[ Page 2121 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Good Samaritan Act (Bill 2) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2121

Natural Resources Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 24) Hon. Mr. Hewitt-

Introduction and first reading –– 2121

Oral questions.

Charges against local government.

Mr. Barber –– 2122

Tax assessment changes in the Courtenay area.

Ms. Sanford –– 2123

School tax increases.

Mr. Stephens –– 2124

Ferry fares. Hon. Mr. Bawlf replies –– 2125

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2125

Mrs. Wallace –– 2128

On vote 7.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2132

Mrs. Wallace –– 2134

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2135

On vote 8

Mrs. Wallace –– 2136

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2137

Mr. Stupich –– 2137

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2140

Mr. Stupich –– 2141

Mr. Smith –– 2142

On vote 10.

Mr. Stupich –– 2144

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2144

Mrs. Wallace –– 2145

on vote 11.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2146

Mr. Stupich –– 2147

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2147

On vote 12.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2148

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2148

Mr. Stupich –– 2149

Mrs. Wallace –– 2149

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2150

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates.

On vote 15.

Ms. Sanford –– 2155

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2155

Mrs. Wallace –– 2155

Mr. Lauk –– 2156

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we have three special guests in the gallery from a neighbouring Commonwealth country: David Combs, the national secretary of the Australian Labour Party; Gerry Jones, the state secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labour Party; and Bruce Childs, assistant state secretary, Queensland branch of the Australian Labour Party. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome in advance Mr. Allan Swetlikoe and Mr. Lorne Ziemer, both teachers, and 20 grade 11 and grade 12 students from Centennial Senior Secondary School in Coquitlam. They will be in the gallery at 3 o'clock this afternoon. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. COCKE: In the gallery today visiting us are officials of the B.C. Teachers Federation: Pat Brady, president; Peter Minchel, 1st vice president; Allen Garneau, 2nd vice-president; and Bob Buzza, general secretary. I would ask the House to welcome these important visitors.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today are students from Cedar Hill Junior Secondary School in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands. I trust the House will make them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In the members' gallery are two dear friends visiting Victoria today, Mrs. Ina Watson of New Westminster and Mrs. Nora Shergold of Port Coquitlam. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. SHELFORD: There is a group in the gallery this afternoon from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs: Allan Frew, John Warren, Xavier Eugene, George Saddleman, Emsley Morgan, and Lloyd Wilson. I'd like the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all hon. members to express a warm welcome to Dean Murray Fraser of the University of Victoria law school and his son Andrew, who are in the House today.

MR. MACDONALD: Can I briefly join in that greeting? Dean Murray Fraser is the first dean of the new Victoria law school, and he has done a marvellous job in getting it off the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the road.

MR. MACDONALD: Off the road. This is not a convention, it's just another law school. He's got it off the road and he's got some fine kids out and running with real thinking capacity.

Introduction of bills.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant--Governor: a bill intituled the Good Samaritan Act.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed an orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed an orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 49 and move that the rules be suspended and that as the B.C. Energy Commission has already passed on to the consumer a doubling of natural gas prices since January 1,1977, and created an unmarketable surplus of natural gas, this House direct that the present application of Imperial Oil Ltd. and other companies for a further increase in natural gas prices to the commission be adjourned indefinitely.

MR. SPEAKER: Under the standing orders, particularly standing order 49, a motion made under this standing order must be made by unanimous consent and leave will be required. The hon. member has asked leave?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, yes, I must. I have to show that it is a pressing matter. I think I have done that and I'm asking leave in the traditional way as is done in the parliament at Ottawa and seen on late night televi-

[ Page 2122 ]

sion. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, first of all we must have leave and then we must determine if the motion is in order.

I hear no opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Who said no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps this is different from another day. The Speaker did not hear any noes. Did some other members hear noes? I ask the question again, shall leave be granted? I hear several noes now.

Oral questions.

CHARGES AGAINST LOCAL GOVERNMENT

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Premier has very recently made a serious charge against local government in this province. Specifically, he has accused unnamed municipalities and school districts of "sneaky practices" and of "deceiving the taxpayers concerning assessment law in British Columbia." Given the nature of this very serious criticism, can the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing inform the House of the names of those municipalities the government has found....

HON. M. BENNETT: Ask me, I made the statement.

MR. BARBER: I'm asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I understand why the Premier might not be comfortable, but the question is not directed to him. It's 'to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The question is: given the nature of this very serious criticism by the Premier, of local government in this province, can the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing inform the House of the names of those municipalities the government has found guilty of these sneaky and misleading practices?

HON. MR. CURTIS: While the question was directed to me, I feel left out because the questioner was looking at the Premier. I associate myself with the remarks of the Premier in this matter, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names!

HON. MR. CURTIS: "Name names", some members opposite yell. Within the next few days, I think we will have for this House and, indeed, for the people of British Columbia an indication of some of the distortions that have taken place with the delivery of tax notices and some of the political gamesmanship that has been played by representatives at the local level of that party across there.

MR. BARBER: We're all too familiar in this House with unnamed charges being laid, only to find out days later what they really are. My question to the minister is: does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing find the municipality of Saanich, for instance, guilty of sneaky and deceptive practices in this regard?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that question likely would have been included in the first question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Now the adjectives "sneaky" and "deceptive" have been uttered first in this chamber by the member opposite. But certainly one must be - and as a representative of local government for a lot of years and having a lot of warm feeling about local government I am -disappointed when one receives one's own tax notice, as I did, two days earlier this week and sees that as an example the Municipality of Saanich disclaims any responsibility for the costs of library service in greater Victoria. Now that is deceptive when, in fact, Saanich is a full voting member for library purposes with other municipalities in greater Victoria. Yet on the notice which accompanied the tax bill is.... This is the sort of thing which I think is going to be very distressing to a lot of people who believe in fair play.

I was asked a pretty important question, Mr. Speaker, and I think....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I'd just like to caution that if you wish to read through the entire document....

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, sir. There are a number of copies, and with leave later I could table some of this information, if you wish. The notice from Saanich says: "You will be interested in knowing how your tax dollars are distributed. Controllable by Saanich: municipal. That's only one item. They say under [illegible] controllable by Saanich: Library, regional district, Municipal Finance Authority, B.C. Assessment Authority, " et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows even the smallest amount about local government will understand that that is deceptive. Saanich sits on

[ Page 2123 ]

the library board; Saanich sits and has strong representation on the regional district; Saanich has representation on the Municipal Finance Authority through the regional district.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I believe I've been accused of deception by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like him to withdraw that statement.

MS. BROWN: What about Saanich? Who's going to ask you to withdraw what you said about Saanich?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the words "deception" and "deceiving" are inflammatory at the best of times, and cannot be used in reference to hon. members in this House. Therefore I would have to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word "deception."

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was only repeating the word the minister used towards the municipality; he brought the word up in this House. However, I withdraw. If you can use it against a municipality in this House, why don't you say it outside the House? Shamp.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS; Well, that's a conditional withdrawal, Mr. Speaker, and it's not acceptable. I ask for an unconditional withdrawal.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the power of the Chair is only toward the protection of the privileges of every member of this House, and as such the Chair cannot condone references of the likes of the word "deception" to hon. members. The power of the Chair does not extend to members outside of this chamber and so I have asked simply for a withdrawal of the word in this chamber. I have received that withdrawal and therefore it must be accepted. Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARBER: I have a supplementary question on the same topic, which obviously perturbs that government so much. The minister has a very unusual interpretation of the word "control." He thinks that one vote on a body of five or 10 means control. It may do in that cabinet; I doubt that it does on the other bodies referred to by Saanich. In any case, I ask the minister whether or not he accuses -as he has now Saanich - the municipalities of Victoria, Oak Bay and Esquimalt of deceptive or, in the words of the Premier, "sneaky practices" regarding assessment law in this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Assessment or taxation -which? They're different.

MR. BARBER: Assessment, and taxation. I'm quite well aware....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, there are 140 municipalities in British Columbia - presumably this kind of question could go on for the next several days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Are they all different?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have given a good example of misleading and distorted information, which has been provided to taxpayers in one municipality. I'm not yet - underline yet, sir - in a position to comment on the specific municipalities to which the member has referred.

TAX ASSESSMENT CHANGES

IN THE COURTENAY AREA

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing as well. In the Courtenay area there has been a shift in taxation from the forest land to the residences by $13 million as a direct result of the new assessment bill. Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing feel that the city council there is indulging in "sneaky tactics"?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, I believe, assessment matters as such - and that was the preface of her question - are under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and not the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

MR. SANFORD: The change in taxation to the residences involves $13 million. Is the city council involved in sneaky tactics in putting that $13 million onto the residences?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is a repetition of a previous question.

[ Page 2124 ]

SCHOOL TAX INCREASES

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Premier, the culprit, and I use the word kindly, who made the statements that we have been discussing. Would the Premier consider that Greater Victoria School District No. 61 is responsible for the cost increase imposed by that school district, when in fact the increased operating costs for that district for this year are M per cent and the increase in school tax for the same district is 2U.89 per cent?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, let me say I am pleased that the members are aware and now understand what creates the local tax bill, and that is assessment times mill rate. Realignment of assessment was a task that was commissioned to a committee of this Legislature and was undertaken by the last government. In fact, I believe the bill was introduced into the House three times by the former Minister of Finance, who had to withdraw it each time because he didn't understand his own bill. A tax bill is merely mill rate times assessment. When you have equalization or going to 100 per cent assessment, in general the tax bill can remain the same within the city if the city council assesses a lower mill rate. They cannot blame the assessment bill for any rise in the general taxation level which they need that year; that is related to their budget.

I explained that very clearly to the press yesterday. I said - and this is where I want you to correctly get exactly what I said - any municipality who would raise taxes under the confusion of an assessment Act would be pretty sneaky.

MR. SPEAKER: I was waiting for the Premier to get to the question of schools. I think it was schools....

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, the statement that the Premier made was that the responsibility for increased school taxes belonged with the school district. That was his statement. I'm asking how he can explain that it increased its cost by only 0.7 per cent and its taxes went up 20.89 per cent. Please direct your mind directly to that question and answer it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: School budgets are set exactly the same way. The school trustees set the budgets and conduct any negotiations related to those budgets, and that is the budget they set and the amount of money they have to raise to pay for those budgets from the taxpayer. They set the budget and, as such, all costs are directly responsible to them. Now the money can come from a number of ways but the same taxpayers pay the bill. We're talking about who deals with the cost. They set the budgets. I'll tell you the taxpayers of British Columbia should know that. They are the people who can lower the budget; they are the people who can hold the line. The same taxpayers pay no matter where the money comes from.

That is just perpetuating a myth that that side of the floor would like us to suggest -that there is free money that comes from somewhere. The taxpayers of this province know that they are called upon to pay any bill. Every elected body is responsible for the budgets they set because they are the only ones that can effect savings for the people of this province.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Premier when he says each school board sets its own budget. That's what it did. It increased by 0. 7 per cent. It set its own budget. You still haven't answered the question of how come the tax rate has gone up 20.89 per cent for a responsible school board that has kept its budget to an increase of 0.7 per cent. Now get up and answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, shall we extend the question period?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There are several noes, hon. member. I must abide by the wishes of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, if the House wishes, I'll table the documents to which I referred during question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, kindly consider whether the documents proposed to be tabled constitute a charge against the municipality of Saanich and therefore should be the subject of a substantive motion in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member knows the Chair cannot determine this. All the Chair can insist upon is that the documents referred to are filed in the House, and I think this is

[ Page 2125 ]

why leave was granted.

MR. BARRETT: No, he made charges around those documents.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're too late.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't have to table it. It doesn't matter.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presents the annual report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority for the year ended March 31,1978.

FERRY FARES

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question which was asked of me in question period two days ago - on the matter of the fare for students on B.C. government ferries.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, the answer of a question outside of question period will require leave.

Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The reference, Mr. Speaker, was to an increase of 50 per cent in the charge on children or students until the end of September. I presume from the question that the fare adjustment which is referred to is the normal seasonal suspension of the B.C. Ferry Corporation off-peak fare, which only applies between September and June. This fare is - and I quote from the legal tariff of the corporation:

"Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday of each week to be called off-peak days, except where such days may coincide with a statutory holiday, and with the exception of certain other days as may be designated by the carrier. These periods so designated as 'off-peak' shall be coincident with the calendar period normally designated as fall, winter and spring schedule months by the carrier, and shall exclude that calendar period designated as [illegible]. The off-peak period shall commence in September on the first off peak day after Labour Day and continue to the last of f-peak day of May. On these off-peak days the fare for children is $1 instead of the regular $1.50, and for adults it is $2 instead of $3 - in each case a reduction of 33-1/3 per cent to stimulate off-peak travel in keeping with standard transportation policies."

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to thank the minister for his answer.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I did ask the question, and I would ask that in future the minister and B.C. Ferry Corporation advertise fare increases.

(Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member showing contempt for the Chair?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No way.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just before calling, Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked a question at the end of the estimates yesterday. I believe you received the response in the hall. If not, I'll deliver it for you. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps that could be arranged outside the chamber and riot take the time of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, it's been received. Thank you for the guidance, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 6: minister's office, $100,533.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Before I receive questions, I would just like to make a few comments about the fourth largest industry in this province, Mr. Chairman, the industry of agriculture. And I'd like to give some information to members regarding what we've done in the past year and what we see for the future.

In 1977, our farmgate receipts in agriculture in this province were $500 million. We are considered, as I mentioned, the fourth largest industry in the province. The additional dollars generated by that primary in dustry, agriculture, are substantial. For every dollar earned in agriculture in this province, we generate $8 in the economy. For

[ Page 2126 ]

every job in agriculture, the primary industry, six jobs are generated through the valueadded sector, whether it be packaging, processing, transportation, et cetera.

And we also have a very diversified industry in agriculture in this province. We have grain in the Peace River country, ranching in the Cariboo, tree fruits in the Okanagan, dairy production, eggs, grape growing, vegetables, et cetera - a very diversified industry. And that gives us, I think, great potential to become more self-sufficient in this province.

That is where my ministry is at in attempting to develop an agricultural strategy for the province of British Columbia: to identify those areas of potential; to identify the products that can be grown and marketed to give a fair return to the producer; to identify the markets which we can penetrate in order to increase our agricultural base and to create economic benefits and jobs; to identify where we need to increase our efforts in research and technology; to protect the land base that is so important to agriculture, and finally to make sure that there is stability in the industry so that our farming industry is protected in bad times in order that we can have that land base and those farmers that work the land base for the future generations.

At the present time we are 43 per cent self-sufficient in agriculture in the province of British Columbia. My ministry has conducted a study and identified a goal for itself and for the agricultural community to achieve 65 per cent self-sufficiency in agriculture in this province by the year 1986. It won't be an easy task, but it's a task that I think the farming community and the staff of my ministry are willing to accept. I'm hopeful that we will be able to achieve that 65 per cent figure.

To complement our overall aims in regard to agricultural development, as you know, we were instrumental in turning over to the the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture an inquiry into the food industry in British Columbia from the food on which the land is grown through the entire process to the consumer's plate. We are looking forward to the recommendations of that committee, which will be coming forward in the very near future.

Over the long term, I think stability is probably the key issue for agriculture in this province. The farmers who are locked into the land freeze must be assured of stable returns from the marketplace, but at the same time the marketers must be assured of a reasonably stable supply of good quality agricultural products. I think that the recommendations that we get from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture will allow us to establish a positive agricultural policy for the province of British Columbia.

Looking back at 1977, we entered into a new ARDA agreement - what is now known as the Agriculture and Rural Development Subsidiary Agreement - which commits $86 million over the next five years: $30 million by the provincial government, $30 million by the federal government, and $26 million as a contribution from the agricultural industry. Basically the ARDA programme is aimed at helping the industry to help itself. I think we will go a long way to improving the agricultural base in the province in wisely using those funds that are available to the agriculture community through the ARDA programmes.

Mr. Chairman, I referred earlier to our objective of creating greater stability in the agricultural industry. Farm income assurance is part of that stability, and the second generation farm income assurance programme, I believe, goes a long way to ensure the stability of agriculture in this province over the long term. We have had meetings with the Federation of Agriculture and the various commodity groups and we made modifications to the programme, but those modifications were the result of good discussions, constructive discussions, and we have agreement with the Federation of Agriculture, the agriculture community and the ministry.

Because of the changes and the long-term commitment to agriculture in this province through an ongoing income assurance programme, the producers and the credit institutions have expressed confidence in agriculture that we have seldom seen before. Mr. Chairman, it's this government's policy to maintain these programmes and not tie them to a specified lifespan. Long-range planning in agriculture is now possible. We are now able to intensify resources and become less dependent on outside food markets. Of course we do not hope to become totally self-sufficient in this province, which would be unrealistic. We can't produce all the commodities we consume, but we can do far better than we are doing now by merely using the resources that are at our disposal with much greater care.

Complementing the ARDA programme and the income assurance programme, we are now embarking on a number of studies to identify the potential in this province for agriculture. We have a joint effort in the beef industry study where the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, the Ministry of Economic Development, through the B.C. Development Corporation, the Ministry of Agriculture, and UBC are trying to identify where our best potential is in the beef industry. At the present time we produce

[ Page 2127 ]

17 per cent of the red meat we consume in this province and we feel there is a good possibility that we can produce more. We can keep more of the cattle at home, background them, finish them, and slaughter them, thus creating additional employment in the value added sector and having, you might say, a B.C. grown and processed product for our retail shelves.

Also, the swine industry only provides 10 per cent of the pork, et cetera, that is produced in this province at the retail level. We feel there is an opportunity we can expand in that area as well, and we have engaged a consultant to carry out a study to see how we can get a better share of the market for our hog industry.

We also have carried on with the agricultural credit programme, which helps offset some of the costs of financing for the agricultural community by defraying a portion of the interest costs on farm loans for land renovation, land clearing equipment, buildings, et cetera. Over the past year, approximately $7.5 million was paid out to farmers as a partial reimbursement of interest costs. This will be an ongoing programme and we've expanded the benefits to producers of commercial fish for human consumption from the freshwater environment.

The other half of our stability programme you might say is the programme of crop insurance. We have protected the farmland by the freeze. We have given stability to the farmer through farm income assurance and the agriculture credit programme. There is the ongoing federal-provincial programme with producer involvement to protect the farmer against a crop loss. That programme has been expanded and we're getting more and more farmers interested in coming onstream in that programme to ensure they're protected against loss of crops due to weather.

Mr. Chairman, we are also involved in agricultural promotion. 1 guess maybe the problem is that in agriculture we don't tell our story well enough. We don't tell the story that one dollar earned in agriculture creates $8 in the economic system in B.C., or one job creates six jobs. We probably don't tell the story about just how diversified our agricultural industry is. So the marketing branch of my ministry has gone out and done, I think, an excellent job.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to show you something that we have done recently. For the benefit of my colleagues, this is not a chicken. You may have seen these in the shopping malls. I think it's an excellent production. It shows B.C. agricultural products and the diversification of them. This one is regarding harvest time, and really deals with vegetable crops, et cetera. This is, of course, one that deals with salads and springtime freshness, again a poster that demonstrates the diversity of agriculture in this province. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to compliment my marketing staff for the efforts that they have made. I think it's an excellent job.

We also, Mr. Chairman, have gone a little further. We've gone onto the water. We have now made arrangements with the B.C. Ferry Corporation to put displays on our ferries to show how diversified our agriculture industry is in this province, so that people traveling on those ferries back and forth to the mainland can read a little bit about agriculture in the province of British Columbia - its history, its contribution to the economy of this province. We are going to continue to do this, Mr. Chairman, so the people of British Columbia recognize that agriculture is a very important part of our economy.

I might also add, Mr. Chairman, for your benefit, that our grape-growing industry and B.C. wine industry is expanding. It is becoming very acceptable to the consumers of this province. As a matter of fact, total sales are up 8.5 per cent over past years.

There are other parts of agriculture where people are involved in trying to tell the story. I would just like to pass a few compliments to the Broiler Marketing Board in regards to their efforts to promote chicken in this province, and to the Milk Foundation which has tied in with the Minister of Health on fitness and nutrition. They are attempting to have good food and good nutrition as well as to keep physically fit.

We have had excellent co-operation with the supermarkets in this province. To them, my compliments for the effort that they have put out in the last year to assist agriculture in British Columbia.

We have a few more things that we've done in the past year which relate to trade and tariffs. We sponsored a paper, which was endorsed by the three other western provinces, to get us a better deal in regards to trade and tariffs on imported products coming into British Columbia and on outdated duties affecting our home-grown product sales in this province. Really, the thrust of the report is to ask for more equality at the border with regards to the tariffs on imported products as opposed to what we pay if we send B.C. products out of this province. I think we've had endorsement by the other western provinces and support at the federal level. I'm hopeful that at the trade and tariff talks in Geneva,

[ Page 2128 ]

we will win a few points for agriculture in the province of British Columbia.

Last but not least, Mr. Chairman, youth development in agriculture in this province is one area my ministry feels very strongly about. Our 4-H programme involves nearly 4,000 4-H members across this province, and we have 800 volunteer workers and about 250 4-H clubs. This is one of the ways the Ministry of Agriculture can assist young people in the province to understand agriculture, to be educated in agriculture and to provide a future generation of farmers who are well versed in the new, modern techniques and modern methods of farming in this province so that we will always have an aggressive agriculture community.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce to you my deputy minister, Sig Peterson, who is with me today, and Mr. John Newman, director of my administrative services. I would be pleased at this time to answer any questions.

MRS. WALLACE: I would thank the minister for the resume he has given, what he is proposing to do about agriculture and how he sees the agricultural industry in British Columbia. It's very interesting but it's nothing new. It's the same programme we've heard in this House ever since I've been here. We've got a little more money in the ARDA development, and apart from that it's very much the status quo or hold the line. In fact, in some instances it's even reflecting reductions. Certainly it reflects nothing more than inflation, if even that.

When the minister talks about agriculture being the fourth industry in B.C. , I like to talk about it as being the third resource industry. I would like to point out that while he talks about it being an industry that grosses an all-time high of $500 million to the farmers of British Columbia, their net returns are continually declining. I think that is the challenge this minister is going to have to address himself to if he intends to make agriculture a viable industry in British Columbia and to keep the farm community in an economically rewarding position so they are able to stay there. Then he is going to have to come up with some new initiatives and not simply carry on with the same kind of things that we have been having over the past several years.

I'm very interested in his figures about self-sufficiency. He quoted that last year we were 35 per cent. I understood him to say we were 43 per cent self-sufficient this year. I would be interested to know what his source of those statistics is and how they are calculated. They are statistics that I have not been able to locate in any of the reviews or reports that I have been reading. I would like to know what those statistics are based upon.

I think perhaps, before moving on to anything else, I would like to bring the minister greetings from one of the organizations which he funds, the B.C. Women's Institute. I was speaking at a panel discussion they were having this morning and they very much regretted the fact that the minister was not there to open their conference on Monday because his estimates apparently were up on Monday. Unfortunately, I was not aware that the estimates were up on Monday. I know it's very difficult to make judgments like this ahead of time. But I do feel that, with an organization that has been around as long as the Women's Institute of British Columbia, and does the type of work that that organization does - not just for the rural community, but for the whole social structure of British Columbia - it would have been very well worthwhile had the minister spoken, or sent someone to speak on his behalf.

While I'm talking about B.C. Women's Institutes, the last time I made this point we got the grant per institute raised from $10 to $16 - that's hardly worth the postage and the paper to handle the administration. I would think that the minister should have a good long look at doing something about grants for Women's Institutes. They are a very much alive organization, let me tell you. There has been a slump in that organization, where we have had people of my age and older being the sole members of that group. But as I looked over that conference of something well in excess of 200 delegates today, many of them were young women, very anxious to get on with the job of doing something to improve the farm community. I think an increase in the grant from that minister would be well worthwhile. I'm a bit concerned that his representative who deals with Women's Institutes has indicated to them that they should perhaps get their funding from the Secretary of State, rather than from the Ministry of Agriculture, and does not see why they should be funded by the Ministry of Agriculture. If that is the attitude of the person responsible for Women's Institutes within that minister's ministry, then the whole point of Women's Institutes, their purpose, their rural effect throughout B.C. and throughout Canada and their connection with the Associated Countrywomen of the World, where they hold a unique position on the food and agricultural committee of the United Nations.... It's an extremely worthwhile orga-

[ Page 2129 ]

nization, and one that the minister should spend some time thinking about.

The minister spoke of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The minister and I have spent a great deal of time together on that committee. He talked about returns coming in very soon. Well I hope he's right. We have spent a long time and done a lot of looking, and we've spent a lot of taxpayers' dollars. I am concerned where we went astray - if we did go astray, Mr. Chairman. What was the problem? Were the terms of reference too ambitious for us to accomplish what we were asked to do in the time limit? Or did the committee get out of hand? I'm wondering how much use the minister is actually going to make of the myriad reports that we are going to be filling, the terrific amount of data that is going to be compiled, the tables of computer data that are going to be stored, I presume, on the systems computer. How much use is that actually going to be to the minister and to the ministry in promoting agriculturally oriented programmes in future years? Is it going to be meaningful? Or is it just another exercise, another study?

We have spent a lot of time and a lot of dollars in compiling so-called cost of production figures. Those figures are only as valuable as the material which has been used to compile those figures from has been accurate. I have not yet seen any of those figures. None of us has seen any of those figures; we've heard some rumours. How meaningful is it to know how many cents a pound it costs to raise tomatoes on a 20-acre farm on the Okanagan as compared to how many cents a pound it costs to raise tomatoes on a 100-acre farm in the Fraser Valley? How much are you actually going to use those tools? Is the minister going to use this tool in pre paring future farm income assurance contracts?

We've very recently had the minister's assurance - and that keeps changing from day to day, I must admit - that he's going to continue negotiating. It's going to be arranged by consultation and the model farm concept. Now if that's how we're going to base farm income assurance, then of what value are these particular cost of production figures as far as the income assurance programme is concerned. How valuable are they really going to be, Mr. Minister, in your day-to-day operation? Has the committee gotten out of hand? Are we going to tell you more about elephants than you really want to know, at an excessive cost to the taxpayer? If that's the case, then this minister is remiss in letting that committee go to the length that he has let it proceed to.

MRS. JORDAN: How do you think he should use the information?

MRS. WALLACE: You'll find out someday, Madam Member.

I want to talk a little bit about farm income assurance. That has been a very interesting saga to, follow during the year. A year ago on the floor of this House, I asked the minister about the future of farm income assurance, and at that time he used the words: "We will have something in place."

HON. MR. HEWITT: And we did.

MRS. WALLACE: We went from that to the Hudson report, and then we went from a modification of the Hudson report to something else. And I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that minister has changed his mind almost as many times as he changes his socks in coming up with the final results, the final decisions and conclusions.

I suggest that that minister has been forced by pressure from within his cabinet, from his own colleagues, his own backbenchers and from the farm group which stood united together.... It was impossible to pick then off one group at a time, as was attempted. Some of the groups who did not have the same vested interest in land costs, for example, were contacted by some members of that particular party over there that forms the government and asked why they should hang in there. Why didn't they get out? It wasn't that important to them. They could sign up separately. But the farmers hung together, Mr. Chairman.

I suggest that the political pressure from this side of the House had a little bit to do with that minister changing his mind too. And eventually w have come up with a programme very similar to the original programme because, I suggest, that original programme was an extremely good programme. There were very few bugs that that minister could find in that programme. True, he insisted that the farmers take a little less, and farmers, being the kind of people they are, have agreed and cooperated to do that in a couple of instances -the management fee thing versus cost of management, and land rent versus the cost of land. They have given a bit on that. They've come up with something a little less than they had before. But it's much the same - the principles are the same.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, we had not just that minister saying that he was going to change this programme. We had the Premier of this province saying a year ago that farm income assurance was not a ticket to feed at the pub-

[ Page 2130 ]

lic trough. Those were the words of the Premier, and yet the minister has examined that programme up and down, and back and forth, and he's come to the conclusion that it is a good programme.

I think that those kinds of remarks indicate that the programme is here only because he has been forced to maintain it. He wanted to get rid of it and he didn't dare. It became politically expedient for him to keep that programme and, Mr. Chairman, I am wondering how long he intends to keep it. He has given a commitment that it will be an ongoing programme. But, with a minister who has changed his mind as of ten as this minister has about that particular programme, I am concerned as to whether or not it is going to be continuing. And I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, the farmers are also concerned, because they've lost a little bit of their faith in this minister. They are not at all sure that he will really produce when the cards are down.

I am concerned about the future of the agricultural industry in this province, because, without a programme like farm income assurance, there is no way that, we are going to have a continuation of the agricultural community here in British Columbia over the next few years. We've got some hurdles to make be-fore we can actually get out of this. Mind you, we are coming.

I have some concerns about the amount of money that the minister has put in the programme for farm income assurance. I'm wondering why he is padding it so much, because the statistics that I have indicate that he's not going to need anything like the amount of money that he has put into his estimates - and I'm wondering what it is there for. True, we are going to get some new programmes, but I can't see him needing that kind of money to fund any number of programmes that he could bring on stream during the next fiscal year -and I'm wondering why he has such a large amount in there. Is it to make it look like a very expensive programme? Is it to try and convince the taxpayers that it is in fact costing them a lot to maintain this support programme for producers in British Columbia?

Earlier I mentioned just in passing that $500 million was the gross receipt. I think if we look at net income - and these are Canadian figures, not B.C. - it fell 11 per cent from 1976 to 1977, while farm costs were up by 9 per cent. Now $500 million gross take means nothing, Mr. Chairman, when you have that kind of a situation, when you have your production costs up by 9 per cent and your net take down by 11 per cent. That's what's happening -costs are going up and, even though our gross sales are larger, it's still not returning a fair and equitable return to the farm community.

When we talk about industry, we talk about the need to make sure that we secure investment and create jobs, but we never seem to talk like that about farming and agriculture. Instead, we say that there is a need to produce cheap food. I think the very figures that the minister gave - the sort of side effects that occur when you have a healthy agricultural industry - bear out the point that it would be a good idea to look at agriculture from the same point of view. There was a time when BCDC did a lot of things for the agricultural industry. We really got into processing; we got into a lot of industries assisting the farm organizations.

MRS. JORDAN: Swan Valley.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Swan Valley, Fanco - a lot of farm industries that were much needed. For example, what about the interior broiler plant? What is happening there? When is that going to go ahead? We need some investment in those kinds of industries, Mr. Minister.

The last figures I have for B.C. indicate that there were 18,228 employees in food processing in British Columbia, with a $219 million payroll and added value of $451 million. If we can provide processing to increase that, we are doing a lot not just for the farm economy but for the economy of British Columbia.

We keep talking about this cheap food thing. We fail to recognize that in effect we in Canada have the cheapest food policy of any country in the world. That's one thing we have come up with in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, but the federal minister has also come up with a figure something under 14 per cent. You can prove anything with figures.

One of the things that always bothers me and I'm sure it bothers the minister, is that every time you see a headline about then cost-of-living index increase, we see a great write-up about food taking such a jump. The unfortunate thing is that Statistics Canada use a figure of 27 per cent of your dollar for food - that figure was the amount spent 25 years ago. In fact, we are now down to 13.8 per cent. So when they make those calculations, they don't show what they really are.

There are some interesting figures concerning the relation between labour and agricultural products. In 1976 it was announced that compared to 25 years ago labour would buy four times as many eggs; two and a half times as much chicken; twice as many pork chops; twice

[ Page 2131 ]

as much milk, potatoes, apples and bread. I know I'm not telling the minister anything that is new to him, but those sorts of comparisons are something that we must remember when we talk about a cheap-food policy. We have a cheap-food policy. It is an educational programme and it's also a programme to ensure that the people who are on very limited incomes are not penalized. While it may not directly be the present responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, it is certainly also a responsibility of his government to ensure that no one suffers from malnutrition because they cannot afford to buy the food that we produce here in British Columbia simply because we are insisting, and rightly so, that our farmers have a just return. Governments must become involved at one level or the other. I think it is an industry that with a little push could certainly get going and become viable.

I mentioned that expenses have increased by 9 per cent. One of the things that is continually going up is fertilizer. In passing, it's interesting to note that another problem is the delay in getting fertilizer because of the lack of boxcars. That has a familiar ring to it, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the minister can speak to his colleague about that one. The lack of boxcars has delayed delivery of fertilizer; not only that, the price of fertilizer has continually increased. Prices this spring were averaging somewhat above last spring's prices and are continuing to move up.

Another thing is that the devaluation of the dollar has had a very grave effect on British Columbian and Canadian farmers. For the most part, they are doing their purchasing of things like fertilizer and machinery in the United States. This has had a very serious effect on the gross cost to the farmer.

Last year I quoted - and I'm going to repeat it - the profit increase from Massey-Harris. Between 1970 and 1971 they had an increase in operating profit margins of 4.6 per cent; in 1972, 4.2 per cent; in 1973, 7.9 per cent; in 1974, 8.8 per cent; and in 1975, 9.7 per cent. The reason I'm reading that into the record again, Mr. Chairman, is that just recently I came across a little clipping in the paper that amazed me. "Massey-Ferguson Limited of Toronto admits Overbillings." They have acknowledged overbilling foreign customers for more than $32 million over a period of five years. Its foreign subsidiaries are also engaged in questionable practices which may have violated foreign laws. This was from the Toronto Globe and Mail and it was something that happened as a result of the laws in the United States. This company has been giving kickbacks, raising their prices and then arranging for a settlement of the amount of overpayment according to the distributors' directions.

Those kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, and those kinds of international cartels are the types of organizations that our farmers are dependent upon for their equipment. When they're at the mercy of those kinds of concerns, it's very, very difficult for them to try and cope on an equitable level, because they're faced with complete control of product, market, pricing structure, retail outlets and everything. It makes it almost impossible for them to compete on a fair and equitable basis.

Now I know that there have been lots of problems in attempting to produce machinery within western Canada, but there have been some attempts made. I would urge the minister to move toward working with the other western provinces in an attempt to ensure that we do find that we have at least an alternate source of supply available that will put some competition back into the marketplace as far as these farm machines are concerned. Sure, we have two or three companies, but that really makes little or no difference when you have to go out of the country. And when you're faced with this kind of cartel where people are wheeling and dealing to that extent, it's almost impossible for the farmer in British Columbia to cope with that type of situation.

We've heard a lot about marketing boards, and I'm surprised that the minister made no comments on marketing boards in his remarks. I assume he's going to tell us he's waiting for the committee report. But then on the other hand I assume he isn't going to tell us that, because he has another study going on his own. And, incidentally, he hasn't yet told me how he's paying for that or how much it's going to cost. That's a question that he took on notice a long time ago.

But I think that while we're discussing this minister's estimates, it would be very worthwhile if we had a discussion relative to marketing boards. Of course we have some ministers in that cabinet who talk about marketing boards being a rotten system, but I think that perhaps that minister may have had second thoughts by now, and anyway I don't think he's ever going to be the Minister of Agriculture.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'm sure the minister would agree that one of the problems facing marketing boards - one among the many problems that face marketing

[ Page 2132 ]

boards - is the lack of understanding by the public of just what a marketing board is. There are very few people who recognize a marketing board as the farmer's bargaining tool - and that was evidenced by the questionnaire which has now been made public by the committee. In the consumer's mind, they blame marketing boards as one of the prime causes for the high cost of food, and yet farmers are one of the groups that they blame they least. Somehow the public conceives of a farmer as being someone with, two cows and half an acre of corn somewhere. They don't conceive of a farmer as being the complex type of business industry that farming has become today, and it has.

The so-called family farm is a complex business industry; it has to be to survive. It has to be big enough to provide for and adequately support a family unit and at the same time it has to be small enough that that family unit can operate it. So it has become a complex industry. The farmer must be a manager, a book-keeper, a salesman, a mechanic. He must be a million different things, and he really doesn't have much time to do his marketing. But he has involved himself in the formation of marketing boards.

Now there are some commodities, of course, that have boards and some that don't. In B.C. at the last count, which was last year, the figures of the farm cash receipts that I have here - and this is from Stats Can - seem very low. Anyway, 60 per cent of the total product marketed went through marketing boards.

Of course, there are many different kinds of marketing boards. When we talk about marketing boards, we talk about supply management and we talk about quotas. I think perhaps that is too full a topic to deal with at this particular moment but I would like to read just briefly from The Financial Post, May 2,1978. Staff writer Catherine Harris of The Financial Post did a full-page write-up on marketing boards. She cam up with a solution that boards were a good thing, that supply management was a good thing and that quotas were a good thing. Maybe not a good thing, but a necessary thing.

Mr. Minister, I see my green light is on. I think with those comments I would like to take my place.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I will try and respond to some of the questions that the member for Cowichan-Malahat raised. I believe in the beginning she was concerned that there was nothing new in my opening comments. While I was sitting here, I jotted down a few things that I think we've done in the past year and are looking to doing in the coming year.

We brought on two new programmes in farm income assurance for raspberries and potatoes. We worked out an arrangement with the federal government to have federal domestic meat inspections, as opposed to provincial meat inspection, which opens up new markets and gives a better identification to our meat in the province of British Columbia and more acceptability in the marketplace.

We have a new ARDA programme which is double in total the amount of the previous ARDA programme: $60 million as opposed to $30 million. We've expanded our weed-control programme with the regional districts in an attempt to resolve some of the problems regarding noxious weeds, particularly knapweed. We are looking at biological control of the knapweed problem. We've held seminars to work with the cattlemen and the researchers to come up with answers to that major problem in the ranching industry.

On food promotion, I think we've done an all-out effort within our budget figures to try and tell the story. We've worked with UBC and assisted them in their consumer hotline in regards to the new service that they have at the university. Those are things that we have done and there will be others as we go along.

When you mentioned 35 per cent self-sufficiency, I don't recall that figure last year. It may be in Hansard. The figure of 43 per cent comes from what is known as the Pearson report. It's a staff report that was carried out along with people at UBC and it determined we were 43 per cent self-sufficient in food production in the province. It identified where we had the potential to reach 65 per cent by 1986. 1 think the 35 per cent would be if we did nothing at this time to further intensify agriculture in this province. We would drop to 35 per cent by 1986. 1 think maybe that's where you got the figure.

The B.C. Women's Institute. Yes, you're quite correct; I was invited to go. I would have liked to have been there. As I'm sure you recognize, you never really know when the opposition is going to move estimates through. It was fairly close to my time. We did send representatives, though. I'm not sure if you were at the meeting but we had a staff team over there on food promotion from our Cloverdale office. They put on a presentation for the Women's Institute. I would say, Madam Member, that I only hope I can attend next year.

MRS. WALLACE: How about the grant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: How about the grant? We expanded the grant in the 1977-78 fiscal year

[ Page 2133 ]

from $12,000 to $16,000. So we have given them additional funds there. I can tell you that I have attended a number of Farmers' Institute meetings and 1 have met a number of ladies with the Women's Institute, and they have my full support. Wherever we can assist, we will do so.

The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. Are they out of control? Where are they going? Madam Member, you're on the subcommittee; I hope you know where you are going because I am depending on the quality of work that comes out of the subcommittee. How much use I make of the recommendations depends on, of course, the work of the committee and its research staff. Under the able chairmanship of the member for Shuswap, I'm sure considerable material will come forward.

What I think is important, from what I have seen in sitting in on the committee meetings, is the data base that I think the research staff is going to come up with. I think you will agree that they have done a fairly comprehensive study and they will give us a data base we can work with. My staff will be reviewing the recommendations of the research team and, of course, the committee's report. As I mentioned last year, we will be using that report and the research that was done by the staff as a basis for agricultural policy in this province.

The committee is a standing committee of this House, not of the minister, although we worked on the terms of reference for that committee. Yes, they are very comprehensive -far more encompassing, I guess, than we realized - but then I think that's due to the dedication of the committee and the staff. They want to do a job, not just file a report, and to give us something to work with.

On farm income assurance we started with the Hudson report and you know as well as I that if you are going to review a programme you might want to get, say, some unbiased reporting. We got Dr. Hudson to carry out a report and to do the research. We didn't accept all of his recommendations right off the bat, but we did go forward with the plan and we did get feedback. But I can tell you it wasn't the demonstrations nor was it the rallies that were held that made for my changing or compromising, if you want to call it that. It was the meetings the Federation of Agriculture executive had with myself and my staff, with good, constructive discussion, so that when we arrived at a decision it wasn't through confrontation, but it was through consultation. I think when our final meeting was over a week or 10 days ago, we came out of those meetings, both the people representing the agricultural industry and my ministry, knowing that we now had total agreement and we could get on with further improving the industry in this province.

In regard to changing from day to day, or what the future holds, I think the commitment is there and has been expressed by this government that it is an ongoing programme. I can tell you that the financial institutions in this province have looked at that and feel that now there is a long-term commitment, not just a term commitment. In regard to financing agricultural endeavours in this province, the banks and financial institutions are looking at longer-term financing to help the industry.

That farm income assurance programme, as you know, Madam Member, is the best income assurance programme or stabilization programme - whichever you want to call it - in Canada. Last but not least, we both agree and the farming community agrees, and we're all working towards the one major thing: that is that the farmers want the return from the marketplace. They don't want the return from government. If we can work in coining up with new technology, et cetera, and ways that we can get a better return from the market, the farming community certainly are going to be pleased with that.

My staff are preparing a brochure so the farming community and all producers will be able to look at the details of the programme, so that they can understand the programme and make a decision as to whether or not they wish to participate. Those brochures will be ready, I believe, within the next few weeks and will be going out of my ministry to the various commodity groups and to the producers.

You mentioned the lack of boxcars. I can tell you that we made recommendations at the ministers' meeting in Winnipeg a few months ago regarding the use of hopper cars to move feed grains for domestic purposes. Mr. Lang was there, and the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, Mr. Whelan. They have adopted that approach and the reduced cost of moving those grains went down from $19.40 a ton to $14.70 and, of course, the cars are available. So that has been of assistance.

You touched on supermarkets, international cartels, et cetera, but I think I can honestly say that the supermarkets of this province and the major chains of this province in the past year have met with producers and with my ministry and, to a great extent, have bent over backwards to promote B.C. products. The most recent one, of course, was the broiler chicken and the promotion that they have done. It wasn't too long ago that they were concerned about imported chicken coming into the

[ Page 2134 ]

province and seriously affecting their markets. I believe my figures are correct - that the growth so far this year in sales in broiler chicken is up about 12 per cent. That's a combined effort - not kickbacks or anything else, but the combined effort of producer, processor and retailer to market a B.C. product.

The consultant for the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board has been engaged to work out with the two boards the approach of amalgamation into one Vegetable Marketing Board. The cost approximates $15,000 to $16,000 as an estimated figure, and I'm sorry I didn't get that back to you sooner.

I think, Mr. Chairman, those are all the responses I have. If I've missed anything you can bring it up again.

MRS. WALLACE: You mentioned, Mr. Minister, that the chicken sales are up, and that's certainly true - I understand they are up to over 100 per cent of their quota now - and you mentioned various factors that have caused this to happen. But one of the ones that you did not mention was the increase in the cost of beef, because that certainly has an effect.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Right, I know.

MRS. WALLACE: Just for a change of pace, I would like to move into another area of your ministry which relates to the more international aspect of it: that is, the aid to developing companies and world food generally.

I spoke about the cheap-food policy, but it is something that's fast disappearing. Last year we saw it going; we saw headlines about fruit and vegetable prices going up with the flood waters; we saw $1.87 for a large head of rusty leaves because of the floods in California.

This is an interesting clipping; it's from the Province, May 2. One headline is: "Food Prices Up 2.6 In Four Weeks." Right here is a headline, "Farm Income Dips 6.9 Per Cent, " right on the same page. That tells in two headlines a long and rather sad story. It's a very interesting arrangement.

What I'm saying, Mr. Minister, is that we can no longer take cheap food for granted, and we're in a position where the farmers are not about to accept that. I'm not speaking specifically about B.C. farmers now, but in the U.S. we have headlines: "U.S. Expects Food Prices To Soar. Cheap Food Era Coming To An End." This is the grocers' warning. Over and over we get these headlines, and then along with it we get in Maclean's magazine a report of the farmer revolt - the Canadian agri-

cultural movement - where the farmers are saying: "Look, we've had it. We are not prepared to go on working long hours seven days a week, for little or no return." This is a very serious threat, not just to British Columbia, but to Canada and to the United States. The challenge is there. The minister talks about his new things, and I mentioned ARDA. I said that was the one thing he had increased, but when he says he's added to farm income assurance schemes or upped the research, you know, there's nothing new, there's nothing exciting, there's nothing with the kind of scope that's going to cope with the problems that are bringing articles like this into Maclean's magazine. That's the challenge that I am presenting to this minister. He has to be far more innovative than simply adding a couple of farm income assurance schemes to solve those kinds of problems, and that's what I am objecting to and feeling that I do not see in this estimate.

The other thing that I do not see in this estimate is anything to do anything about the situation of our assistance towards Third World countries. I did a little research, or at least I had the library do a little research, and the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, instituted his $5 million fund for agricultural aid to developing countries back in 1969. At 7.5 per cent interest that fund reaped $375,000 annually. Do you know what the consumer price index was in 1969? It was 94.1. Today you have the nerve, Mr. Minister, to come in with $350,000 - $25,000 less than that with a Canada price index of 170.8. 1 say that that is nerve, to do that. The abolition of that fund was wrong in the first place because now it's piece-meal whether we get anything or not.

The other thing that I say was wrong was the deleting of the $5 million additional funds that were put in by the former NDP government. True, they were not all spent, but the programmes were coming on stream. The organizations that were participating were starting to involve themselves, and in that first year it was something like $1.5 million that was spent, and that was with the last three months being chopped right off - no more acceptance. So it could have been an ongoing programme with some pretty far-reaching results.

We think we have problems here in B.C. We live in a very rich part of this world, and it upsets me to think that even the bill to aid the Vietnamese children, the war orphans, could not be passed in this House. I know that's not this ministers responsibility, but that bill was not accepted and we see those youngsters in need of food and medicine.

[ Page 2135 ]

We see headlines like "Children Dying of Hunger. One hundred forty thousand Moslem refugees, mainly women and children, have fled from Burma for Bangladesh." Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries on earth, Mr. Chairman, and here we have refugees fleeing from Burma into that country.

Starvation. "Starvation Faces African Countries. Drought, flood and war have caused severe food shortages in 17 African countries." Yet we here in British Columbia are limiting our support to those developing countries to a measly $340,000, which is something less than half of what it originally was when it was initiated at a dollar-for-dollar value.

That programme was based on a very sound premise. It wasn't a programme that simply shipped our surpluses off to some country where we thought we could perhaps be of some help, and it wound up rotting somewhere, being eaten by rats. It was a good programme that helped people to help themselves. I'm not going to go into this at too great a length, Mr. Minister, because I went into it at great length last year. I think I made the point very clearly that many of those countries who are so poor today have lost control of their land and are having that land utilized by large foreign corporations to grow products -many times food products - to ship out of that country. Many of those products wind up in British Columbia.

By us contributing funds to help those countries become self-sufficient and to get back their land.... It was recently pointed out in a bulletin from the federal government that they are going out in Honduras, claiming back banana orchards that had been planted by the large corporate interests and then took disease and so had to be abandoned. The local natives there are now going back and claiming this land to grow food for themselves. Those kinds of programmes to help them become self-sufficient, to help them produce food for their own use so they then can develop their economy and not be dependent on a pittance or a wage, if they happen to be fortunate and get an opportunity to work for a small fee, are going to be one of the major and more farreaching and long-lasting steps that this government can take to ensure the protection of B.C. farmers. Once we have some pressure off those imports, we will be in a much better position here. We can't go around holding ourselves up at one level while the rest of the world is down here. The onus is on us, and the onus is on you, Mr. Minister.

I am very disappointed. I had looked for better things this year. I had hoped that maybe I had gotten to you last year and that maybe this year we would have some major funding in the budget for this very purpose. But I am very sad to say that it is not there. I can tell you, my concern amounts to nothing compared to the concern of the people who are actually in need, the people we could be helping. Theirs would be the short-term gain. Let me tell you, in the long run it would be our gain too.

I would ask, Mr. Minister, if you would care to tell me, why and when you are going to do something more meaningful about aid to developing countries.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to make a correction in regard to the assistance to the B.C. Women's Institute. We did increase it to $16,000 last year, but also, because of their triennial convention, gave them an additional grant of $5,000. So the total they got in the 1977-78 budget was $21,000.

The Canadian agricultural movement, I think, to a great extent - at least, the efforts that have been made in B.C. which, I believe, were at Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, the only two I know about - didn't get too much support because I think in this province the agricultural community is represented quite well by the Federation of Agriculture. It seemed that the American agricultural movements, and possibly the Canadian one - although I have not met any of the individuals - seem to be dealing more with confrontation rather than consultation. I don't know whether they would garner the support in this province because we have good representation through the Federation of Agriculture.

I think you could give some credit also to the fact that the income assurance programme or the stability programme were brought in by your government. Nevertheless, the programme is there, and it did give stability to the industry. That being the case, the need for that movement and the need for people to follow it was not as great as it may be in other parts of the United States and Canada. I think that the stability the farm income assurance had in agriculture in this province helped a great deal to offset any confrontation.

Aid to developing countries. Yes, $350,000 is the amount that is in there. To a great extent the aid to developing countries is more a federal responsibility. The fund of $5 million was set up and earned 7 per cent which, I think, equated to 7.5 per cent, earned $350,000. In 1976, the fund was used to offset some of the deficit. I guess if the fund was still there and we could earn 9 per cent, we would have additional moneys that could go to offset the increase in cost of living.

[ Page 2136 ]

I think we have done an excellent job with the moneys we have had available to us in regard to grants we have made to various organizations to assist developing countries. My staff sits on the committee and we work with church organizations and CARE, Food for the Hungry, Salvation Army, et cetera, to give assistance to help those countries help themselves. The budget is still $350,000. Possibly we can look at it the coming year and adjust it.

Basically, I think the responsibility in regard to international aid should come from the federal government as opposed to possible duplication at the provincial level. Although there is good co-operation with the nonstatutory organizations, when they get assistance provincially and federally it is all earmarked for one project, but the funds are well administered so there is not any loss of effectiveness of the programme.

At the present time it's $350,000 that we contribute, and, as I say, we can possibly look to that in the future to see an increase for additional assistance to developing countries.

MRS. WALLACE: I would just like to point out to the minister a recent clipping from Country Life dealing with the CAM rally in B.C.

"Over 60 Peace River farmers attended a Canadian Agriculture movement.... Like their American counterpart, Canadian Agriculture is a grassroots movement emphasizing income problems of present-day farmers. Representatives from the provinces organized agricultural groups were also present at the meeting. A local coordinator for the National Farmers Union expressed some concern about the impact which the movement would have on already existing farm groups. But B.C. Federation of Agriculture vice-president Don Knorr voiced the federation's willingness to work with anybody who is trying to achieve a fair deal for agriculture."

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you are not going to piece farmers off like that as you were attempting to do by your remarks, saying that's just a small group and the other one speaks for them. They are prepared to stand together. There's no question about that.

I would like to return to farm income assurance for a moment. I an surprised when you say that everything is rosy in the garden because you didn't have a confrontation, you had consultation. Mr. Minister, that is what the farmers were asking for way back when. Why did we go through all this crab dance before we got there? Does it really speak very well for your sincerity in wanting to continue this programme, to initiate it, to carry it on and sign the kind of agreement that has been signed?

I think, Mr. Minister, you and I could argue that one and neither one of us would every admit... I think we will go down with our last gasp holding to our own contentions on why that thing took place and how it happened. I submit it was a waste of time and effort on the part of the ministry and on the part of the federation which had to involve itself in a tremendous amount of expense in order to get to that very place where you say they could have been at in the first place.

I want to talk just a little bit about the money you have put in the estimates, something like $35,000, 000 to cover the cost of farm income assurance for the coming year. I am amazed at how you expect to spend this. A lot of the programmes appear to be pretty well in balance and pretty well paying for themselves or even paying into the scheme. I know you are going to add raspberries and potatoes, I hope, and various other things.

The calculations that I have had some of our research staff working on - and certainly your ministry would be more familiar and closer to these than I am - come up with figures for 1977 for raspberries, for example, which will be returning to the scheme something over maybe $165,000.

1 look at blueberries, again which will return to the scheme maybe $80,000.

Sheep is going to be a pay-out - $2759000 maybe.

Beef depends, of course, on the price, but let's say that is going to cost $3 million to pay the beef scheme. I think you would have to agree that is a fairly close estimate.

Apples are breaking even. In fact, apples are making money to the tune of maybe $500,000. There are some payments owing, so maybe we are going to wind up with a $500,000 cost on the tree fruits for apples.

When we get into pears, apricots, peaches, prunes, cherries, we estimate maybe $2 million.

Eggs. Well, there are several parts to that plan, but we're looking at maybe $600,000. Broiler hatching eggs - maybe $150,000.

Swine - $175,000

Potatoes - $1,300, 000

Dairy, of course is gone, no cost.

The greenhouse things - again we're looking at maybe $850,000.

Vegetables and strawberries - $3 million.

I don't know if you I re going to extend to other programmes, but let's throw in some more. We're looking at about $12 million in-

[ Page 2137 ]

stead of $35 million. I'm wondering what grandiose plans you have in store for the farmers, Mr. Minister, that you're not telling us about.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to introduce some guests in the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, there are three people in the gallery I'd like to introduce to the House, coming down to see how the minister is performing this afternoon. One is my wife, Sheila. The other two young gentlemen there are my son Rob, who's becoming quite a golfer; and my son Ron, who's quite a baseball player. I'm happy to see them in the gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they know that you're the chicken in the costume?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to dispel any possible idea that I'm the chicken in the costume on the broiler promotional scheme. It is not me, though some of my colleagues seem to think it is. Even my friends in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture seem to think it is too.

I just want to talk about the comments that the member for Cowichan-Malahat made regarding the agricultural movement. It seemed to me, in my discussions anyway, with the executive of the Federation of Agriculture and Mr. Don Knoerr, who was at those meetings, that what you say in the news article is correct. But I think he also made the comment that working together through one organization rather than a fragment was a concern. I think we'd all agree that if you have one, two, three or five different organizations, each saying they represent the agriculture community, they won't get anywhere. If they speak with a single voice, then I think they accomplish a great deal more than having several representatives.

In regard to the estimates for farm income assurance, I believe the estimated figure is $35.4 million in the budget. Those are estimates that were determined in late 1977. The market return, of course, has changed somewhat, as we know, for beef and tree fruits. I don't believe, unless something happens to the marketplace, that we'll have to use all that. But we've got to consider through to March of next year and we have to estimate what the market might return. If we're lucky and the market is good to the producer, then, of course, we won't spend as much.

We are bringing on vegetables as a commodity; it will be going under the income assurance programme, which will affect that total as well.

You did mention something about the 1977 indemnity for the cow-calf programme. I believe the cost on that 1977 cow-calf programme was approximately $7.2 million as opposed to the $3 million that you raised.

MR. STUPICH: I feel, as the former Minister of Agriculture, I should have a few words to say about this particular vote. I think perhaps you and I should share some comments about what's been happening to agriculture in the province, not just in the past year but perhaps in the past three years.

I'd like to start by saying that I associate myself with the disappointment of the member for Cowichan-Malahat in the minister's opening remarks. I tried to take notes; I did take some. I quote from them: "We have protected farmland through the land freeze." Mr. Chairman, you and I both know that the land freeze as such was done away with, with the possible exception of the Mount Waddington Regional District, early in 1974. The land freeze as such was done away with at that date. Of course, that was while a process of establishing agricultural land reserves was in place. It was completed some four years ago. So the land freeze as such has long been done away with. The agricultural land reserves were established roughly four years ago. Certainly we have done it. But that's not something that's happened since this minister has been in office or, indeed, since this government has been in office.

We have protected the farmers through interest reimbursement and income assurance. Mr. Chairman. That indeed has been done but, again, it was something that was done by a previous administration and almost undone by this particular administration.

I suppose this is the only place where I would differ with the member for Cowichan-Malahat when she said nothing new has happened. Something new has happened. The interest reimbursement plan has been extended to include commercial fishermen. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is something new. I think it is the only new thing that's been done by this ministry, the only new thing. There have been extensions of some existing programmes, but that was the only new thing that has been accomplished by this government since it was elected, unfortunately, in December, 1975.

Mr. Chairman, my disappointment in this minister has been that I have been waiting for some clear statement from him that he really believes in agriculture in the province of British Columbia. I have had occasion to hear

[ Page 2138 ]

him speak at several meetings in the province. Always he's been saying, as I hear it, that England was prepared to fight to the death of the last Frenchman. All I've heard this minister say is that he is prepared to watch the agricultural industry in British Columbia grow to increase food production in this province, even if it means the death of the last farmer in this province. Certainly he has never yet, at any meeting that I have attended, spoken in favour of the farmers, in favour of the people who are working to make the agricultural industry grow.

He has announced in some detail some of the things that have been going on this year, some of the things that have been carried on for some time. But he has never said how he feels philosophically about agriculture in this province.

I would like to read from the October issue of Country Life a quotation that is headed "We are tired" - and this is the kind of thing that I would like to have this minister associating himself with:

"There is one further thing that we would like to take this opportunity to say on behalf of the agricultural community in British Columbia" - "on behalf of the agricultural community, " Mr. Chairman, that's the point - "and that is that we are tired. As farmers, we are used to early hours and long days. But this is not the kind of malaise that is caused by those conditions. We are tired of having to justify our industry, of having to watch it be poked and investigated while we sit with the knowledge that time is slipping away. We're tired of having to listen to people who feel that they have found the answer to all of the consumers' woes in the elimination of marketing boards."

I've been waiting to hear the Minister of Agriculture speak along those lines. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) said that the minister had nothing to say about his feeling towards marketing boards.

"We are fast growing tired of a government that obviously places the implementation of sound agricultural and food policy on the low priority list."

Mr. Chairman, under the previous Social Credit administration agriculture was on a very low priority list. The amount spent on agriculture in the last year of the previous Social Credit administration was about one eleventh of what was spent in the last year of the NDP administration - $5.5 million as opposed to something like $60 million. That was our commitment to the agricultural industry in this province. There has been no progress since, Mr. Chairman, except that the interest reimbursement plan has been extended to include commercial fishermen.

Here's a quotation from the December issue of the same paper, Country Life - that's the one, you will recall, that had the headline: "Hewitt Blew It." But in all fairness to the minister, Mr. Chairman, it also included the following paragraph:

"President Baricello's warning that all hell would break loose if the minister did not reaffirm FIA or something just as good did not occur at the convention. This was out of politeness to a guest and the recognition that Hewitt was only the messenger boy of the Socred cabinet. But there was no mistake in the unanimous opposition of the convention to the minister's proposal to water down FIA."

Only the messenger boy, Mr. Chairman.

The first question that I would put to the minister - and he may know but I'm sure he won't tell; the rest of the cabinet must be holding a cabinet meting somewhere, so we can't ask them - is: who is the real Minister of Agriculture? This person who masquerades as the Minister of Agriculture told us how he felt about farm income assurance; on many occasions at which he spoke he told us how he really felt about farm income assurance.

Others in the Social Credit caucus also said how they felt. I have another quotation, from The Province of February 17,1978.

"It's a third time cabinet has interfered in decision-making in the Agriculture ministry."

By this time it was obvious to The Province almost always a supporter of the government that this person was not really the Minister of Agriculture.

The farmers thought they had an improvement. Number one, the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers couldn't get to him at all. The farmer and agricultural organizations couldn't get to him. The Socred back-bench members of caucus who wanted to, talk about agriculture couldn't get to him. There was no open door to Agriculture while that member for South Peace River was the Minister of Agriculture. Then they got somebody who , ;as designated as Minister of Agriculture. But all they got, in effect, was a messenger boy. They're not sure to whom, but a messenger boy to cabinet - someone in cabinet or some group in cabinet. But I suppose that is some improvement, because at least . they have a messenger boy with their messages occasionally. And they

[ Page 2139 ]

did get to him with that message.

But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it wasn't -in spite of what the minister has said today -the agricultural industry that got to that minister to deliver that message to cabinet. To some extent it was the back-bench members of caucus who indicated their displeasure as to what the government was doing to the agricultural industry. Two of them are mentioned in this same editorial:

"BCFA President Pat Hibbert and other farm leaders have said that Hewitt's alterations are unacceptable. The changes have also been criticized by Socred MLA Pat Jordan (North Okanagan) and Socred MLA Cyril Shelford (Terrace) , a former Agriculture minister."

Those are the kinds of people, Mr. Chairman, who finally got to this minister and got him, c_ to change his mind, unfortunately, because I believe that he still believes what he told the federation convention and what he told the fruit growers convention, that the farm income assurance programme is too rich for B.C. farmers; it's too good for them. That's what he told them in convention in November, and the fruit growers in January - it's too good for them. They're not good enough to get this kind of help to build up and to maintain the fourth largest industry, as the minister described it, in the province of British Columbia. But somebody got to him, Mr. Chairman.

The outgoing president said, if I could repeat this, "All hell would break loose." President Baricello's wry comment was that he was not disappointed in the ministers speech because, "I expected less." He knew what to expect from this government - he had that experience. It reminds me of the time when the hon. member for North Okanagan, addressing a meeting of fruit growers in 1972, told them not to trust the NDP government, not to trust our promises to help the farmers. Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, she spoke from experience. For six years she had been a member of a government that believed that campaign promises were to be trotted out at election time and conveniently forgotten once the election was over. She'd been a member of that cabinet for six years and knew exactly how that cabinet felt about election promises and, of course, she felt in her ignorance that we would be the same.

She did not really believe it when we said we were going to do something for farmers in the province. The measures that we introduced for the farmers in the province shortly after that meeting, and opposed by many of the members in the House, including many of the Socred members, were measures that were designed to help and did help agriculture in the province of British Columbia. They were measures that had been opposed by this same cabinet minister, this person who masquerades as the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the negotiators for the federation are pleased that they have been able to get some measure of agreement from this person that the programmes will be carried on for an indefinite time. I'm not sure that an indefinite time is better than a five-year tem. At least for five years they knew what was going to happen, and now they don't know just how long that period is going to be. How good is that? The minister has said on many occasions - I've said that already -how he felt about farm income assurance. It's too good for farmers, too rich, costing the taxpayers too much. That's what he believed.

He's telling us today that because of the negotiations that took place he changed his mind. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that he changed his mind because of pressure from the farming community, his own back-bench members, and cabinet colleagues, but he hasn't really changed his mind. I don't believe to this point in time that that minister has changed his mind.

1 would hope that he would read some of things that I've been quoting from. I would hope he would listen to some of the industry leaders and that he would really change his mind. In the meantime I would like to utter a word of caution to the farm industry and the leaders of all the agricultural organizations in the province. I offer a word of caution that they not relax, that they not, at this point in time, turn their swords into ploughshares, because they may very well need those swords again.

Once the next election is called and over, in the unhappy event - unhappy from the point of view of the farmers in the province - that that government is re-elected, I believe we would once again see this minister stand up and tell us he thinks that the farmers don't deserve this kind of assistance, don't deserve this opportunity to make a living, don't de serve the same kinds of opportunities that are offered to almost everyone else and available to everyone else in our community, that farmers are something different, farmers are people to be used to achieve his target of a certain level of production of food in the province, but they are not people to be worked with.

He told the farmers at the fruit growers convention that he was not going to consult with them. They could talk to him, he would accept their advice about costs of production,

[ Page 2140 ]

but he was not going to consult. I heard him say it: he would not negotiate with them. They could participate in the discussions, they could offer advice, but no more of this negotiation business. There has been no con-version by this minister.

Mr. Chairman, my word of caution to the farmers: Don't turn your swords into ploughshares; don't let your guard down! This minister has not suffered a conversion, he is reacting to the political expediency of this situation and to the pressure from his backbench members who've been warning him that if he persists in this folly some of those seats are going to be lost, the government may be turned out, and he had better change his position - not change his mind, because I don't believe he has changed his mind - or he would not be re-elected as Minister of Agriculture. Then, of course, the farmers would get their income assurance programme.

Mr. Chairman, this minister is not working for the agricultural industry. He has never yet stood up and told us how he really feels about agriculture in the province of British Columbia, other than to say: "Let's produce more food." That has been his only statement in support of the agricultural industry. Even with respect to farmland - and you have denied this as well - the very first question I ever heard him ask about the agricultural land reserve was: "How can we change it so that we can get the land out more easily?" This is not a joke. A lot of work went into establishing those agricultural land reserves, and I have never once seen this minister stand up anywhere in public and I have never seen him quoted anywhere in opposition to any of the requests to take land out of agricultural land reserves.

I have seen him take no position when legislation was introduced in the last session which took away from the Land Commission the opportunity to say no. No longer can the Land Commission itself deny an appeal; every appellant may now go to cabinet. The Minister of Agriculture did not once stand up and say: "We need this protection for agricultural land." To my knowledge, never once has an appeal that has gone to cabinet to get land out of the reserve been turned down. Some may have been. I've certainly heard of ones that have been approved. I've never heard of this minister expressing any concern about them being approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You can't attend cabinet meetings.

MR. STUPICH: I don't attend cabinet meetings. That's true, but it would be a lot better for agriculture if I did. I don't attend cabinet meetings, but I'm looking forward in the not too distant future to attending cabinet meetings.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Never, Dave. Don't hold your breath.

MR. STUPICH: Certainly from the point of view of the farmers in this province, they know that they would be a lot better off under an NDP government than they would be under the old Social Credit government or under the new Socred coalition government.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister to stand up and explain to me what has been done in his two and a half years as a member of the Socred caucus that is better. They have had an opportunity to do something other than to attack the industry, other than to make the farmers feel under pressure almost on a day-to-day basis that the programmes that were introduced by the NDP administration - programmes that were negotiated in complete consultation and co-operation with them.... What has he done other to make them fear from day to day that they were going to lose everything they gained?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I really anticipated a little better debate from the former Minister of Agriculture, but he deals with terminology. I call it the "land freeze" and then he goes on about the fact that that was done away with, and it is the "agricultural land reserve" and the "agricultural land commission." We know that, so I don't think we have to debate that issue.

I don't go around, Mr. Member, patting myself on the back, saying what a great guy I am. I don't do that. I think you will find most of the ministers and the backbenchers on this side of the House are not looking for applause like you have in the past. I have seen you perform at the various meetings and conferences and conventions you were at, where you got up and made the great speeches about all the great things. We go along and do our job, not looking for the applause, but trying to get a job done to support an industry.

With regard to agriculture and low priority, I guess you don't figure that a $60 million five-year commitment on an ARDA programme is a good thing. It's twice what was there when you were in office. You talk about the budget and what your budget was. I assume that you have looked at the estimate book. The agriculture budget this year is $72 million, a pretty firm commitment from this government for agricul-

[ Page 2141 ]

ture.

The whole thrust and effort of your debate is farm income assurance. You quote from papers and play with words - "Don't turn your swords into ploughshares" et cetera - just to stir up interest in the agricultural community, hoping that you will get a headline. "Former Minister of Agriculture Says. Don't Turn Your Swords Into Ploughshares." That's a great thing to say in order to cause unrest in the agricultural community of this province.

We solved the problem of farm income assurance.

MR. STUPICH: You were the problem!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sure, we had a good debate and we had good consultation. Much to your dissatisfaction, Mr. Member, we resolved it by sitting down around a table, working the problem out together, and coming to a resolution which allows us to move forward into other commodities in this province to give them the stability that the 12 have up to this date. You didn't do that, Mr. Member, you brought them in piecemeal one at a time. We are now looking at trying to further stabilize the agriculture industry in this province.

You know, I can find fault with some of your comments. I could ask you what they are doing in Saskatchewan, the only NDP government that is left in this country. I understand that their stability programme is something like a $50 loan per calf. In the beef industry, if I'm not mistaken, if they exceed $8,000 of taxable farm income, they get no assistance at all. That's how their programme works. It's a very far cry.... Yet that's a socialist government out there that's supposed to be doing a great job. Why don't you go to Saskatchewan and convince them? You had half their people come here in 1972 to try to win your election for you, which didn't work out.

MR. STUPICH: In 1972?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In 1975, Mr. Member. You've got me a little charged up, so I may miss on some of the years that have gone by.

You talk about the Land Commission. Mr. Member, I was a director of the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen and sat down at many a meeting. I met Mr. Bill Lane and the people who came around and worked with the regional planner to try and resolve some of the problem with regard to the agricultural reserves as they were first dropped into place. I tried to resolve some of the problems, so it's not that we're not speaking out for the agricultural land reserves, for the protection of good farmland in this province. You know as well as I that what has been happening for the last few years is the fine tuning of those agricultural land reserve maps, because of the fact that they were done in broad brushstrokes when they were first put into place.

Mr. Chairman, there is really not much I can comment on in regard to the member for Nanaimo's remarks, other than just to clarify the record and suggest that the matter of the debate they would like to have concerning farm income assurance has disappeared. We have achieved resolution in this province with the agricultural community and the Ministry of Agriculture and this government. So they really haven't got too much to debate, but they seem to be chewing on that old bone. Hopefully they may raise some other questions which I will be able to answer.

MR. STUPICH: Well, it's kind of funny to sit here and listen to the minister say: "We have resolved the problem." Mr. Chairman, you and I both know that he was the problem. He, as the spokesman for the Socred cabinet, was the problem. There was no problem until he started attacking farm income assurance. Farm income assurance was a programme that was negotiated between the NDP government and the Federation of Agriculture and the various commodity groups. We negotiated; sometimes we had heated negotiations, but we always arrived at agree ment. It was working very well in December, 1975, at the time the election took place. There was no problem. Now he stands up and says he resolved the problem - or rather "we". Mr. Chairman, he was the problem. Certainly the farmers listening to him knew he was the problem, until they came to the conclusion that he was simply the messenger boy - after he was three times turned down by cabinet.

I quote from a news release put out by his office on January 18, at which time lie was talking about a new approach:

"Mr. Hewitt stated that, while all provinces had been co-operating with Agriculture Canada for some time in the search for a more satisfactory joint federal-provincial approach to income stabilization, British Columbia has taken a new initiative." Well, they sure did, Mr. Chairman. They told the farmers that farm income assurance was too good for them. That's what British Columbia had done, and that was in January.

Certainly the editorial writer for Country Life, in listening to the - I don't know what else to call him other than the Minister of Agriculture; we know he isn't, but I'll call

[ Page 2142 ]

him that, as long as you and I understand that that doesn't really apply - but listening to him, the editorial writer for Country Life in December certainly knew how the minister felt about farm income assurance. I'll quote from a paragraph in that editorial:

"What must be confronted and defeated is the idea that any assistance to agriculture is in the nature of welfare payments to people who have neither the will nor ability to fend for themselves."

Mr. Chairman, I heard him - he didn't call it welfare, but certainly that was the message that came through to me. Although he has said: "We have negotiated a new agreement, " he has still not stood up in this House - or anywhere, to my knowledge - and said that he believes that the farm income assurance programme that has now been worked out - it really is the same programme with very minor modifications, as far as I can see - is a good programme, one that the farmers of the province deserve, not something that is being handed to them by way of welfare payments. I haven't heard him say it yet. It would certainly appear as though he still is the problem. Mr. Chairman, I would still like the minister to stand up and tell us that he has changed his mind about farm income assurance. He seems to think that there was never any doubt as to how he felt.

I have a letter from the regional district of Central Okanagan, "To all regional districts in British Columbia, " dated February 1,1978. At this late date, Mr. Chairman, the writer of this letter knew that this minister was the problem:

"This board is of the opinion and takes the stand that the provincial government should do all in its power to maintain the well-being of the agricultural community in this province. In some instances it is believed that the government is only giving lip service to the agricultural industry..." - Mr. Chairman, that's the best that can be said about what this minister has had to offer so far -"...particularly when considering the agricultural land reserves" - Mr. Chairman, that does not sound like what the minister had to say about the agricultural land reserves, and this is a regional district very close to his home - "the new assessment provisions" - perhaps the minister knows something about the new assessment provisions too, Mr. Chairman -"and the assistance provided to maintain the family farm. It should also be stated that the viability of the processing arm and support industry in the Okanagan -transportation, Crown Zellerbach container plant, et cetera, would be drastically affected through a chain reaction if the economics of the fruit industry were to suffer. It could be pointed out that, if it weren't for the fruit industry in this province, the tourist industry would not be what it is today in the Okanagan. The board therefore encourages the provincial government to show a more hospitable attitude towards the farming community in this province."

Once again, I invite the minister to stand up and tell us that he really has been converted and that it's not simply a political conversion that is intended to last only until after the next election.

MR. SMITH: It's a pleasure to get up and address myself to the Minister of Agriculture's estimates, and that certainly includes a good number of the people whom I represent. The Peace River country is one of the largest agricultural areas in the province. It's different to a great degree from any other part of British Columbia with respect to the type of agriculture they engage in up there, but still very important. At the present time in the North Peace alone we calculate that there are some 600,000 acres under cultivation and that we produce all types of grain, grass seeds, rape, alfalfa, clovers - you name it -as well as a large production of beef cattle for the market.

I'd like to recall to the minister's mind, if I might, a situation that we feel needs investigation, and that is with respect to the agricultural potential in Fort Nelson. It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to listen to the speaker who just took his seat prior to the time you recognized me, the former Minister of Agriculture, because for three and a half years, not all the time that particular member for Nanaimo was minister, but at least part of that time, it was my hope that w would get authority and the finance from the then administration to start a dream that came close to being realized under the previous Social Credit administration, and that was a large development farm in the Fort Nelson area.

The scheme was devised by the former Social Credit Minister of Agriculture, now the member for the Skeena riding (Mr. Shelford) . The scheme was all ready to go but for three and a half years it was forgotten. Not one thing happened in all the time that member for Nanaimo was the Minister of Agriculture. So if he wants to talk about what they did and what great things happened while the NDP was government, I'll remind him of a few of the

[ Page 2143 ]

things that didn't happen when they were government, and that was one of them.

There is a need to experiment in the Fort Nelson area to determine what can beneficially be grown up there. There is a large area of Crown land that will some day be needed to grow food for the people not only of British Columbia, but for the Northwest Territories, Alaska and the Yukon. There is a great potential for that market as populations grow, and now is the time, Mr. Minister, that we should be putting our minds to a development process in the Fort Nelson area to get the answers. What type of crops can be grown most beneficially? We know that we can grow vegetables up there - probably the best vegetable crops in any part of British Columbia. We know that; that's a fact. The people who are there have grown vegetables to the extent that they know that vegetable crops can be grown on the river flats at an altitude, incidentally, of about 1,000 feet above sea level, more quickly, and with better quality than almost any other part of British Columbia.

There is a large area that could be turned to development of forage crops. Cattle could be raised for a market beyond Fort Nelson and north, and I would like to know the position of the minister with respect to recycling the programme that fell into a state of lapse for several years. It would be entirely unfair in my opinion, Mr. Minister, to ask new farmers to go into that area without knowing their relative chances of success. Farming today and trying to get established in a new farm unit is an extremely costly business.

The people who we would like to see go into the area are naturally people with farming experience. But they are going to need capital to help them develop. They're going to need some assistance and they're going to need answers to specific questions with respect to the type of crops that they can produce in the area and where they can look to for markets. There's no question about it that they cannot, in my opinion, grow grain in competition with the areas closer to the market or with Alberta. There's just no way that they can compete in that market. But they can develop a specialized agricultural economy, help produce food for the area north of Fort Nelson and perhaps, by new techniques, for other markets that we don't presently consider close to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydroponics.

MR. SMITH: Yes, that may be one thing but there are also dehydration processes that we should be looking into so you can ship the product back to markets on an economical basis. If you have to ship 500 to 1,000 miles further than other people you have a great deficit to overcome unless there is some advantage. The advantage is that the land is there. It's available, it can be developed, the growing season is sufficient. The sunshine is sufficient and the temperatures are sufficient to produce most crops.

I would like the minister to give me some indication, if he can, as to the feelings of his ministry with respect to the Fort Nelson area and the potential that I see up there.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not sure whether the member for North Peace River is aware, but just recently I had the opportunity to meet with a number of people from the Peace River-Laird regional district who were down talking to the economic development committee. I had the opportunity to meet with them separately. I have instructed my staff to review the reports that I understand were made a number of years ago for the possibility of reviving that project. I understand there is a reserve on the land and, as you mentioned, the former Minister of Agriculture under the previous Social Credit government was very interested in the potential of the area. My staff will be identifying the crops, and we're going to go into the area to take a serious look at it to identify the market potential, and to see what can be grown there and where its markets are.

As you know, the biggest problem, I guess, is transportation and moving that product. You've got to be able to grow what is needed in the area, see that your costs aren't too high and then find the markets to ship it to. So my staff are very excited about the fact that we're going to take another look at it. I'm hopeful that before this time next year we will have some concrete results and some action started up there to get that land into production and to assist farmers, whether it be through identifying the proper crops and/or financial assistance to get them started. I think it has great potential and I know the people I met with from the Peace River-Laird regional district were very enthusiastic about it. So we will work on that as quickly as possible.

MR. SMITH: There is another matter that 1 want to take up with the minister. I think it's important with respect to any development that takes place in the Fort Nelson area. The area is a virgin area so far in term of development at the present time, with the exception of one or two large acreages - that is, 500 acres or better. There is no development there at the present time.

[ Page 2144 ]

As a result of that, the whole area is comparatively weed-free at this time. I think it's very, very important that whatever we do in development in that area, we pay particular attention to the type of seed that we allow to go in there and the foundation stock for whatever purposes we determine would be best served by growing legumes or whatever in the Fort Nelson area. I would like to see us keep it as weed-free as possible for as many years as possible.

When I was first introduced to the Peace River country - and this goes back to just after the war, 1945 - the Peace itself, at that time, was known as a weed-free area. I'm sorry to say that is not the case today. Over the last 30 years we have gathered in the weeds that are now common to every other part of Canada. It is a difficult thing to keep an area weed-f ree. Regardless of that, I would hope that in the development in the Fort Nelson area, we will do our best to protect the area and keep it as weed-free as possible for as long as possible.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we seem to have almost gotten away from the subject of farm income assurance. I'm not going to belabour it much more. We have established that the programme was working well when the election took place. We have established that it was working well while there was no Minister of Agriculture - that is, during the time when the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was the titular minister. We've established that it was working well during that period because no minister was paying any attention at all to the programme and the staff of the ministry was functioning very well without the interference of a minister. We have established that since this minister himself was appointed a problem did arise. We have established, I think, beyond any doubt that he is at least the spokesman for the problem. So he has to be the personification of the problem. We've established all that.

1 had thought that perhaps one or two of the backbenchers might say something about the farm income assurance programme to reinforce it, but apparently they did their talking where they felt it was more important and perhaps even more effective.

I don't quite know what vote to bring up this question under. I guess it ties in, perhaps, a little bit with the question just asked by the hon. member for North Peace River. I noticed the minister in replying said that his staff are very excited about the prospects of agricultural development in the Fort Nelson area. I'd caution the member for that area that perhaps he'd better make sure he's still got that railroad. He, better than most people, should know just how good Social Credit promises are. So I think it's most important that he hang on to that railroad or there won't be any development of any kind, let alone agriculture.

I have a quotation here from The Agrologist of March, 1978. It would appear that the minister was speaking to a meeting of the agrologists. The story is: "Mr. Hewitt mentioned that in the future his ministry will be utilizing more professionals outside the government to undertake work and asked the institute to send him a list of expertise within BCIA." Now I assume that maybe some of the staff that are so excited about the tremendous possibilities in the Fort Nelson area, or maybe some of these professionals that are outside of the department.... Because unless there've been more substantial changes within the ministry than I'm aware of, I think that the number who would be wildly excited about the prospects in the Fort Nelson area are not very great, Mr. Chairman.

In any case, I'd like the minister to tell us something more about this new programme of going outside of the ministry to get the kind of professional help that up to now, I thought and you thought, Mr. Chairman, was available within the ministry. What new thrusts does the minister have in mind? Or does he have in mind cutting back on some of the work that is currently being done within the Ministry of Agriculture and replacing some of the work that is being done within the ministry by outside consultants?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in regard to farm income assurance, I guess this is my last thrust too. The programme had one problem, Mr. Member, and that is that it had a termination date. They were five-year terms and, as a result, 1977 was the last year for the tree fruit farm income assurance programme. As a responsible ministry - I'll even go so far as to say as a responsible minister - we reviewed the programme and that is what happened. If you were sure that everything was fine back in 1973, 1 guess you could have made that ongoing commitment, but you looked at a term. So that really was the problem that I faced as a minister coming into office. We had a termination date on a programme and we carried out a review.

Mr. Chairman, I still come back to the comment that the farm income assurance programme is in place. The tree fruit industry now knows that the programme is continuing. The financial institutions know. Commodities

[ Page 2145 ]

that weren't covered in the past know that their programmes are being reviewed or the programmes are being analysed and will be set up. So I think that issue, though the member debates it well, has been resolved. That's about all I can say about it.

I go on to the other comment he made about the outside consultants. I guess what he's concerned about is the ministry staff. He knows as a former Minister of Agriculture that the ministry staff work hard and have a tremendous amount of commitments. 14Y comments to the Institute of Agrologists were to say to them that I respected their capability and looked to them for names of competent consultants who are associated with that institution. We wanted to make sure, Mr. Chairman, that with any project that we embarked on financially or any assistance we gave financially, we had a proper plan in place, we had analysed it and the feasibility studies had been done. The commodity group or the co-operative or whatever it might be would not be given the go-ahead without proper analysis.

That's good business management, Mr. Chairman, and it's a thing that I think possibly -just possibly - was not used as much in the previous administration's day as it is used now where we want to know within a reasonable variance whether or not a project is going to work out and work out well, as opposed to getting halfway down the road and finding out that we didn't do our homework.

Also, we have an ARDA programme. Again I come back to that, because it's a $60 million programme. A tremendous amount of activity is going on in that programme and, that being the case, we need consultants to work on that, because my staff can't carry double what the previous ARDA programme was in the time they have. So we have to go outside to get consultants to do the studies, and we look to the Institute of Agrologists for that capability.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not really going to say any more about farm income assurance either, Mr. Chairman; I think we've gone around that one fairly well. As I said earlier, I don't think the minister has succeeded in convincing either the member for Nanaimo or myself that he has a firm commitment to the continuation of that programme or that he really believes in the concept of that programme. That is the thing that I've been waiting for that minister to say, which hasn't been forthcoming.

Another thing I just want to mention in passing is that I was a bit disappointed that his only really significant comment in response to my arguments for increases in the aid to developing programme funds was that it was really a federal programme. I think that's pretty weak, because it was a very good programme. It has proven its worth, was working well, and now it's getting down to the point where it's minuscule in its effect.

The other thing that the minister has not yet commented on, to my knowledge.... I've been out of the House briefly a couple of times, but I don't think he has really commented on marketing boards. I was just beginning to touch on marketing boards earlier this afternoon, and some of the concepts and misconcepts about marketing boards, but in this article by Catherine Harris, which appeared in The Financial Post, there are some very interesting statements and conclusions. She talks about the uncertain income, and not enough of it, that has long been a problem for Canadian farmers. "Some people see the answer in a marketing board that controls prices through quotas. There is no doubt the boards have solved many of the farmers', problems, but they aren't so popular with the consumers who believe the boards have put prices up as much as possible." She goes on to do her research and come up with her comments, and some of the things that she comes up with are rather interesting. For example, she has come up with a graph which shows the cost of food generally over the years 1972 to 1976, which is a rather erratic line, and she graphs food that is controlled by marketing boards which is a much more stable line. Then she graphs the foods that are not controlled by marketing boards, which is simply a hodge-podge of boom and bust, up and down. This proves what many of us have recognized for a long time, which is that there is a very stabilizing effect that, in the long run, is just as good for the consumer as it is for the producers. She has also gone into the business of supply-management and the business of quota controls.

[Mr. Haddad in the chair.]

She says in part:

"Once quotas are established, to enter the industry you must acquire a quota. If you have to pay for the quota and are still prepared to buy it, you must expect enough return to cover the cost of the quota as well as your production, and a return on your labour and investment. This argument is not as persuasive as it sounds. A farmer, for instance, already in the industry, may want to increase production to a more efficient level. This is particularly true of dairy farming. Quota prices are determined by many factors, only one of which is the new farmer ente-

[ Page 2146 ]

ring the industry. And this does not mean that supply-management prices are not too high, but it does mean that we don't know if they are."

Now, of course, this is one of the things, I'm sure, the minister is hoping that the committee is going to find out, but I would like to see the minister stand and tell the House what his feelings are about marketing boards. We know that in the beef industry there has been a lot of discussion about this federally, and the beef producers have up to now certainly indicated that they are not in favour of a marketing board. But every convention I go to - and I'm sure the minister sees the same thing - there are more and more delegates at those cattlemen's conventions who are becoming more and more concerned about the lack of control in the marketplace.

It's not just farmers who talk about the need for marketing boards. It is interesting to note that Mr. Wornock, who is president of M. Loeb Limited - a company that supplies most Canadian IGA stores in eastern Canada - was quoted in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record recently, 'saying it is absolutely essential for farmers to have marketing boards. That man, who is in the grocery business, recognizes that there must be a continuing supply if he is going to do the kind of business that he would like to. He would like to see that continuing supply, and he recognizes that marketing boards give him not only the continuing supply but the quality. Those two things are hand-in-hand, so he has recognized that. There is a man who is in the wholesale grocery business, supplying an outlet as big as IGA, talking in terms of farmers needing marketing boards in order to establish a supply-demand situation.

In the Vernon Daily News of May 23, there was an article: "Who Would Want to be a Farmer Now in Canada?" This editorial points out: "Producing food is a mug's game in Canada. Canadians who used to spend 25 per cent of their income now spend 18 per cent. The result is that in 1978 the buying power of farm income will be less than it was in 1966. If you think you have trouble keeping up with inflation...."

I'm quoting these things, Mr. Chairman, to point out to the minister that public opinion is not all against marketing boards. There has come to be an acceptance of the fact that the farmer does need this tool. I think it would well behoove the minister if he could stand up and tell us what he thinks about marketing boards.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to the members comments regarding marketing boards, I agree with her that not all public opinion is against marketing boards. There have been a considerable number of people supporting marketing boards.

Probably the major problem is that the marketing board, as you and I know, and I guess most people in this chamber know, does create stability. It is a vehicle which gives the farmer the opportunity to move his product to the marketplace. It gives him a better say for negotiating a price for his product. But to a certain extent, that stability creates demand for more producers to get into it and to decide that here is a commodity that has stability. As a farmer, they would like to produce that product. One of the concerns, I think, that those producers who are involved with marketing boards have is that they must allow for the entry of new producers. I think that is a key, it is a release valve and it allows new people to come on stream.

I think that if you look at the record, the fluctuation of price on those commodities controlled by marketing boards does not vary; it is fairly stable. There is no great supply and then very little when the price goes up. So I can tell you I support the marketing board concept. I think it is a good concept. I'll even go a little further and call it supply management, because there is a difference. But if you look at the ones that are controlled under a national supply-management scheme, I think they must always recognize that they should allow for new entries in production. At the same time, they should recognize that the producers haven't got the same freedom that they once had if they were operating under a free- and open-market system.

As you know, within a province you could have a deficient production area, and we can think of the famous egg problem that we had in the north where they can't supply their own market and product has to be shipped up from the lower mainland. With marketing boards come the responsibility of those producers who are involved with them, and from the members of the board, to ensure that they can recognize the demand factor in the marketplace and allow for new entrants.

With those comments, Madam Member, I can only agree with you that marketing boards have brought a lot of stability to the farming community.

MRS. WALLACE: In relation to marketing boards, would the minister be prepared to comment on his feelings about quotas? I don't think you really spoke on quotas.

[ Page 2147 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Supply-management.

MRS. WALLACE: As opposed to quota? Quota costs, then?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member wants my response regarding costs of quota. Again, this is a concern that producers, or people who want to enter into a supply-management scheme, have to pay for quota; it is a cost that they incur. They don't get any return on that cost from the marketplace; it's not considered a part of their cost of production.

I think it's a responsibility of the boards to try and allow for new entry into the production area, which I think to a great extent would keep the value of quota - if you want to tag a value to it - a little more realistic. We've had some fluctuations in quota. Those people who are outside the marketing boards scheme - the consumer advocates you might say - speak out pretty strongly when they see the costs incurred by producers to get into production because of having to pay for quota. It's something I know the federal government, other provinces, this province, producers and producer boards are concerned about.

Recently, I think, the broiler board put out an order that you had to be involved in production for so long before you could sell that production unit or allow for the transfer; I think it was the broiler board that brought in that order. We can recall Order 67 and the great debates we had over that one. But there is concern - not just concern on the side of the consumer, but also the producer.

MR. STUPICH: I do not know whether the minister is being ignorant on purpose about the farm income assurance programme, but I have just one more word on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, you're back on that again.

MR. STUPICH: I hear a groan, Mr. Chairman.

The five-year term that was first negotiated with the Federation of Agriculture and the commodity groups was for a term certain. It guaranteed the farmers who signed up under these plans voluntarily and it guaranteed the people with whom they were doing business that for five years certain there would be that protection for their income. The minister has announced that the programme will be carried on almost the same as it was before with little change, except for no certain time.

There is no protection now, Mr. Chairman, that this government will not change its mind tomorrow or the next day. There is no protection in the event of an election or any change in administration; there is no contract protection that the plan will be carried on beyond that election date to any certain time. There is no protection for the farmers, no protection for the people with whom they are doing business. That was the reason for the five-year certain.

Mr. Chairman, one of the improvements - if I may use that word - instituted by the NDP administration was to provide a Hansard. That very question was debated at some length in the House. Assurances were given by the NDP administration, by the Minister of Agriculture of the day, that the five-year certain term, in the event that that minister was in a position to do so, would be renegotiated for another five-year period as the first one was expiring. It was the intention, it was the plan and it was the promise of the NDP administration. That was a promise that we were going to keep - not the kind of promises that have been made by the Social Crediters for many years in this province, but a promise that we would keep. We kept all of our promises; we're different that way. That was a promise that would be kept and the farmers knew it would be kept. Unfortunately for them they believed this group during the election campaign when they ran the full-page ad which included a promise not only to maintain the farm income assurance programme but to build on it. I have no more to say on the subject unless the minister persuades me that I must speak again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair-]

I'm a little confused about his comments about the hiring of outside professionals. I'm not sure whether he said that the staff didn't give me adequate advice, which is a criticism of them, and I find that hard to believe. I hope that's not what he meant. The only other way I can read his remarks is that what he was saying to the BCIA is what he thought they would like to hear, and he thought that would be a good political statement to make. That I can believe, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess the member for Nanaimo and I could probably debate all day but, as I guess my wife knows, I always like to get the last word, so I am going to try one more time.

I quote him, because I jotted it down, regarding farm income assurance at the end of the fifth year; "...in the event that the minister was in a position to do so." Well, isn't that a great commitment? How does a far-

[ Page 2148 ]

mer plan past the five years with a statement made like that by the Minister of Agriculture of the day? He indicated by his own words, Mr. Chairman, that there was no more commitment there than the five years that he mentioned earlier.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to go back to something the minister raised much earlier on when he spoke about the fact that in conjunction with the western provinces and the federal minister there had been some progress made in instituting a seasonal import tariff structure. I know this is something the minister has been talking about ever since he was minister. It's something that other ministers have been talking about ever since they were ministers, and I've said every time it's come up that I'm not holding my breath, and I'm still not holding my breath.

I'm interested in the minister's announcement that the federal minister is going to the GATT negotiations in an attempt to negotiate some better tariff arrangements. Certainly all the farmers in British Columbia and in Canada, and all of those who are interested in agriculture, have been concerned about this for a long time. I'm wondering whether or not the minister has told the Premier. I raised this during the Premier's estimates and got no response whatsoever. In the document that the Premier is proclaiming as the economic strategy for Canada - B.C.'s position paper - he talks about a free-trade policy. At the bottom of page 35 he says:

"In support of initiatives towards more liberalized international trade, Canada .should: keep to an absolute minimum any exceptions to tariff cuts which may emerge from GATT negotiations; negotiate forcibly for maximum removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to Canadian firms selling in foreign markets in return for substantial cuts in Canada's trade barriers; undertake bilateral discussions with various countries to augment the modest move toward trade liberalization expected from the GATT discussions.

"In agriculture and other resource-linked sectors it should be possible to move further and more quickly to reduce trade barriers by negotiating on a bilateral basis. Protective policies are not the sole preserve of national governments. Provincial governments also use various techniques to protect local producers, thereby balkanizing what could be an efficiently functioning and freely competitive market across Canada."

It's very interesting that the minister has expressed his support for marketing boards, because the Premier goes on to say: "Among the barriers are preferential purchasing policies, labour practices, marketing boards...." I have great sympathy for the Minister of Agriculture in what he is trying to do, but I have some concerns as to whether or not he is really levelling with the House as to what direction this government is taking when I find the Premier making statements like this. Then the minister makes announcements in his opening remarks, indicating that this is something that is just about to happen. I hope for the sake of Canadian agriculture that he is right. I suggest that what he is saying is a complete contradiction of what the throne speech indicated relative to agriculture and of what the Premier of the province - the First Minister and leader of cabinet - is saying in his statements regarding the tariff situation. I feel that the minister should be able to at least give us some further justification for his assurances and his press statements. He has either got to contradict the Premier's statements or he has got to retract his own, because they are exactly at cross-purposes. I don't understand how a competent, businesslike government - as this government professes to be - can get itself into this kind of position. They are at absolute cross-purposes. One is going out and saying we must start having a free-trade policy, and the first thing we must remove tariffs from are our agricultural and resource products; and we must do away with things like marketing boards and things that restrict free movement. And then the minister gets up and says he supports the concept of marketing boards and that he envisions a programme, with the support of the other western provinces, to introduce import tariffs. I'm at a complete loss as to what direction the government is taking, and I'm wondering whether or not the government itself knows what direction it is taking when we get two ministers making such contradictory statements. I don't know whether the minister is prepared to comment on this particular point at this time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have just one comment regarding the western position on GATT as it affects fruit and vegetables. We do have a response from the federal government recognizing our position and advising that they were taking those recommendations into consideration in their discussions. So we had support. I even have a copy of a letter that has come from the federal government from the Prime Minister's office acknowledging the western provinces' paper on GATT.

[ Page 2149 ]

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, if someone would take the minister's wife to coffee, we'd get beyond this point. Once again, the minister has persuaded me to rise on this question of farm income assurance. May I just say that what the farmers had in 1973 was a contract signed and a promise offered by a minister who proved by word and by action that he truly supported the concept of farm income assurance.

What they have today is a promise, with no certain time, from a minister who has proven on every occasion on which he has spoken on the subject that he does not believe in the concept of farm income assurance. I leave it to the farmers as to which they would prefer.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister, I'm sure, had a delegation from the Peace River to visit him, proposing a Canadian fescue marketing plan. I'm wondering whether or not negotiations are underway on this specific plan, whether or not he is proposing to proceed with such a plan and what the future of the fescue growers will be in the Peace River, because they're certainly at the mercy of a very unreliable means of setting their crop price at the present time because of the small amount of fescue. Trading in future markets is not a very reliable barometer on which to set your price or shape your whole year's activities.

Certainly the case they make for a marketing commission seems to be fairly straightforward. They're not asking anything particularly more or less than other commodity groups have. I'm wondering if this is in the negotiation stage, whether or not the minister is considering some plan with them and just where that whole thing is with the fescue growers.

HON. M. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did meet with the representatives from the Peace River country. They were concerned about a national agency for I think it was creeping red fescue. They are pursuing this matter with the farm products marketing council. As you know, there will have to be hearings held, et cetera, but they are pursuing it. We will be hearing from them further on the matter.

MRS. WALLACE: So it is under active consideration, then.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A national scheme.

MRS. WALLACE: Another subject that I want to speak about is that everybody seems to be in great haste to get rid of this third resource industry.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not me.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not prepared to finish quite yet either, Hr. Minister.

I think we haven't talked about potatoes yet. I think potatoes certainly are something that we should talk about.

We've had a lot of very grave concerns about what has been going on with the Kennebecs in the Fraser Valley and the schemes to give them away to Human Resources recipients and various things. Of course, we can go back a long way into the history of how this situation developed, where we had problems with the Spetifore plant. We had the Spetifore plant closing down, putting 120 people out of work. I was somewhat surprised that while the minister was not prepared to move in to assist the Spetifore plant in any way, one of the main reasons that they were going out of work was because of competition from McCain's who had had federal grants to a great extent. Yet, for whatever reason, the minister decided to let that plant go down. At the same time, he was prepared to put up some minimal funds to assist the growers this year.

Now as I understand it, the potatoes that weren't marketed early on were all cooled and the minister was prepared to give something like $35 or $40 a ton to these producers, regardless of whether the potatoes were given away, used for cow feed or sold actually at the market price. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, this caused some concern. I'm sure you I re aware of this, Mr. Chairman, because it is in your constituency. It caused some concern among the potato growers, who were spending money to store those potatoes, with temperature control and things like this, so they would go on the market rather than having to be on the giveaway programme or the cow feed programme. Still they were going to be included in this pool price of $35 of $45 or whatever the total thing was.

I think that this does not indicate any real concerted concern for those potato farmers. In the first instance, it's not going to suffice even to meet their expenses this year. In the second instance, it was a very poorly set up programme for disposing of the potatoes. The advertising was poor. We had the agency people run ragged simply answering phone calls from recipients of social assistance who thought somehow they could come out and get five pounds of potatoes from the agents.

It caused a great deal of extra work for the agency and it didn't really give the kind of return to the farmer that is necessary. Worse than that, Mr. Chairman, the thing that it didn't do was establish what in the world

[ Page 2150 ]

those farmers are going to do next year, because it's no good growing potatoes if this is going to be the answer.

It is no good trying to put that land into hay or grain crops, because the land is simply too good and expensive for that. It won't bring the kind of return that is required. Potatoes are the crop that can be grown there. What, Mr. Minister, are you proposing to do about a market for those potatoes, or for the future years of those producers?

Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, if my mathematics are anything like correct, I would suggest that the amount of money that you are spending on payments to semi-help these farmers would have been sufficient to cover the interest on the loan that Spetifore wanted -the kind of help that he wanted - for some three or four years. I just don't understand your thinking. You are prepared to give the potatoes away and pay the farmers half the price for them, which is not really of that much help because it's not even meeting their cost of production. It is going to cost you a very similar amount of money to have subsidized a loan which was what Spetifore wanted in the first place. The plant would still have been in production, the potatoes would have been going in there, and everything would have been rolling. Again, the good business management sense that you profess to have, Mr. Minister, certainly escapes me on that one.

HON. MR. HEWITT: For the member's benefit, the Kennebec excess potato production in the Delta area ... because of the Spetifore plant closing, there were approximately 14,000 tons of potatoes contracted and earmarked for the Spetifore plant. I think the credit should mainly go to the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board, because they have sold approximately 10,000 tons of those potatoes. We had a programme in place where agencies could go and get potatoes for people in need, and we disposed of some tonnage that way, but not a big amount. It takes an awful lot of 10-lb. or 50lb. bags to make up a ton of potatoes.

The assistance that will be given to the producers would cover their cash costs. Basically, the returns from the marketplace for the Kennebecs that were sold will go into a pool and that will be their market return. They will get additional dollars covering their cash costs, and they get the difference between their cost of production and the contract price with Spetifore, which is under the farm income assurance programme. They grew those potatoes with a commitment that those potatoes would go to Spetifore's plant, so the shortfall between their cost of production and what Spetifore would have paid them is to be covered by farm income assurance.

I guess I should say that you shouldn't criticize the farmers out there, Madam Member, because they did a tremendous job in trying to market that excess production through the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not criticizing the farmers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to what the farmers do now that the plant is not in production and will not be in production, we have a committee that is made up of members of my ministry, growers, representatives of UBC and Agriculture Canada doing a study trying to determine what crops could be planted there that, again, have market potential.

The problem with the Spetifore plant - and you are well aware of this, Madam Member, because of the research that has been done by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture staff - is that if you took into consideration the production of the Spetifore plant and the new McCain's plant that is earmarked for Manitoba, there is a 60 per cent overproduction in frozen french fries in Canada. So the competition is very keen. I believe one plant in Ontario has closed down and, as I say, the competition is keen and the market is not returning very much to those processors, and they are all in somewhat of a difficulty.

The assistance that we are giving to the growers to cover their cash cost of production - which is shared jointly between the federal and provincial governments - may approximate about $350,000 to $400,000, and that wouldn't even cover the interest on the debt load of the Spetifore plant. According to the calculations that were done by outside consultants, the actual loss per pound was approximately 9 cents. That is, after getting a market return, they were still short about 9 cents a pound on the cost of production.

The amount of money required to assist that plant was to be substantial - far more than the plant may have been eligible for under DREE assistance. On top of that, the competition in the marketplace with 60 per cent potential overproduction of frozen french fries was such that there was going to be a lot more concern by other processors in Canada just because of that overproduction of french fries.

MRS. WALLACE: Our figures agree very well, Mr. Minister. I'm assuming what you are saying is that you're paying for the potatoes that were dumped, that were fed to cattle and

[ Page 2151 ]

everything. You're paying the $35 or $40 in support price. You are going to consider those as sold and income assurance will make up the difference.

On the loan money, what Spetifore was asking for, as I understand it, was a grant or low-interest loan of $3 million, and the $350,000 that you talk about would certainly have covered the interest on that for a year.

We haven't talked about dog control yet, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought that was the member for Esquimalt's (Mr. Kahl's) .

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm certain the member for Esquimalt will come to my assistance.

I have some concern about the tendency of this government - not just this ministry but this government generally - to farm programmes out to local governments without adequate funding to cover them. It seems to be a history that is repeating itself in many areas of this government. Certainly dog control appears to be one of these.

I know the minister talks about it being a people problem and not a farmer problem and things like this, but it's the farmer who is in the bind, Mr. Chairman. It's the farmer's ox that's being gored; it's the farmer's sheep that is being killed by the dog. And because you are the Minister for Agriculture, I hope the minister charged with assisting and protecting and providing leadership to the farm community, I'm concerned that we have now gone three years down the road and we're no further ahead, to the best of my knowledge, in any of the areas than we were three years ago. We're still in the same place. We're still fighting about who is going to pay for it and who is going to do it. In the meantime there are more dogs being shot, which isn't exactly very humane treatment to dogs who are simply doing no harm.

My son was picking berries and his dog went around the end of the berry patch. The sheep farmer next door saw the dog, thought it was alone and shot it. Now that was a bit of a traumatic experience for the dog, I can tell you, and it wasn't exactly the most exciting thing that ever happened to my son either, to have his dog shot right before his eyes.

These are the kinds of things that are happening because farmers are becoming very uptight about this, very concerned. Whenever they see a dog, it's a potential enemy. Because there is no organized form of control for those dogs, the farmer is in effect taking the law into his own hands. I have one farmer in my constituency who says that he's taught all the dogs to read because he's put up a sign: "Dogs will be shot on sight."

I think, Mr. Minister, you can't simply go by your estimates this year without telling us where in the world you are, if you are anywhere, on dog control, and also what you are doing about remuneration. I know we had a bit of a hassle last fall about the amount of money that was being paid. Your ministry was complaining that farmers were charging excessive prices. They were estimating their animals at much too excessive a price.

Well, Mr. Minister, if you ever went around and bought registered breeding stock, you would recognize full well the costs that are involved in those things. When you lose a potential breeder, you're losing a lot more than just the market-value lamb or whatever it happens to be. I'm wondering how that particular facet has been resolved too.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I guess my first response is that dog control is a people problem, but you've already used those words. Really, it's the urban encroachment on the fanning community. The dogs get into the farmyard or into the pasture and cause a problem. I think the responsibility, to a great extent, lies with the regional district. They're there and they're near to the scene.

We haven't resolved the problem. We offered the regional districts a $3,000 - 1 believe it was - start-up grant plus the revenues that they would get from licensing, and only two regional districts in the province have accepted that.

I have asked my staff to review this and see if we can maybe take an approach on it that may be similar to our weed control programme -a matching grant; what they put up, we would match it. We'd have to put limitations on it, but I still maintain that the responsibility should be at the local level. Better administration would be carried out on that basis. They know where their problem areas are and they could deal with them.

I would just say to you that love asked my staff to do a review to see whether we can bring back the regional districts and make the programme acceptable to them, because they're concerned about extra dollars they are going to have to pay out. We think it can be handled by a licensing fee structure, but we may have to give additional assistance to make sure that even if it is a people problem, our farming community is protected as well.

MRS. WALLACE: We talked about dog control. Weed control is a problem that is a similar situation. It's something that you are attemp-

[ Page 2152 ]

ting to farm out to the regional districts or the local municipalities. I don't know that I particularly oppose that, but when you farm something out like that, Mr. Minister, you have to farm a few dollars along with it. I know you have a programme with some dollars involved. I've read the figures, and I've studied them, and I've talked to various local governments about this, but again it is putting too heavy a load on at the local level.

Again you are asking another level of government to do your job for you, because a great deal of the land in this province that is infected by weeds is, in fact, the property of this provincial government. So in many ways you are asking those local governments to take on a responsibility that is rightfully yours. Not only that, but weeds don't know anything about municipal boundaries. They never learned that they were on one side of a municipal boundary or another. You can clean up one municipal area and have the one next door not cleaned up, and you might as well have saved your breath and saved your effort and saved your money. So that's why I have some concerns with making this a strictly municipal or regional kind of programme.

Another reason that I have some concerns about this is the fact that we're involved in a technology here that has lately come in for a lot of question. We are into a technology that we are having to use because we don't have anything better to put in its place. It is a technology that must be used with care and understanding and all the expertise that we can muster. It's also a technology that must be supplemented by advancing biological controls, such as the things that we are doing with knapweed, the tansy ragwort. Things like this have been undertaken, and those things will only be done at the provincial level. You will not get those kinds of experiments being undertaken by regional or municipal governments.

I think, Mr. Minister, you are abdicating your responsibility by simply trying to farm this out and hide it under the blanket and say it is out with the regional districts, because that's not good enough when you've got so much Grown land and so much of it is overlapping. You've got so much of it that it is something that can only be dealt with at the provincial level.

Vote 6 approved.

On vote 7: deputy minister's office, $1,146, 532.

MR. STUPICH: One of the items here is grants to aid university agricultural research. Every year while I was Minister of Agriculture the amount granted to the university to aid agricultural research increased. Every year since, it has remained static. I notice that the total amount for grants has gone down. I wonder if it is proposed that the university grant will remain the same, or will go down, or will increase, or what.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regards to university grants, we are expanding that this year. I believe the figure is $125,000 to the university.

MR. STUPICH: That's what it's been for the last four years.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, and we've added $30,000 to it, making $155,000.

MR. STUPICH: Then what's been cut back?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not too sure. The $30,000, 1 believe, is under the DATE programme, additional funds that.... But it's on that particular project, I believe.

The other one that maybe I could just mention is the weed control programme at the regional district level. We've carried out regional district seminars on weed control. We've expanded that budget - additional grants to required districts - by $165,000 this year.

Vote 7 approved.

On vote 8: general administration, $1,241, 849.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the staff here in the administrative field has increased by some five bodies. I wonder if the minister could explain why we're increasing the bureaucracy, the administration of his ministry in view of the Premier's comments that he is going to cut down at this particular level. We have five new people coming on here in general administration.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, there were five new positions created, but they're transfers from other parts of the ministry, better allocation of staff. Two are transferred from horticultural, one from extension, one from temporary assistance and one from property management. It's a reallocation of staff.

MRS. WALLACE: So what you're telling me, Mr. Minister, is that you're taking people out of

[ Page 2153 ]

the active, productive out of the business of doing and putting them into the administration end of pushing more paper. Is that what you're telling me is happening in your ministry?

HON. MR. HEWITT: These people were previously in secretarial, administrative functions; they're just allocated under the general administration.

Vote 8 approved.

On vote 9: production services, $3,950, 723.

MRS. WALLACE: I really have some concerns here, Mr. Chairman. We've had five people added to administration; now we're into production services and we've got nine people less. What's happening here? We are taking people out of the front and putting them up in head office somewhere. This is concerning me, because this isn't going to make for good results out on the farm where it counts.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've mentioned the five. Some of them have come out of production services, out of extension; we transferred one to the general administration, horticulture; two went to administration; two members, agriculturist 3, were deleted, as they had not been filled for five years. They were shown there as positions but hadn't been filled.

Also an agricultural officer 3 was deleted; it had not been filled for five years, and several others as well. They were positions but nobody was in those positions. I guess from an administrative point of view, it's just more accurately describing the work force in the ministry.

Vote 9 approved.

On vote 10: marketing services, $503,383.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister took great pride in showing us some posters that he had done which were really going to do wonders for the agricultural industry in British Columbia -beautiful posters, beautiful food grown in B.C. It's very interesting to note that in this particular vote he's knocking $20,000 off his budget for marketing services. I'm wondering if he would care to comment on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the total budget figures are $503,000, down from $532,000. If you look at the professional and special services, there's $20,000 there, and the salaries under temporary have had a reduction there. But it doesn't say that we're not doing a better job and better allocation of funds. Those were last year's estimates. I don't know whether my staff here can tell me the exact expenditures that we had in the....

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Minister, I'm looking under the activity where it talks about British Columbia food promotion, down from $339,000 to $305,000. It's more than $20,000 actually. Your promotion programme was a programme which you told us you were going to in-crease. it's a great act if you can do it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well again, Mr. Chairman, it's looking at the expenditures we had last year under professional and special services. Under marketing services we spent about $89,000. That is a reduction because we had budgeted, I think, $110,000 and we actually spent $89,000. So we've reduced our budget for this year.

Vote 10 approved.

On vote 11: general and financial services, $57,893, 907

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote where we get to talk about farm income assurance. With respect to the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, I wonder if the minister can tell me what activity there has been in the past year. In particular, I would like to ask what if anything has happened to the 10K Poultry Ltd., complete control of which was acquired by the government during the past year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you want to ask another question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 11, the member for Nanaimo ad libs.

MR. STUPICH: Let's see what else this covers. I will ad lib - if you like - about the interior poultry plant. For many years there has been a move to get a poultry processing plant established in the interior of the province. A good deal of the market for chicken depends upon the fresh market. It just hasn't been possible to relocate any of the chicken production - that is, the growing of the beasts - from the Fraser Valley area to the interior of the province, because there hasn't been any processing facility in the interior of the province.

One producer did move into the interior of the province and did establish there. He did

[ Page 2154 ]

believe he had the support of the Broiler Marketing Board, that they were going to assist him in the costs of moving the live birds back down to the coast to be processed. For; a little while it worked, but it didn't last very long. A-11 the time he was up there he was hoping that there would be somebody who would start a poultry processing plant. At one time, he hoped to get one established himself. The Broiler Marketing Board were something less than co-operative in this effort to relocate production to the interior that would justify the establishment of a processing plant.

Is the minister now ready to answer the question?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciated your comments on chicken processing in the interior.

As you know, the government holds all the shares in 10K. We had a company that was interested in the equipment that was purchased and is held in storage. Just recently they declined. They were looking at opening a processing plant in the interior. It's still a possibility; but right now it sits as a company, with the government holding shares and equipment in storage. Hopefully we will be able to sell that equipment to a processor who would like to set up in the interior, because you are quite correct: there is a market in that part of British Columbia - Okanagan, Kootenays - that could be served by an interior processing plant.

In regards to the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, there have been some grants made under that Act; but most assistance in regards to helping such organizations as the Kelowna Growers' Go-operative and a few of the other ones has come through the ARDA programmes.

We have made grants under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act for the interior Vegetable Marketing Board. As you recall, they had some problems last year with the studies on the Spetifore plant, looking to see whether or not we could be of assistance there.

MR. STUPICH: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, if I heard the minister correctly, the government has absolutely no intention of doing anything about an interior poultry processing plant other than to wait for somebody to come along and buy the equipment. I think that's what the minister said. There's not going to be any initiative on the part of the government.

MRS. WALLACE: The deputy was good enough last August to send me a list of all the ARDA projects that are undertaken through the ministry. It's been interesting to note the type of commitments and the amounts of money and so on. It's a bit of a shocker to find a plant like that interior poultry processing plant is not one of the ones that is included here when we have such a variety of items under development. We're developing Sun-Rype. We're doing things for Sun-Rype, the Kelowna Co-op, B.C. livestock, various kinds of projects - not just all soil and water. I was pleased to see the kind of scope of those projects. But I just can't understand why that interior poultry plant isn't under there.

The other thing that I wanted to ask about very specifically ums Item 89117, which was the beef industry study, and you had committed $120,000. You had estimated an $80,000 expenditure by March 31,1978. In February, 1978, 1 received a copy of the ARDA interim report for that project. I'm wondering if this report represents the $80,000, or if there was something else done. If there was something else done, what was it and, if not, what is the minister proposing to use the other $80,000 for? Is he going to implement some terms of this report? What is the next step?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the report the member refers to is the interim report by Dr. McEachern. Is that correct?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: There are further reports to be carried on. My staff just can't tell me the total expenditure we have made on that beef study, but it isn't completed. There will be additional dollars that, of course, will be expended this year.

Some of the projects under ARDA that we carried out, which some of the members might be interested in, are the seed-cleaning plant in Fort St. John - $150,000; the Sun-Rype extension in Kelowna - $100,000; we are in the process of bringing three abattoirs up to federal standards - $400,000; expansion of the B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op - $264,000; and, I guess, the Kelowna Growers Co-op - $300,000. Those are areas where we can use these dollars, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, to help the industry help itself. It's getting beyond just irrigation; it's getting into value-added processing plants.

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: specialist and regulatory services, $4,351, 768.

MRS. WALLACE: You were so quick on the draw,

[ Page 2155 ]

Mr. Chairman, that I missed one point I wanted to raise under the minister's vote. I think I can sneak it in here because I see it talks about plant disease. I've been a bit concerned about some of the orders-in-council and news releases that have been coming out under the new Plant Protection Art. When I supported that Act in this House last year on one quick afternoon between select standing committee meetings, I thought that we were into a good programme, and I'm not sure that we are not into a good programme.

It seems from the orders-in-council and from the bits and pieces I'm gleaning from around my constituency, about all it is amounting to now is a $5 charge for every small nursery all around this province. I'm concerned about these people who are already not making any great fortunes and who certainly are not privy to any farm income assurance scheme or similar thing. The major thrust of this Act to date is simply a $5 licence fee for every nursery and trying to get them to register. This is of concern to me. I hope that there is some value in their registration and that they are going to get some value for dollars paid out in registering. What is it going to do that will be beneficial to those nurseries, rather than simply just something that is going to make it more difficult for them not only with more paperwork but added actual dollar cost?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I guess you could argue that the $5 licence fee is an additional cost, but I don't think it is a large cost to be borne by the nurseries. The registry aspect of it is to record for their own protection and have inspections in regard to disease of plants. It is a protection for them as well as a protection for their customers, and I don't see that the $5 fee would seriously jeopardize a nursery operation.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's a point that I guess we will only find out as the Act progresses and its enforcement and so on has been carried out.

Another question on this vote is something that has been touched on before. But on the second page of the vote it talks about professional and special services, and we see a whopping increase - one of the very few, so it stands out like a sore thumb - of some $300,000 on this professional and special services. I'm wondering if this is covering the kind of things that the minister was talking about in answer to the member for Nanaimo. I don't think either the member for Nanaimo or myself really fully understood just what he was saying, so perhaps he could be a little more articulate at this particular point in time as to how he is proposing to spend that $300,000 on special services and why we've gone into such a big sum in this kind of service.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the increase is regarding the funding of the meat inspection programme which, of course, has been turned over for federal meat inspection. There is a cost incurred there, but at the same time the provincial meat inspection staff.... Most of them have gone with the federal meat inspection and others have been reallocated, so it's just taking, you might say, from staff salaries and putting it in as "fee for service."

Vote 12 approved.

Vote [3: Milk Board, $203,671 - approved.

Vote [4: building occupancy charges, $2,437, 855 - approved.

On vote [5: computer and consulting charges, $221,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a heart, Barb!

MRS. WALLACE: This is the last one.

Just a very quick one on this one, Mr. Minister. I'm wondering whether or not to anticipate any change in this figure as a result of the new programmes that are going to be put on stream from the select standing com-mittee. I am assuming that those cost figures and computerized data and so on that we're collecting will be put into the Systems Corporation. I'm wondering whether or not you're anticipating any increase in that cost. If not, does this mean you're not expecting that to get in there until the end of this year?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You said it; I didn't.

No, it's not included in that figure, but I think by the time the reports come in and staff have an opportunity to review and and lyse it, what is to be used by my ministry will certainly be in next year's budget.

Vote 15 approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $3,997, 588.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised to hear vote I coming up at this stage, and I'm wondering if the minister responsible

[ Page 2156 ]

for vote 1 is not prepared to say anything to us before we proceed with vote 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no minister responsible for vote 1, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Is there no comment going to be made on vote I?

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) has anything to say about this vote. He didn't circulate the usual confidential memorandum about how the money was to be spent, or the odd whisper or rumour over a coffee cup. I might have an objection. I was only invited once to lunch with the Speaker this session, and the sherry was local.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do rise and stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion is out of order in that it says that the House "shall" rise and stand adjourned. The motion should be: "The House at its rising...."

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the wording was a little irregular; however the intent was the same.

MR. LAUK: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, that member has been a member here for the last 75 years (laughter) , and he doesn't know how to move a motion, that gives you an idea of the qualify of the front bench over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, after careful review of the orders, there is a suggested wordage for these various motions. However, slight variations do occur from time to time, and they are welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member raises an objection, and I think he could do that under vote 1.

Hon. Mr. Chabot moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.