I believe he has been engaged in farming. It always shows when a person has really participated in the farming community as a member of that community.

Many of his remarks were very well thought out and, certainly, as was mentioned, I would like to second what the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said — that he had offered more to this debate in the way of a government programme for agriculture than has the Minister of Agriculture. We get flowery assurances of what he's going to do; he's always going to be looking at things, but he never says just what he is going to do. I would suggest that what the member for Skeena had to say was a lot more concrete than anything we have had from the part-time Minister of Agriculture in today's coalition government.

One of the things that the member for Skeena mentioned is certainly something that would not be very practical in my estimation, and that is, I think he said, that the farmers should receive a third of all commodities disposed of or sold — a third of the selling price. I would suggest to the former, former Minister of Agriculture that this would certainly not be very operative, because the spread in pricing on various agricultural commodities ranges from something like, between wholesale and retail, 5 cents on eggs — sometimes nothing on eggs; it's almost a loss-leader type of product — to a scandalous spread

[ Page 1430 ]

in the price of chicken. I don't believe there has been any change since I last saw the figures on chicken, Mr. Chairman, but the spread on chicken is just out of all reason.

The farmers have had a constant price. Almost for about two or three years it's been unchanged at 35.5 cents a pound. That's live weight. If you convert that to eviscerated weight, it's something like between 47 and 48 cents. I understand from the processors that the processing cost is 14 cents, so we're talking about 61 cents a pound, and certainly there is no kind of chicken that you can buy at the retail level that is anywhere near that price, even if you add on a third and give the retailers a third of that. It is still a tremendous markup, and I would urge upon the Minister of Agriculture to investigate that business of chicken pricing at the retail level.

I was very pleased to hear the remarks from the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd). I felt that he presented some very good points. Certainly I'm pleased to hear the Minister of Agriculture, and all members on the government side of the House, supporting the idea of controlled production as opposed to the free market. I think the one thing we must remember, and it was a point I made last night, is that the marketing board's main purpose is to control production rather than to set prices, because it is impossible for them to set, just off-hand and arbitrarily, the prices for agricultural products. It's a case of controlling the amount of production.

I would point out to the members of the House, and the minister in particular if he is thinking of doing away with marketing boards, as he indicated he was going to look at them, that when this was done in the United Kingdom, when they did away with marketing boards in the United Kingdom in the hope that it was going to produce more food and cheaper food, it had just the opposite result. Production deteriorated, decreased, and, resultantly, food prices increased.

I would issue a word of warning to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, that he tread very cautiously, very lightly, before he makes any radical changes to the marketing boards' powers in controlling production. In the long term, it would work nothing but a hardship on not only the producers but also on the consumers in British Columbia. The minister has, as I say, repeatedly told us he was going to look at things. He has told us he has met with the farm organizations — met with them after many attempts, on some occasions, by those farm organizations, Mr. Chairman. He tells us that he's working with the vegetable growers to come up with a solution to the problem being faced by those growers as a result of imports. To the best of my knowledge, the only solution the Minister of Agriculture has offered to this point in time has been turned down by those growers because they realize that it's an impossible and inadequate solution.

As I understand his suggestion, Mr. Chairman, it was that he would pay to any consumer who provided to him proof of purchase of one case of either corn, peas or beans, B.C.-produced, on them advising him of this purchase, the sum of of $1. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that might cost the Department of Agriculture, if they were fortunate, the whole sum of $50. It's an impossible, ridiculous solution that would result in no kind of assistance. I am glad that the producers in the Fraser Valley had the foresight to.... Well, it would have been ridiculous for them to accept, but they knew better and they have turned it down. If there is another solution in the offing, I think the minister should be prepared to tell the House about this.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, and I repeat it again, we continuously ask the minister for answers, for policies, for what his proposals are, and he gets up and he gives us one of these delightful, dramatic dialogues, but no real answers. So I have only one place to turn for what the policy of this government is: I have to turn back to Mr. Ian Carne in his speech in Hamilton to the Ontario agrologists.

What are some of the things that he is saying? I'm assuming, because the minister isn't telling us anything, that this is the stated policy of this government.

Mr. Carne said: "The B.C. government has as a result suggested that land costs" — this is in connection with income assurance, Mr. Chairman — "be removed from the cost of production formula, but the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture is resisting the suggestion." I should think they would, Mr. Chairman.

Land — I gave you figures the other day — it's increased by 6.9 per cent average annual rate growth in the last 10 years and it's going to remove land costs from the cost of production of agricultural products. Ridiculous!

"A joint committee has been set up," Mr. Carne went on, "to study the implications of dropping land costs from the formula." Mr. Carne complained that the farmers are pressuring support prices too high because the government is putting up $2 to every $1 they contribute. He said that if B.C. had to do it again, the ratio would be $1 to $1. I wonder how the families feel about that, Mr. Chairman, doubling their premiums. The old double-trouble government again, doubling their premiums.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a fact....

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, doubling everything, going to double the farmers' premiums.

Now I would urge the minister, Mr. Chairman, either to accept that this is the policy of this government towards income insurance or else to get

[ Page 1431 ]

up and dispute it. If that is the case, I think Mr. Carne should either be reprimanded severely or dismissed, but there certainly should be some kind of control over a person who is in the minister's employ and making those kinds of statements if they are not the policy of this government.

I want to deal just briefly with the public hearings on egg pricing. I'm not really going to talk about eggs but I just want to deal briefly with some of the comments that were put before this hearing.

It says, in part: "Without marketing boards, the Canadian egg industry will deteriorate. Very few, if any, of the present producers would be able to stay in business without the marketing controls they have instituted." It goes on to say: "In the United Kingdom" — and I've spoken of this — "through misinforming the public, certain interests were able to persuade their government to do away with the British Egg Marketing Board, and the end result was that some 15,000 producers were forced out. A few giants became larger but the public did not get eggs any cheaper."

Again, there is just a short quote here from the United Church of Canada, and it reads:

"The committee on agriculture and food resources reaffirms the Christian ethic of equality of opportunity and justice in the use of resources for the feeding of people. We believe a viable agricultural industry is essential to the economic and social well-being of Canadians. It is responsible for providing a continuing supply of food for consumers and a profitable return to those associated with its production. The committee sees marketing boards as part of the framework of this industry.

"Although producers have some individual freedom, nevertheless marketing boards, when properly constituted to regulate production and control prices for the producer, give stability to production and marketing of farm products. That's giving a fair return to the producer and a constant supply to the consumer."

The committee reaffirms the principles of marketing boards and so on. I would suggest that the mention of controlling prices is at the federal level, Mr. Chairman, and that is where they have to be controlled, at the federal level, because that is the only place where there is some control of imports and exports.

I noticed in the paper this morning that the federal government had given the assurance that there would be no more excessive importing from the United States, that controls would continue to protect the Canadian egg producer. But I suggest that without marketing boards, Mr. Chairman, we are moving into an era where the large corporate industries can control our agricultural production.

There's been a lot of discussion as to the relative size of the economic unit for agriculture production and I would suggest that the large corporate enterprise has a lot...apart from not being the most efficient, as statistics have proven. There is a break-even point when you get to a certain size. It becomes less efficient than the smaller operation.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that those farmers.... Those side effects from this large corporate type of farm industry are far greater than any small potential saving that may be made. It's been pointed out that the average family uses 20 dozen eggs a year. So if you were to decrease the price by 1 cent a dozen the saving would only be 20 cents a year — it's just very, very small. Yet that's about the size of decrease you could get by going to a large corporate farm — it would be 1 cent a dozen. So you are talking about 20 cents a year for the average individual.

Another point is that if you are going to have the smaller farm enterprise participating, and have the individual farmers participating as individuals, you have to keep the farms small enough so the small farmer can afford the capital costs involved. The amount of loan money out to the agricultural industry has more than doubled in the last 10 years, and this, of course, reflects the higher capital costs.

But it has been suggested, and it has been pointed out in this federal farm economics, Agriculture Canada publication, that the amount of sales required to return any kind of a living income for farmers.... There is a group that sells under $2,500 worth of farm products. That group has an average net income of $298 a year. Obviously, that group is working at other jobs and their average net income is greater than that — their average income from all sources is much greater, but that is the net proceeds from the farm. If they are selling less than $2,500 worth of produce, they are only netting an average income of $298.

It goes on up, Mr. Chairman. For example, if your farm operation sells between $10,000 and $25,000 worth of produce in any given year, you can expect a net income from farm produce of $2,852.

AN HON. MEMBER: Terrific!

MRS. WALLACE: It's terrific, yes. If you are over $50,000 of produce, you can expect an average net farm income of only $4,597.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: My question? You want a specific question? I don't have to ask a specific question. I'll ask you specific questions under the specific estimates.

The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that the

[ Page 1432 ]

amount of capital required to sell those quantities of produce is a very large capital. We must try to operate a kind of governmental assistance, be it income assurance, farm loans, whatever, that assist the family-farm entity to operate, because without the family-farm entity we are going to be faced with the kind of problems that are referred to here in the United Kingdom where we've had people eroding from the farms into the cities — all sorts of social problems, including welfare, before the courts, crowding educational systems, all kinds of problems. We must keep that family on the farm and keep the family-farm concept.

In any reviewing of quotas as set by marketing boards, I would urge the minister to consider — and if he's wanting a question or point, that's really what I am leading up to — that we must keep those quotas realistic for the family-farm operation, because any possible increase in costs would be so minimal, Mr. Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair), speaking from out of your seat. As I pointed out with eggs, a 1-cent increase in price would only amount to 20 cents a year.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in closing, I wanted to deal just very briefly with the situation that has been developing here in Canada relative to the transportation and pricing, particularly the pricing, of the feed grains and rapeseed, which, as I understand it, the pricing now has been left in the hands of the grain exchange and the futures market. Now this may be working with some degree of success with the feed grains, but it certainly isn't working with the rapeseed because of the small quantity of purchases.

I would point out that in a recent issue of the Sun, the farmers in Montana have been talking to some of the farmers in the Prairie provinces regarding some form of production control and pricing for their grain products because they have found that the free market system simply does not work there. They are moving into and looking very favourably to what was done on the Prairies in the way of establishing the wheat pools and the Canadian Wheat Board. They are looking towards moving in that direction. This is a statement relative to the.... I don't see his name here, but it's not that important. Anyway, he came to speak with the farm organizations in the Prairie provinces to discuss this problem. It is proving that the concept of some kind of producer control in the market is working far better than the free market system, because in the United States now they are in a real bad situation.

"He said they were most interested in the pooling principle of the Wheat Board, under which all farmers receive the same final price and equal opportunity to deliver grain, and that in fact the board knows how much grain is in existence and can sell with knowledge of how much is available of different kinds of grain."

Platten, his name was.

"Platten said that the Montana farmers were concerned about the skulduggery that was going on by the big grain companies and was worrying about what this was costing them."

So I would urge upon the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, to take very careful consideration before he opens up the way for the kind of cutthroat competition that put the farmers in such desperate situations in the past years.

The minister has said that they're not doing anything for agriculture this year because they have no money. He was a member of the House before 1972, and I'm wondering where he was when there was 0.5 per cent of the total budget allocated to this problem. I know who was the Minister of Agriculture at that time. He said some of the things that he would have liked to have done, but I wonder why he didn't do them. Was it that that government was not that concerned about the farmers? They tell us they had lots of money then. They tell us they are concerned about the farmers; they tell us they would like to do lots of things for the farmers now but they have no money.

Mr. Chairman, I think actions speak louder than words. When they were the government they did nothing for the farmers of this province. It took the New Democratic Party to point the way how to help the farmers. It was the New Democratic Party that had the nerve to bring in the Land Commission Act to protect the land for the farmers. It was the New Democratic Party that spoke out and acted — not just spoke out, but acted, Mr. Chairman — on behalf of the farmers. It was the New Democratic Party that had the vision to bring in income assurance and allow the farmers to participate in a plan that would protect them in bad times and see them through to good times.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is a sham for that minister to hide behind the fact that he has no money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you continue, Hon. Minister, I have something here that may be of use to you in your statements from the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May:

"In canvassing the actions of a high civil servants, restraint must be used. If an hon. member has a complaint of substance, it must be filed on a substantive motion."

I'd like you to take note of that, please.

[ Page 1433 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just to answer the hon. member's questions, I think that I explained to her that I didn't say we were going to do away with marketing boards. I said we were going to take a look, because everybody is critical of marketing boards. The customers are critical of marketing boards and other farmers are critical of marketing boards, so what we have to do is take a look and either say yes or no, it's good or bad. But don't get all hysterical. I didn't say we were going to do away with marketing boards. The legislation is there and it is the responsibility of government from time to time to take a look at the legislation they have to see if it is functioning for the purpose for which it was set up. That's all we're going to do. That's all I've said — we'll take a look. That's point No. 1.

Point No. 2. I don't think that we're ever going to satisfy all the farmers with the income assurance, because there are various degrees of efficiency in farming and among farmers. It is only the top 25 per cent of the farmers that are really going to be able to make it go because it is under a very high level of efficiency. As I said last night, had the member for Cowichan-Malahat been listening last night, we must not remove that competitive spirit from the farmer, because if we do we lose all.

With regard to the negotiations, I explained to the member for Cowichan-Malahat last night that we are presently negotiating with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture with regard to the programme for this year. That's the way it was set up — that every year you sit down and you negotiate on your costs. I explained that to her. If she had been listening, she wouldn't have had to waste half an hour of the time of the House. I explained to her further that we are negotiating in several areas and one of them is labour. We're negotiating — there's no door closed. We're negotiating with them. I want to tell you that we are also negotiating with them on the price of land — yes, very much so. As a matter of fact, the good farmers who have their eye to the future, who want to preserve agriculture for the future, are probably more concerned than we are about the escalating price of farmland and how it's going to affect future generations of farmers. We've offered to share a study, on a 50-50 basis, to determine the effect of the high price of farmland on cost of production. You want to remember that as the price of farmland goes up, it's also a capital gain in the hands of the farmer, but we want to look at it.

We also want to look at it as it pertains to the effect on the income assurance programme. So, yes, we're negotiating, but there's no reason to get all excited. We haven't finished our negotiations. We haven't said yes to everything they've asked — again, I said that last night. But we are negotiating in good faith, and the farmers realize we have to negotiate in good faith. The door isn't closed; always take another look. Still negotiating. That's the way it has to be. If it comes to an impasse, where the government and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture can't get together or can't agree, we may have to find another method of negotiating. That hasn't happened yet.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Chairman made a point directed, I think, to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I wonder to what part of her speech the Chairman was referring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was referring, Hon. Member, to her allusion to the high senior civil servant in the....

MR. LAUK: The civil servant, not the minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LAUK: All right.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just want to follow on in response to some of the minister's comments. In particular, he said a moment ago that what the government wishes to do is to find out if marketing boards are accomplishing what they were set up to do. I would like to zero in on the Egg Marketing Board, for it does not seem to be doing what it was set up to do.

Very precisely, Mr. Chairman, the Egg Marketing Board was set up with a commitment that each region would produce eggs to its own requirements, and in the course of time.... I'm not interested in laying blame or trying to explain why this happened, but the minister knows very well, from the evidence that's been publicized, that lower mainland eggs are transported to the Prince George area, and the Prince George producers are not in fact getting the privilege of producing to the requirements of their own region. The response of these producers in the Prince George region, I think, is quite predictable and just.

For the minister to stand in the House today and suggest that just because the supreme court is going to apply the letter of the law to these producers everything is just tickety-boo, I think, is a simplistic answer to this House, and is less than we deserve.

The fact is that the Egg Marketing Board may well be able to prove, technically and literally to the letter of the law, that these producers should be paying certain penalties. But the fact is that these producers aren't getting fair play in the first place because eggs, in fact, are being produced in the lower mainland and marketed in the Prince George area and other parts of the interior, which is a breach of the commitment that was made when the Egg Marketing Board was set up several years ago.

All these producers are asking is, not for a bunch

[ Page 1434 ]

of smart lawyers or politicians to prove whether or not they've broken certain regulations but to see to it that the Egg Marketing Board is following the regulations that were introduced in the first place to ensure that regional producers could produce the eggs that were required in their particular region.

Now, of course, the minister has left the chamber for the moment, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 30

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I have one very brief question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if he could tell me whether or not any special programme has been developed this year within the Department of Agriculture for university and high school students.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this issue that I'm trying to discuss — and now that I might have the minister's attention — goes far beyond the question of the Egg Marketing Board per se. It's an important question of principle.

It relates very much, Mr. Chairman, to some of the speeches and amendments which this same minister introduced into the House when he was in the official opposition not too long ago. The fact is that....

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I don't know that I do have the minister's attention. He seems to be choosing to either leave the chamber or get into little conferences with other members while I'm trying to have his attention.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we might have to repeat the motion that I just made a moment ago.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there are certain egg producers in this province who have a very legitimate argument: namely to the effect that the understanding when the Egg Marketing Board was set up, although it was primarily promoted by lower mainland producers, was that other regional producers would be allowed to produce eggs to the requirements of their region. The fact that that understanding has been broken has irritated the egg producers in the Prince George region. They've reacted as a lot of people would do when they're justly irritated.

Under these circumstances the matter, I believe, has gone from bad to worse. We're on the point of receiving a B.C. supreme court decision which tells these egg producers to pay a penalty or their property and their assets will be seized by law, which, Mr. Chairman, seems like a very militaristic and authoritarian way to function when these producers, as far as the evidence can be shown, have a legitimate grievance. It's no answer for the minister to say that because the full technical application of the law is about to be provided or applied against these producers, that solves the problem.

Now I notice the minister's turned his back on this side of the House.

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, despite that particular arrogance by that minister which somehow is very reminiscent of the former Social Credit administration and the way ministers behaved in this House, I would like some answers to what I think are very realistic and fair questions.

The egg producers producing in Prince George region are simply asking that they should have some representation on the board of five members which presently is very much weighted in favour of the lower mainland producers. I believe there are three of them and two other individuals, one from lower Vancouver Island and one from the interior, as I understand it. The producers in the Prince George region are simply asking for a voice, some representation on the board.

Secondly, I gather that their other, and what appears to be a very reasonable, question is that they want the original intent of the Egg Marketing Board to be followed. Not only are eggs produced elsewhere being transported to Prince George, but by virtue of the very time factor concerned, you're not getting very good eggs that were produced in one area and at a variable time transported and sold hundreds of miles away, particularly when the Prince George producers themselves are quite capable of supplying the needs of the egg market right on the spot with fresh eggs.

[ Page 1435 ]

Now this whole matter of marketing boards has been touched on numerous times this afternoon by various speakers. I'd just like to recall for the House that when we debated the Natural Products Marketing Act in November of 1974, on November 15 on page 4765 of Hansard Mr. Phillips is quoted as saying:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move the amendment to section 3 standing in my name on the order paper.

The member for South Peace River goes on to say:

I feel very confident, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture is going to accept this motion, because it is exactly what he said in his press release when bringing this bill in — that he was going to ensure that there would be consumers on the board; he was going to ensure that there would be producers on the board.

He went on to say:

Certainly we want to see that those who are appointed to this board have been resident in Canada; otherwise we might get a situation similar to what we have in Can-Cel where the bulk of the directors live in the United States or over in Europe.

That latter part perhaps is not nearly as relevant as the first half of the paragraph. Apparently, when the minister was in the official opposition just less than two years ago, he believed very much and very sincerely in the importance of having a consumer representative on the board. Here on the Egg Marketing Board we don't even have all the regional producers represented.

Now if I've got my facts wrong I can sit down and have the minister correct that right away, but I've been making enquiries as recently as this afternoon on the telephone, and I have it on good authority from egg producers that this, in fact, is the case, that they have no direct representative from their region on the Egg Marketing Board. This seems very strange when, as I say, only 18 months ago the minister was very keen to have consumer representation on the board.

So I think that the most important answer the minister can give this afternoon, when he said that he's going to take a look at marketing boards, is what is his present opinion and what are his present plans with specific regard to the Egg Marketing Board? He seems to have taken the position that because the B.C. supreme court is making a certain decision which will apply a penalty against certain producers, that's the end of the story. He seems to be ignoring the cause of the problem rather than simply dealing with the symptoms.

A related matter in this whole issue was the questions which were asked, apparently out of fear, by a certain egg producer who said that he was being spied upon by employees of the Egg Marketing Board who were trying to determine the number of birds that were located on that farmer's property. The answer I got from the minister was that it was very sensitive and there were many complexities, and that perhaps it was not a suitable time for this member, or any other member, to be raising this, matter on the floor of the House.

I got the same response when I asked for the financial statement of the B.C. Railway: "Oh, this minister was in negotiation and it would not be a good idea to get into public debate at this time — very sensitive negotiations." So, Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is a real tendency by this minister, whether he realizes the full implications or not, that he tries to stifle debate on matters affecting his department — even debate right here in the House on estimates. It would seem to me that if we have an egg producer in British Columbia who, first of all, feels he is being spied upon — he's frightened to give his name because of repercussions — and then when I raise the matter in the Legislature I'm told that the whole thing's so sensitive and complex that it would be better if I didn't stir it up any further at this time, then I think that's a very dangerous precedent to be setting.

I would like to have the minister's answer, because he did assure me that he would look into the matter of whether, in fact, it was confirmed that investigators were, without permission, spying on the property of egg producers simply because the Egg Marketing Board was suspicious that these individuals were, in fact, producing more than their allowed quota.

There's a question of the rights and the freedoms of an individual here, Mr. Chairman, far beyond the question of whether it's an egg marketing board or any other kind of board, or any other arm of government, or set up by government. This isn't even technically an arm of government, except that it is set up by legislation. The people on the board are elected by producers and, surely, if they're to be given this kind of power to go spying on other people, is it not a legitimate question to ask on the floor of the House?

There have been many comments made this session already about the importance of freedom of information to the individual, whether he's a claimant with Workers' Compensation of a prisoner in Wilkinson Road jail or a member of a board or an egg producer. One could recite literally hundreds of examples where individual citizens, going about their business in this province, become more and more involved with an ever-increasing number of boards and commissions and tribunals and arms of government, or authoritarian bodies set up by government. Then, when such an individual finds that he's concerned or unhappy about some of the weight of government that's being directed against him, he's afraid to reveal his name.

Mr. Chairman, if there's some very simple explanation to all this. I would be delighted to hear it. The statement was certainly made and was

[ Page 1436 ]

repeated in The Province of March 24, 1976: "The producer, who asked that his name be withheld for fear of board action, said investigators have taken photographs of his farm, trucks being loaded with eggs and eggs being delivered to local stores." So I guess 1984 and Big Brother is a lot closer than we thought. This is only 1976, so things are moving fast apace, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make the point that it seems to me it wouldn't much matter if it was an egg marketing board or any other board or commission that acts under statute in this province. But it seems that the minister, from his statement previously and his statement today, is only concerned that the court, in considering the case of these producers, is about to bring down a verdict, and that will be the solution to the problem.

Now that may be the solution to the satisfaction of the minister, but from the statements of these egg producers, and from the spectre of private spying without permission, we have an issue far and away beyond the issue of the Egg Marketing Board itself.

We've debated many times in this House this whole question of other pieces of legislation granting power to delegate parties to search without warrants, or to enter upon and seize property, and this kind of legalese language which gives a great deal of authority to delegated individuals under certain statutes. I am not aware of any part of a statute which gives members of the Egg Marketing Board the right to carry out the actions of which they are accused in the incident that I mentioned. I wonder if the minister would care to answer that enquiry before I raise a few other questions.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to the minister if he wants to answer the questions from the member for Oak Bay at this time. Well, that not being the case apparently, I have one very short item to raise, and that is a suggestion has been going around recently that the minister might be considering hiring an ad agency to increase the promotion of British Columbia foods in some way and in magnitude considerably above that programme which is provided for in these estimates and carried on by the market development branch at Surrey.

I'd ask the minister if this is correct: if there is an escalated B.C. foods promotion programme in the works, which would be a good thing; whether this programme has been approved and what additional funds will be required; how much and, in particular, what sectors of British Columbia agriculture would this promotional programme push?

We are familiar with some of the programmes currently being carried on by the market development branch. How would this programme differ? How would it supplement what is being done now? If this is the case — as I'm saying, I'm asking the minister if he would confirm this — who would the ad agency be and would proposals be called for? Or would the agency simply be selected by the minister on the advice of whatever representations he might receive? I'm just curious, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. That's just a short question, Mr. Minister. It's something that's been spoken of and I'd be grateful to know whether it's happening or not.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to be reluctant to answer questions, and I repeat the question that I asked earlier. I simply want to know on what other boards of directors the minister is sitting in addition to whatever duties he might have with Aspol Motors, which is a private thing. I am not asking him about his private concerns, but I am asking what other boards is he sitting on besides B.C. Rail and BCDC.

He didn't give me a simple no, so I have to assume that the answer is yes, that he is on some boards of directors other than what he has led me to believe. I would hope that the minister would not try to compound this and wouldn't try to draw suspicion about himself by being secretive. If he has other duties and they are adding to his responsibilities, I hope that he wouldn't want to appear to be overburdened with work, that maybe the people of British Columbia would understand and in spite of the calls for a full-time Minister of Agriculture, they wouldn't take this news as being an affront. So I would like the minister to bring this up. Is he on the board of Panco Poultry?

You know, it might be easier, Mr. Chairman, if we had tabled in this House the annual report of the Department of Agriculture. I read section 8 of the departmental Act, and it says: "It is the duty of the minister to make a report to the Lieutenant-Governor of the conduct of the department up to the 31st day of December in each year, which report shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly." Unlike other departmental Acts, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't say when it shall be done. It gives the minister some latitude and, in fact, it should be brought into line with some of the other departmental Acts that make it incumbent on the ministers of other departments to table it within 15 days of the first legislative Assembly of the year.

Other ministers have tabled not just their departmental Acts; the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) tabled departmental Acts and reports of various commissions and such under his jurisdiction which have greatly aided the discussion of his estimates. I think that while we might have spent a great deal of time on his estimates, it was time well spent.

Here we're trying to elicit some information from the minister, who is being very silent. Maybe he's watched too many TV shows about the right to

[ Page 1437 ]

remain silent. I'm telling you to stop watching Adam-12 — it's a bad influence on you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't have time to watch it.

MR. NICOLSON: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, if I sit down would he get up? What other duties have you got? What is it that's keeping you so busy, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. King's) questions, the programmes for hiring are similar to last year. I understand that students are already at work.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I'm very glad, Mr. Chairman, to rise and say a few words on vote 3, this very important portfolio in this government. I know it's one that is recognized by this government as being most important.

I hope that after listening to so many experts in the field of agriculture in the last couple of days you won't mind, Mr. Chairman, if somebody who is actively engaged in the industry also participates to some extent.

There have been many remarks about the cost of food in this province and in this country. I for one am very proud of the fact that those of us who are engaged in agriculture have reduced the cost of food as a percentage of income from 50 per cent down to its present state of around about 17.5 to 18 per cent. I think this is real progress, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that this progress can continue.

The problem in agriculture today is not the fact that we are providing more and more food at a lower and lower cost in terms of a percentage of income; it is the fact that too much of this improvement is being borne just by the agricultural communities.

The changes that have taken place in my lifetime have been very spectacular. We have done it through automation, through great innovations in agriculture, through the use of pesticides, herbicides, chemicals, fertilizers, and this sort of thing — the very things that are being criticized to a very large degree around this province and around this country today. If they were removed from the agricultural scene I don't think there's any doubt in the world that our production would drop very, very significantly, and in many instances we would no longer be producing at all.

As I say, I've been very proud of the advancement we've made in agriculture and I hope it will continue, but it will not continue, Mr. Chairman, at the same rate of speed that it has in the past and it will not continue if there is not cooperation from the rest of society.

Future improvements in the cost of food, and I'm talking about improvement by reducing the cost in relation to the average person's income — are going to be brought about to a very large degree if we can reduce the cost of the things we buy. We have to reduce the cost of our tractors, our fertilizers, and our labour, and in actual fact, the way things are going in this country today, all these things are going up, not down.

One of the costs, Mr. Chairman, is the cost of wheat. This is just one avenue where we are not going to make any improvement in isolation. Agriculture by itself cannot correct this situation.

I'm glad that the Minister of Agriculture is such a forceful person, Mr. Chairman, because he will be able to have some influence on some of the other ministers where there is action needed.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is going to have to become involved in the fight against weeds in our province. The cost on our ranges alone of having an excessive number of weeds is estimated to be $15 million per year.

We're going to have to have a great deal of cooperation with other departments, such as the Environment, such as the Department of Municipal Affairs. All these people are going to have to be involved if we're going to change the cost of producing food in this province.

I would just like to mention that one of the hon. members across the House yesterday was talking about the...was quoting from the Federation of Agriculture submission, which stated the cost of producing food in other countries in the world in relation to Canada. One of the costs, as a percentage... In Canada it was down 17.5 per cent at the moment and in the United Kingdom was down to 29.8. I would just like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that these figures in the United Kingdom and other countries refer to the cost across the counter, and do not refer to the cost of food at all. In the United Kingdom, I would suggest that if you took the total cost of food it would be closer to 35 or 40 per cent, and not the 29.8 that is quoted here.

One or two of the things that I think that are going to have to be changed in order to bring about lower costs, is that we can't do this in isolation. We're going to have to have support from other places. One of the things we're seeing right now is opposition in many instances to the construction of plants for processing our agricultural products. We've heard of one just across in Delta just recently. If we're going to preserve agricultural land, and if we're going to preserve agriculture as an industry, we must have the processing plants also, and these must be allowed and they must be not only allowed but encouraged by the rest of our society.

In the ranching industry, and in the dairy industry also, we're going to have to have more cooperation from the Department of Highways, where, at the

[ Page 1438 ]

moment, the responsibility of maintaining and looking after many of the highway fences — which are really there to protect the travelling public — are having to be borne by the agricultural industry. We believe that this must change, Mr. Chairman.

ATVs (All Terrain Vehicles) is another very important and serious problem for the agricultural industry because it increases the cost for agriculture because a few of the people who are using ATVs are spoiling it for the great majority who are responsible. Those few people are cutting the fences and ruining the crops and also, of course, hurting the forests, the second growth in the forests, at the same time.

One of the most important subjects, when we are talking about trying to reduce the cost of agricultural products, is the problem we're having with land and rural subdivision in our agricultural areas. I believe that people should be allowed to live out in the agricultural areas. I believe there's a great deal of land that isn't suitable for agricultural purposes and could be used for homes and homesites. This is where we have to bring in the other departments such as the Department of Municipal Affairs, because I believe we need a new classification for subdivision in our rural areas.

I believe we have to take a leaf out of the book of some of the other countries such as Britain, where the people who live in the rural areas do not have the same rights of protest. They cannot put the agricultural community out of business because they protest about the smells of agriculture, the noise of the bawling of the cattle. They do not seem to have the same rights in other countries in this regard. If these rights are going to be retained by the people in this province, then we are going to have to make sure that we do not have rural subdivisions in our agricultural areas. I think this would be a very serious mistake.

I said that this cannot — the problems of agriculture cannot — be solved in isolation. One of the things that I would like the minister to do also is prevail upon the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — I'm glad to see he's here — because the present federal gun control, which they are talking about in Ottawa right now, could have a deteriorating effect on the agricultural industry, because it is going to make it much more difficult for us who are engaged in this, particularly the cattle industry, to take care of the predators.

I think it could also be said, of course, that the cattle industry, the ranching industry — in fact, all of agriculture — would be very unhappy to see the criminals in this country armed and all the innocent people without any means of defence. However, that is for the Attorney-General's department to work on. But I do say that this gun legislation is going to be detrimental to the ranching industry particularly.

There has been some discussion this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, about Bill 4. I would just like to close by saying that Bill 42 probably took more land out of agriculture in my area than any other piece of legislation that I know of in recent history. The pressures on the agricultural land became so great that farmers could no longer farm it. The price of lots in the cities in my area became greater than the value of some of the quarter-sections of our rangeland. So it was quite obvious that people went out and bought a quarter-section.

It is quite obvious, if you look at my area today, that a great many parcels of land that were subdivided may 50 or 60 years ago — 10, 20, 30 or 40-acre blocks — have all gone now because they have very valuable houses on them at the moment. Somehow or other we are going to have to find the way of consolidating this land back into viable units once again. But it has all gone in the last three or four years.

Mr. Chairman, the other very important thing that has to take place — I'm glad to hear the minister say that he realized that he can't solve the problems in isolation — is the productivity in this province. Agriculture has brought this great lowering in the cost of food by greater productivity in the industry. We are going to get future reductions in the price of food by greater productivity in other sectors of our economy, and this is what we must do. Thank you.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.