[ Page 2235 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2236

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2236

Mr. Cocke –– 2240

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2242

Ms. Sanford –– 2243

Mr. Passarell –– 2244

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2245

Ms. Brown –– 2246

Mrs. Wallace –– 2248

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2248

Ms. Brown –– 2249

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2249

Mrs. Wallace –– 2249

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2250

Ms. Brown –– 2250

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2250

Mrs. Wallace –– 2250

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2251

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Members of the House will be interested to know that in our visitors' gallery this morning are some visitors with the inquiry team of the Bureau of International Exhibitions, who have spent this past week in Vancouver and Victoria exploring this province's bid to acquiring Transpo '86, a world exposition on transportation for 1986. We've had very exhaustive meetings with this group, and I'd like to introduce to the members their chairman, Dr. Cort Van der Linden, Madame Marie-Helene Defrene, and Mr. Andrzej Horoszkiewicz from Warsaw. With them, attending as an observer, is the president of the BIE from London, Mr. Patrick Reid. Also in attendance with the group, representing British Columbia and the federal government and attending these meetings this week, are Mr. Mike Hillman, Mr. Paul Manning, Mr. John Powle from External Affairs in Ottawa and Mr. King Cole from Spokane. I might say that I understand the Premier has invited this group to meet him in his office shortly after the opening of the House today, and he will be happy to receive them at that time. I'd like the members to welcome these folks to British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: Later today there will be visiting from one of the more romantic places in Cowichan-Malahat, a spot called Honeymoon Bay, two groups of school children who are visiting from their school at Honeymoon Bay. One will be here at 10 o'clock and the other at 1 o'clock, along with their teachers, Mr. May and Mr. Lloyd. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence at this point for another lengthy introduction. But I think that the reason for the length will be apparent in just a moment. As you know, at the Colonial Conference held in 1902, the Canadian delegation, unlike other parts of the British Empire of the day, stated that Canada did not wish to continue supplying men and money to the Royal Navy but preferred the establishment of a local naval force in the waters of Canada. It is also a matter of history that this decision was a political hot potato, as the Liberals and Conservatives then held widely divergent views on an imperial navy.

However, by 1909 both parties agreed to a resolution calling for "the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in cooperation with and in close relation to the imperial navy." This led to the Naval Service Act of 1910, which passed on April 20 of that year, just over 70 years ago. Thus, when war broke out in 1914, Canada's navy had not been long in existence and it possessed only two old cruisers, one on each coast. However, in the 1939-45 war the part played by the Royal Canadian Navy was greatly extended. In September 1939, Mr. Speaker, the task was given to the Canadian navy to protect shipping against mine and submarine attacks in home waters and to assist the Royal Navy in keeping sea communications clear of enemy warships. None of us will forget the valiant manner in which the Royal Canadian Navy conducted itself during the Battle of the Atlantic. Mr. Speaker, it is a proud history. Seventy years of the Royal Canadian Navy is actually marked in some two or three days from now.

It's of great importance to the city, to the province and to the country, and we have special guests with us in the gallery to help mark the occasion: Rear Admiral (ret.) James Hibbard DSC CD, and Mrs. Hibbard; Rear Admiral M.A. Martin CD, Commander, Maritime Forces Pacific, and Mrs. Martin; Captain C.H.P. Shaw CD, Base Commander, CFB Esquimalt, and Mrs. Shaw; Chief Petty Officer C. A. McKerracher CD, Deputy Command Chief Petty Officer, and Mrs. McKerracher; and Leading Seaman J.D.F. Gelinas, a radar plotter on board HMCS Kootenay, and Mrs. Gelinas.

On the seventieth anniversary, sir, of the founding of the Royal Canadian Navy, would the House make our special guests welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Finance for the excellent introduction and recognition of the role played in Canadian unity by the Esquimalt forces base, and to remind all Canadians and. British Columbians that we had a major part to play in the formation of the Royal Canadian Navy. In 1913 the British Columbia government took the initiative to buy the first two submarines for Canada, to be used in the First World War. It was British Columbia again leading the way in Canadian unity, leading to the development of the Royal Canadian Navy before Ottawa made the move.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, in continuing with this debate, the British Columbia government did in fact buy two submarines in 1913, and when war broke out in 1914 they acquired a mother ship. My grandfather's yacht was commandeered by the British Columbia government and spent four or five years before he returned to Coal Harbour at the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club and finished his stay. Let the record show that the Rainbow and the Niobe were the number one and number two vessels, and the Aquillo was the third-largest ship in the Canadian Navy in World War I.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I can't let the Minister of Environment outdo me. I want to put on the record that my father served on one of those first Canadian submarines.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, as the reminiscing proceeds, I rise in my place to introduce a good friend. But before I do so, inasmuch as it seems to be popular to reminisce, let me reminisce a little.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were there, George.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was the captain.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, that's true — the captain.

As a matter of fact, somebody played a great part in the First World War in the area of Prince Rupert. But it wasn't our submarines; it was the German submarines. At one time the word was out that a German submarine was lurking off Prince Rupert, my home town. At that time in Prince Rupert a great concern was: what were they after? They were after coal for the mother ship, the Scharnhorst, which was also off the coast. That night we felt they were going to come in and blow up the whole town; we were going to be torn to pieces by the Scharnhorst. Word got out, and every able-bodied man that could wield a shovel went down to the docks of

[ Page 2236 ]

Prince Rupert and shovelled every bit of coal into the harbour.

That's a true story. These are the stories of war — the Scharnhorst and the German submarines. That is the reason we bought our submarines, so we could meet them submarine to submarine. The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) probably knows the story.

I want to introduce a good friend who has been here for two days, Mr. Keith Routley. He is a barrister and solicitor in Pitt Meadows and a very active member of the community. I just think the most important people are not the great leaders, nor the admirals and captains of industry, but the little guys who do the job in the trenches — like us. [Laughter.] I ask you to welcome Mr. Keith Routley of Pitt Meadows.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in this morning of joy, I ask you to welcome a distinguished visitor to our gallery, Mrs. Shirley Henry, the mayor of Pemberton, British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before going into Committee of Supply it might be appropriate to bid special welcome to any of those members in the gallery who have not yet been welcomed.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $129,448.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, we're back in agriculture today in spite of the fact we heard last night that we were going to be discussing the Premier's estimates again today. That's fine. I'm really pleased at the opportunity to continue these discussions with the Minister of Agriculture.

I think today I would like to begin by directing some questions to the minister relative to the Farm Income Assurance Program. I know that the minister and I have a different concept of just what that Farm Income Assurance Program is all about. The minister has said publicly that while he is committed to farm income assurance, it should only be applicable to those products which are presently viable or can be viable in the immediate future. On the other hand it's a scheme whereby the humps level out the dips. My concept of the farm income assurance scheme is that it was in fact a companion piece of legislation to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. When the farmers where asked to forgo any windfall profits by selling their land for subdivision, they were assured by the government of the day that along with that program would come a scheme whereby the farming industry could become viable — that it could be an industry that would give a fair return for the effort involved and the moneys expended.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this minister is taking a different tack when he removes the farm income assurance from those commodities which are covered by a federal scheme, for example. He has said: "Well, if anything happens there — if there is some time lag that the correction could be made by an ad hoc arrangement...." But it takes away the security from the farmer when that kind of an arrangement is put in place. I'm particularly concerned about his comments relative to removing from eligibility for farm income assurance some of those crops which do not look to be viable in the next decade. There are several of them: sheep is probably one; strawberries; potatoes is the one that I'm really concerned about, because potatoes represent an income to a great many farmers in the Fraser Valley who are protecting some of our best agricultural land in British Columbia for future generations. Potatoes are really the only crop which can be grown with any degree of success or opportunity for sale at this point in time; potatoes and perhaps grain — and that, of course, is another story.

If in fact the Farm Income Assurance Program is withdrawn from the potato producers in the Fraser Valley, those producers are going to face an impossible situation. They are not going to be able to continue their farm operation without farm income assurance support. If that happens there is going to be a pressure put on agricultural land that goes right back to the pre-land-reserve days. The minister could relieve a lot of anxious hearts today if he would stand in this House and give complete and unequivocal assurance that he has no intention of withdrawing farm income assurance benefits from those farmers who are producing crops such as potatoes or sheep.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a hot potato.

MRS. WALLACE: You're quite right, Mr. Member. It may be a hot potato for the minister, but I would like him to stand up and tell us whether or not he has any intention of withdrawing the farm income assurance benefits from that particular group of crops.

The minister does not wish to rise, Mr. Chairman. He signalled to me that he doesn't want me to.... He's going to answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was just giving the member the opportunity to ask a number of questions which I would respond to at one time. However, she's given me the opportunity to stand, and at this time I would like to introduce a lady, with leave, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today there happens to be a very lovely lady who is the secretary of my deputy minister, Esther Brown. This lady has guided my deputy minister for a number of years, kept him out of hot water, solved his problems for him, made sure he's on time, and on top of that she's given me a great deal of guidance. I'd just like to say hello to Esther, and I wish everybody would welcome her here this morning.

In regard to the member's comments, first of all about farm income assurance for supply management commodities.... The farm income assurance doesn't apply to such commodities as dairy products, eggs or turkeys. The reason for that is that there is a security in the supply management system, the marketing board system, which is covered by a national supply management scheme, where they have protection against imports coming across the border. They have the ability to control production so that the supply, in theory, meets the demand. Sometimes they don't hit the mark, but it does give them a basis of control of supply so the market fluctuation of price doesn't go up and

[ Page 2237 ]

down because you have excess supplies or you have too little supplies. There is a benefit in there for the consumer to get a constant supply of the commodity. That supply management system does give security to those commodities that fall within the scope of supply management, i.e. the milk industry, dairy industry, egg industry and turkey industry.

In regards to the potato farm income assurance, the Farm Income Assurance Program for potatoes is in effect in 1979. It comes up for renewal in 1980. I can advise the member that my staff have not received a request for a renewal of the Farm Income Assurance Program for potatoes as of this date, but I can assure the member that that request for renewal will, I think, be forthcoming quite shortly. However, we have not received it as yet.

The sheep plan is also in place and has another year to run. I believe the last year for it is 1980, for which the benefits would be paid in 1981.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister would be good enough to tell the House whether or not he or his ministry have made any overtures to the farm community relative to the withdrawal of the farm income assurance scheme from those particular commodities such as sheep and potatoes. Has he or his ministry made any overtures to the farm community suggesting the possible withdrawal of the farm income assurance from those commodities?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is referring to a letter that went from my staff to the staff of the Federation of Agriculture, suggesting a brainstorming session — I think that was the word — concerning some of the commodities that the member has named, and other commodities, and what approach could be taken.

I would just like to stress that fact, because I know that that correspondence raised some concern at the Federation of Agriculture level. I have since then met with the executive of the federation on other matters, but we touched on this particular bit of correspondence, and it was a matter of staff discussing possible alternatives, better approaches to commodities. It was strictly a brainstorming session, with no intention on the part of my staff to alarm the industry. I think that it has been fully explained to the federation people and to the commodity groups involved that it was strictly to keep current with the programs and to have the opportunity of staff-to-staff meetings to ensure that we are providing the best type of service and programs we can to the members of the various commodity groups in this province.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to feel that he has assured the farm community that things are all well with the Farm Income Assurance Program, but that certainly is not the vibes that I get from the farm community. The vibes that I'm getting are that there is a great deal of concern about just how great a commitment this particular government has to the continuation of the Farm Income Assurance Program. Along that line I would ask the minister why — and it's a different subject entirely — there was an assurance given, when the minister first became a full-time Minister of Agriculture again, that he was prepared to sit down and negotiate and get that B.C. tree fruits farm income assurance scheme worked out and in place. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that that has not happened, that negotiations have dragged on at a desperately slow pace, that there is still no resolution, and that, in fact, the whole thing is deadlocked. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that particular facet of the scheme.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure, when the member mentions the vibes she is receiving from the industry.... My meeting with the Federation of Agriculture executive was as recent as last Monday and we did discuss a number of issues, one being the letter that I mentioned a few minutes ago.

In regard to B.C. tree fruits farm income assurance, I concur wholeheartedly with the member that consultation has dragged on and on and on. We seem to have reached somewhat of an impasse. However, I can tell the member that the staff of my ministry and staff of the Federation of Agriculture and, I believe, the commodity people involved will be having some meetings. But I would advise the member that at some point in time. In order for the orchardists to have protection in place, if we can't resolve the issue through consultation — which we have certainly attempted to do over the years that I have been minister; I have always had the door open and have had good discussion with all commodity groups — the minister has that responsibility and that right to put a program in place for the benefit of the producers, as opposed to having a stalemate at the discussion table.

I am hopeful that we will resolve the issue on the B.C. treefruits on a consultative basis, but I can advise the member that I informed the president of the BCFGA that I do not feel that we can delay this matter any longer, and that I am prepared to put a program in place in order that the producers can be assured of what that program is, what the benefits are, and that assistance is forthcoming should they need it.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, that sounds like great negotiations — where the ministry staff negotiates with the grower and if the grower doesn't agree the minister puts the thing in place. There's not too much room for consultation in that kind of setup, and I am wondering why the impasse. Is it that all of a sudden, after negotiations over the years and agreement in the past, the treefruit growers are asking for a whole lot more? Is that why it's at an impasse? Or is it at am impasse because all of a sudden this minister and this ministry and this government have decided that the B.C. treefruit growers don't deserve a fair and equitable return as far as farm income assurance goes?

Is that what the impasse is all about, Mr. Chairman? Is that why they can't agree? Is that why that minister is going to have to force his will on those fruit growers without giving them a chance to have the fair kind of return that they need? There again, if those growers do not have a fair return, they're going to go out of business. The whole infrastructure that serves that agricultural industry is going to run at an inefficient level, because there won't be enough fruit. There is going to be more pressure on that orchard land, and it's the only orchard land that we have in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. That's part of the reason that I am so concerned about the stance of this particular Ministry of Agriculture. They're viewing this as a sort of a dollars-and-cents thing. Is the minister really going to make his mark in history by saving money on the backs of the farmers? That appears to be what's happening with the B.C. treefruit growers farm income assurance scheme. It seems to be what is happening with the possible cutbacks relative to this so-called "unviable product. "It's a whole different concept, Mr. Chairman. For the minister to stand and tell this House and the farming

[ Page 2238 ]

community of British Columbia that he has a commitment to agriculture and then take this kind of stance relative to the one most important program in the whole arena of agricultural programs, leaves me with some very grave questions about that minister's commitment to the future of agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn to another subject of grave concern to the farmers, and it is the interest rebate program. I've had some very interesting correspondence from many of the members of the farm community. In one in particular, Mr. Chairman, there were several groups that banded together and wrote the minister a similar letter. I received a copy, as the minister knows. I think it might be worthwhile reading it into the Journals of the House. It's addressed to Mr. Hewitt. It's from Salmon Arm, and this particular letter is written March 15:

"The Kamloops-Okanagan Dairymen's Association must speak out against our government's continuing efforts to downgrade agriculture's economic priority in this province. There are three pieces of legislation fundamental to agriculture in B.C. All three have been battered almost beyond their original intended function.

"The former Land Commission chairman resigned in utter frustration at the constant political undermining of the commission's effort. The Farm Income Assurance Act, which was intended to make farming viable in those commodities not covered by a supply management system, was the target of the last term of office and owes its continued existence to the concerted effort of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

"Now the Agricultural Credit Act, whose intent was to cushion interest reimbursement to farm borrowers and at the same time encourage younger farmers into the industry, has come under the same misguided axe at a time when the government is boasting revenue surpluses of more than $353 million and handing out substantial budget increases to virtually every ministry.

"Agriculture is a capital-intensive industry. Farmers are forced to adapt to changing technology to retain efficiency. Most of our equipment is purchased from the price-escalating U.S. economy using discounted Canadian dollars. Capital requirements have never been greater. Farmers starting out, expanding or updating facilities have committed themselves to interest payments which are climbing faster than could have reasonably been expected. Now, just when the crunch is at its peak, our government, who give lip-service to achieving 65 percent self sufficiency in food production in the short term, cut the legs from under the very farmers who are the substance of such growth.

"Further, how can the government reconcile the position of limiting return on investment to 7 or 8 percent in the Farm Income Assurance Program while raising the rates farmers must pay for borrowed money? Many of these producers will not survive. One thing is certain: investment and growth will be drastically reduced as bona fide farmers find it impossible to borrow money at newly prescribed interest levels.

"Hobby farmers operating under tax shelters will be among the few willing to pay the high enough rates to benefit from the revised scheme. The net result will be that the Ministry of Agriculture will save money for the government, as many present loans will fall below the new benchmark levels and future borrowing will be greatly reduced.

"Will you, Mr. Hewitt, regard this saving as a feather in your ministerial cap, or will you stake your integrity and your portfolio on making significant progress towards your publicly stated self-sufficiency objective?

"Our organization feels strongly that the government should give agriculture some of its deserved priority by restoring the power of the Land Commission, supporting the income assurance program through the fulfilment of its objective, and reinsituting the Agricultural Credit Act benchmark to a level not higher than 9 percent.

"The small land base remaining in B.C.is at a minimum to support viable processing facilities. Economic growth in agriculture must have a much higher — not lower — priority to keep farmland from falling even easier prey to affluent land developers who are gradually taking over our business.

"Yours very truly,
"Ken McLeod,
"Secretary,
"Kamloops-Okanagan
Dairymen's Association."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think there is great truth in the words which Mr. McLeod has written, and he has put it very well. For the minister to tell this House that he has met with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture as recently as Monday and that all is rosy in the garden is not exactly the case, Mr. Chairman. I have met and spoken with representatives of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture more recently than last Monday, and they are not very happy with the results of that meeting. Certainly that is the reading which I get from my contacts in the Federation of Agriculture. It's unfortunate that they have to come to me and tell me that, because I'm sure they would like to work with that minister.

The farm community is historically a community philosophically in line with the concepts of the Social Credit government. It's difficult for them to recognize or to have to admit that the New Democratic Party, which they believe stands for a philosophy foreign to their ideologies, is committed to programs and policies which are in the best interests of the agricultural community, while the party which they have historically supported seems to give them very short shrift.

Returning specifically to the interest rebate program, we've spoken about the TIDSA program, which rebates to half of prime; we've spoken about the commitment that the very short-term Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Shelford, made to 9 percent; and we've spoken in this House about the average range which that program had been set at when it was first instituted by the New Democratic Party. Now the minister has come out with a policy, and he's been very adamant about that policy. He has said on repeated occasions that he's not going to retract that policy of 2 percent or 1 percent below prime interest rebate for farmers. He's written letters — and I have copies of some of those letters — to say: "Look. Yes,

[ Page 2239 ]

it's tough. You people are going to have to reconsider and not expand; you're going to have to move a little slower." That's bad enough, but what happens to the people who took this particular piece of legislation on good faith, made the investment and are now there with those kinds of borrowings — are responsible for paying the interest on those borrowings — based on the concept that they were going to be rebated to 8 or 9 percent?

I have one farmer, a dairyman, in my constituency who has invested.... Some are fixed-interest loans, which are okay, but they have one loan for $400,000 with a floating interest rate. The reason is that the family had three boys who wanted to go into agriculture — new, young farmers, which that minister says he is committed to helping get into business. So they went into debt. They built a beautiful big, new barn, expanded their herd and borrowed money on the concept that the interest would be refunded to a rate in the vicinity of 8 or 9 percent. They did their calculations on the basis of the return they would get for that investment. Suddenly here is that family faced with something like an additional 5, 6 or 7 percent interest which they're going to have to pay on a $400,000 loan, and it's not possible to meet it.

I have some very grave concerns as to just how much real interest the Minister of Agriculture has in the farm community when he will impose that kind of arbitrary change on the community which is trying to do as he asks. They are trying to increase self-sufficiency, trying to get young farmers involved, and then he hits them with something like a 1 or 2 percent below prime. It's beyond me to grasp just how that minister thinks or how he functions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A lot of things are beyond you.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, thank goodness it is beyond me to grasp that kind of a concept relative to agriculture, Mr. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. It is beyond me to grasp that kind of concept because it is completely foreign to anything that I believe in or stand for.

Mr. Chairman, I really don't expect an answer from the minister on that interest thing. If he wants to get up and tell me all the dollars he's going to spend and how he's committed to this, that's fine, but he's told us that many times before. If he'd like to get up and tell me he's going to change his mind, I'd certainly be very glad to yield to him the floor.

I would think that the minister might be interested — and maybe he's aware — of some of the things that are happening. We've been talking about a dairyman who has this kind of investment and who is faced now with an impossible financial situation. I would like to refer to an advertisement that appeared in Country Life some little time ago. It was an advertisement for dairy farmers, and do you know where those dairy farmers were wanted, Mr. Chairman? Not here in B.C. They were advertising here in B.C. for dairy farmers to go to Saskatchewan. They needed dairy farmers in Saskatchewan.

In Saskatchewan, Mr. Chairman, there is what is known as the Farm Start program, which makes money available to young farmers. They are in a situation in Saskatchewan where their market is growing faster than their production and they are looking for farmers to fill the bill. They tried locally and got several farmers within Saskatchewan, but they found that they still needed more dairymen to get themselves involved in the industry to meet their allowed production. So they advertised in British Columbia. I read the ad with much interest and then I heard that a representative from the Saskatchewan government was going to be present in Nanaimo to interview farmers, so I made it my business to have a representative there to see what was going on. They had a great number of young B.C. farmers come into Nanaimo from all over Vancouver Island to look into those possibilities.

One of the sons of the family I spoke of who are faced with this $400,000 loan is going to leave. They are going to have to reduce their operation because they can't face that loan. He has applied to go back to Saskatchewan, where there is no charge for quota — the provincial government has maintained the control of quotas so there is no charge for quota — and where the funds are available through the provincial and federal government programs for that young farmer to start. He is going back and he is going into business in Saskatchewan as a dairyman and leaving this province. He is one of several, Mr. Chairman. There are two from my constituency. There are some 12 farmers on Vancouver Island who are in active negotiation to move to Saskatchewan to go into the dairy business. This is a pretty sad commentary, Mr. Chairman, on the abilities of this government and this minister to provide a viable climate for agricultural industry in the province of British Columbia.

I have some very grave concerns about a minister who allows his portfolio to be so insignificant as to allow this kind of thing to happen in British Columbia and to force these young farmers to leave the province in order to have an opportunity to get themselves involved in the dairy industry. Perhaps the minister is prepared to comment. Perhaps he has some answers. Perhaps there are some reasons why this is happening. Perhaps he has attempted to correct this or is going to attempt to correct it. Would he care to enter the debate at this point?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat still has the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you. I was giving the minister an opportunity, but he says to carry on. Obviously he's not going to do anything about this high interest rate. Obviously he's not going to do anything about the Farm Income Assurance Program except make it less effective.

Those are the directions the minister is going. He doesn't seem to be prepared to stand up and assure the House that he has the kind of commitment that will make that farm income assurance scheme viable. He is not prepared to stand up and tell the House that he will reconsider his interest decisions. I don't know what he is prepared to tell the House except that he is doing great and every agricultural community is happy. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not likely to be the case with the cutbacks he has instituted in the program. The farmer's net income, as I mentioned yesterday, and even the minister agreed, has been reduced drastically every year. His expenses have far exceeded his increases in income and continually outstripped his increased income.

Inflation is eating up the farm community within British Columbia and the minister is sitting idly by watching it happen. He is in a situation where young farm people are having to leave the province in order to get into business. Surely the minister would have some comment on that particular aspect of what's happening. If not, we can only

[ Page 2240 ]

assume that that is the status quo as far as he is concerned and that he is not prepared to take any steps to prevent these kinds of things happening. If that is the case, and unless the minister gets up and gives me some answers, I simply have to continue with this particular line of questioning.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in regard to some of the questions that were raised by the member, I'd like to go back to the B.C. treefruit Farm Income Assurance Program. The member implied that we were invoking something without proper consultation. I just want to mention that there have been ongoing discussions with the B.C. treefruit people for six months. There have been discussions, and we have taken a second and third look to try and determine adjustments or amendments to the cost-of-production formula. So I wouldn't want to leave this House with the impression that the consultation process wasn't carried out.

The main outstanding issue is that of yield: what does the model farm or orchard produce in the way of crop? After analyzing the growers' records of their returns, some adjustment was suggested in the amount of yields to make the formula more accurately reflect a model farm operation. I could say to the member that we are having a meeting, as I mentioned earlier. My staff are meeting one more time to go over this matter again.

There is a difference that the member probably doesn't want to mention, or maybe she doesn't realize it. About one-third of the treefruit crop in British Columbia is produced in my riding. To take the approach that the official opposition did many times during their term of office — not in agriculture specifically, but in other areas — that it is a case of serving the community that they are dealing with in order to perpetuate themselves in office.... I would suggest to the member that that doesn't work and that isn't what the people out there want. They want a responsible government dealing in a responsible way with the taxpayers' money and the public purse.

We have these negotiations or consultations in an attempt to come up with an agreement. In the end, if those fail to provide the services and programs to the producer who works out in the field, at some point in time I have to put that program into place — in all fairness to those people, not at the bargaining table, but those people who work in the field and produce the crop.

In regard to treefruits, the member is probably aware that over the past few years the treefruit crop in this province has gotten a good market return. It has not called upon the Farm Income Assurance Program to any great extent, and it is one of our major export crops. I believe about 50 percent of the apples produced in the Okanagan are exported, and they certainly contribute a great deal to the economic benefit of this province.

The Interest Reimbursement Program. I can only mention that in 1978, which we paid in 1979, the amount came to $8.2 million under the Interest Reimbursement Program. For the year 1979 we established that rate at 9 percent. As a matter of fact — I'm not sure whether he's here, but he was in the gallery a few minutes ago — Mr. Cyril Shelford, who made that commitment to the farm community that we would pay the 9 percent.... We attempt to advise them in advance. Interest rates escalated, and the cost to us in living up to that commitment in 1980 for the 1979 year will be approximately $22 million. A sizeable part of my budget will be going into that program.

She mentions cutbacks and she refers to the letter that was written by Mr. Ken McLeod from Salmon Arm. I don't see a budget increase from $55 million to $71 million for the year 1980-81 as a reduction of government programs or assistance to the farm community. I believe there are only three provinces in Canada that have an Interest Reimbursement Program. Alberta has one for their Beginning Farmer Program, and the only other two are British Columbia and New Brunswick. So if nothing else I would say that we're among the leaders. I would almost hazard a guess that our program is second to none in this province, although I do not know the details of the New Brunswick program.

In regards to the dairyman that the member mentions whose son, I believe, has gone to Saskatchewan or is going to go to Saskatchewan to take up a dairy farm there, she's fully aware, as I am, that the Milk Board formula that's in place for the milk industry is adjusted to take care of increases in costs of production for the dairy industry.

I'll leave my comments with a question to the member. She mentioned that the reason this chap was going to Saskatchewan to take up a dairy operation there was because there was no charge for quota in Saskatchewan; they didn't have to pay for quota in Saskatchewan. I just ask the member whether she's in agreement with removing the value of quota. If she is she's certainly changed her mind from the debates that we've had in the past in the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. It seemed to me that she was implying that she wanted to remove the value on quota.

MR. COCKE: How very fortunate for those treefruit people in the Okanagan that the Minister of Agriculture, responsible for their well-being, recognizes the fact that a third of the crop comes from his area. Then he went on to charge vaguely that one of the reasons we were working with these people was to perpetuate ourselves in office.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're one of my constituents.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have some property up there.

His predecessor was also Social Credit, and his predecessor was Social Credit. I don't think really that we would have paid that much attention in terms of politically trying to extend our tenure. What we were trying to do was pay attention to the vast needs of the people in terms of agriculture and the vast needs of the consumers in this province. That's why there was so much attention paid by the NDP when they were in power to bringing about a new deal for farmers. It's unfortunate, I guess, that the kind of attention that agriculture gets in this province is indicated to some extent by the kind of attention the debate is getting today, and to some extent yesterday, in the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You've got four member over there.

MR. COCKE: Who's here? Who's speaking?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: That's a good question. The grape grower of the world!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that Minister of Tourism should carry on with her correspondence. That's where she makes her best participation, certainly not calling across the floor.

[ Page 2241 ]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: But where are your members?

MR. COCKE: Oh, for goodness' sake! Go back to your barn, Pat.

MR. LORIMER: She'll swear at you, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: I noticed that. Logger's reply, they call it.

This government when they came into power promised a whole new deal on Crown land. I recall very vividly that they wanted to make Crown land available so that this young farmer that was talked about by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and other young people could get into not only residences but also the farming industry. I have never seen such a discouraging display of lack of administrative discipline and administrative ability than this government has shown.

I've been following some of this Crown land availability. One of my people in New Westminster — one of my constituents — was trying to get some agricultural land in the interior. He got in touch with the minister's office and said: "When Crown land is available, how does one get the information?" The best the office could do was suggest that you get in touch by looking at your local papers. Well, if a person lives in Surrey, let's say, and is looking for land in Peace River, the local papers in Surrey are hardly going to carry that information.

There is no concerted effort going into making agriculture more viable in this province. There is no grave concern displayed by this government over the future generations in this province. The last effective thing that occurred in agriculture was the NDP in power providing the agricultural land reserve, providing farm income assurance and those kinds of effective programs. There's been nothing since, Mr. Chairman, and that's our problem.

We have a minister who should have a major portfolio, who should have a major responsibility, who should be providing leadership in this province, doing the very opposite. I listened to him carefully. He was talking about all these negotiations that are going on — a first look, a second look, a third look — but no real look at the real problem that we have; that is, that our food crops in this province will not feed our citizens — not by any stretch of the imagination. Probably 65 percent of the food consumed here is imported. A major portion of that food is imported from California.

Let's just take a look at what California is doing at the present time. They're taking a look at their ability to deliver to their own population vis-á-vis how they're going to look after their exports. They're becoming increasingly concerned. One day we're going to hear the news that we had better be dependent upon our own land to provide for ourselves. Self-determination in terms of the country is something that's being looked at right now. As far as I'm concerned, I would like to see us look more carefully at our ability for self-sufficiency in our agricultural products,

That being the case, there should be an intense amount of work done in the Agriculture ministry. It should become one of the most exciting ministries in this province. It should be given a minister who is exciting; that would be a help. But even if that minister were given the kind of backing that was necessary, it would be a real plus.

I have watched millions of dollars being spent on tourism. I've seen Smile buttons all across the province. I've seen all of these attention-getters being given to what is not necessarily an absolutely totally important portfolio. The important portfolio is the portfolio that is going to guarantee food for the people in the next few years. It's not only here; it's everywhere in North America. We had better be very, very perceptive of what's going on around us, because we are ones with so few acres that are available for agricultural production.

So many of the acres that we had have been butchered over the last 20 or 30 years by land development — absolutely butchered. That's a shocking display of lack of foresight. Probably some of the best land in North America, down in the Fraser Valley, and in the delta region, is now gone forever.

Mr. Chairman, we're not doing anything about our present. I'm not talking about the agricultural land reserve; I'm talking about giving some leadership, giving some help in the areas where we should be gaining strength. There is no help for young people getting into farming; none at all. We've got an economic development branch here that is supposed to be helping small business. At least they've got some wherewithal to get people off the ground. But there is nothing like that in agriculture to the extent that there should be. We should be setting up in this province the availability of land for young people to get out and get going on the land, and we should also be giving leadership and assistance to those who want to stay on the land and produce at a profit.

It's a shocking situation that last year our agricultural production in B.C. rose from $582 million to $652 million. That's an increase of 12 percent. But at that same time the increase in cost of production rose 14 percent. Now you can't wave a magic wand and make it absolutely easy for everybody in that "private enterprise farm"; but we'd better be cognizant of the fact that it goes beyond that, because every farm that goes broke, every farmer that gets off the land, takes us closer to the point of lack of self-sufficiency, lack of any possibility of self-sufficiency. We should be going the other way. If this kind of situation prevails, where increased costs break people to the extent that they can't stay on the land — no leadership, no help, no young people getting started — Mr. Chairman, it is not a good future at all.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: "Be enthusiastic, be optimistic," say those backbenchers over there, and then the tulip-bulb grower — eater — discusses something that I can't even understand. But I'll get an interpreter next time.

Mr. Chairman, what we have to do is really give some leadership.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What have you got against tulip growers?

MR. COCKE: You can't eat them, despite the fact that you've tried. It is something that I would prefer not to eat.

Mr. Chairman, we have to be extremely careful. We watched the McCain incident in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI — mostly New Brunswick and PEI — where the local people were virtually broken by a vertically integrated company which bought the potatoes, just by virtue of its ability to move around the globe, at a price that was virtually breaking the farmers and getting them off the land.

[ Page 2242 ]

We are seeing the same catering to Cargill and others that is going to do exactly the same thing here.

That is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about leadership, and there's no response from the minister. The minister gets up and gives a few talks about a little bit of negotiation here and a little bit of negotiation there, criticizes the member for Cowichan-Malahat and then sits down. He really hasn't got up and given any kind of an account of himself at all. Why doesn't he get up here in this House and tell us where he's going to lead the farming community, tell us that he has a government behind him that is prepared to lead the farming community?

This government is prepared to spend or at least the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) indicates that they are — $3 billion to $4 billion on a damn tunnel underneath the water to bring some cars over to the Island, and hardly a dime on agriculture, where it is needed desperately. This government is prepared to put heaven alone knows how much into a coliseum or into a B.C. Place, where, in terms of transportation, probably the only way you can approach it is by helicopter. They have millions of dollars to make a big splash, but I don't see any big splashes in agriculture. Negotiations — one, two, three and four looks. Why don't they make it an important portfolio? Why don't they have a minister that goes out and talks in terms of billions, like the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications? Good heavens, he's going to spend more on his nuclear labs than this Minister of Agriculture is going to spend in developing the agriculture industry in this province.

It is shocking behaviour by a government that really doesn't understand what their responsibility is. If their responsibility isn't to look into the future and find out how much in jeopardy we are, then I just don't know what it is. If that government, Mr. Chairman, doesn't sit down in cabinet and spend a few cabinet meetings discussing this question, let their minister come back in the House, give us some policy and show us some direction, then we can continue to really fear for the future of our province. There is no future for a province that's not going to look after the most important thing, and that is feeding the people.

Eventually, we cannot depend on imports. It's as clear and simple as that. California has had an absolutely stupid land development policy, just like we had. Other areas are in exactly the same situation, and as long as we are dependent on them, the day that they cut us off is the day that we're all going to regret the fact that we didn't have a little bit of forethought. And we sure haven't had much forethought.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear this Minister of Agriculture get up in the House and tell us what he's going to do to get young people onto the land. The one thing I would do is carry out a promise you people made and haven't kept, and that is to produce some Crown land. Farmers can rent that land, you know, even though they can't afford to buy it anymore. Make it available so that they can rent it, so that they can get on the land and start producing some crops for our future. That is the thing we can do.

And another thing: instead of negotiating, negotiating, negotiating, make some decisions up in the interior and then get to work in your portfolio to give some leadership, because that's what this province needs. We're not getting it now; we'll never get it from the Socreds as long as they keep their heads in the sand. They think from day to day, and that's the problem. Our future is so dependent upon some long sight, and what we're getting over there is short sight — myopia.

Unfortunately I have to respond now to the member over there who said we're negative, always criticizing. Wouldn't you be, if you were on this side of the House, and wouldn't you be if you had any courage over there? Why don't you get up and tell the people in this province what you'd really like to see, and not what's happening now? I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can hear from the minister something more than a couple of clichés, and don't you ever try to get that vote through.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, some of the comments that the member made across the floor are somewhat valid. He's concerned about the future of the agricultural industry in this province, concerned about the fact that we have to become more self-sufficient. I don't intend to go through my estimates with clichés; I've attempted to tell the members across the floor what we've done; I've given them an indication of what some of our accomplishments are, have been and what our plans for the future are.

I have a tough time understanding some of his arguments in view of statistics, which I think are indicative of what is going on in agriculture. I quoted from the statistics that have been prepared by my ministry: the key economic indicators of this province. The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) has also quoted from them. In all commodity groups we're seeing an increase in production, and in regard to the farmland that he mentions, we've had in the past four years an increase of 90,000 acres under cultivation in this province.

Now that's on the actual farm. We have activity in agriculture in this province in regard to those people going on the farm and the fact that the average age of the farmers in British Columbia is reduced from 54 years down to 48 years, which indicates that more young people are going into the agricultural industry. We're getting them back to the farm; we're getting those people who have had good training, and bring expertise, modern technology and modern techniques, back to the farm so that those farms can be aggressive in the 1980s and beyond.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

We have a lease program in our ministry. At the present time we have 116 leases in place to farmers in this province and at the present time there are 20 other properties being put out for lease. Those leases, Mr. Chairman, have an option to purchase in them, and I think that's a big improvement over some of the concepts of the former administration. We feel that the people should have the right and the ability to own their own land, so their leases have an option to purchase. To give you an indication of the interest, there are 72 applicants who are being interviewed for selection of leases on 20 properties, so you can see that there is a good interest in coming back to the farm community by young people in agriculture.

Under our Agriculture Credit Act we provide loan guarantees, and in 1979 there were 36 loans guaranteed in this province representing $4.6 million, and these in many cases went to young farmers who were again expanding their operations or acquiring operations in the agricultural community. This program assists them in doing that. As of February 29, 1980, in that program, under agricultural credit we had over 100 loans outstanding, which represented total

[ Page 2243 ]

balances of $11 million. Those figures, I think, will give an indication of the activity and the interest in agriculture in this province.

We also have another program called ALDA, the Agricultural Land Development Act. In the year ended March 31, 1980, under this program, Mr. Chairman, there were 12,865 acres cleared, using the ALDA funds, which is a program that provides loans up to a maximum of $15,000 at an interest rate of 4 percent. That, I think, gives another indication as to the activity and the interest in the agricultural community to accomplish what the member stated, which I entirely agree with: to become more self-sufficient in food production in British Columbia. We all recognize the pressures that are on agricultural industries in other parts of the world, mainly in places such as California, where the impact of development hurts them considerably — and their population growth is considerable as well.

When he says, "Get the government behind the Minister of Agriculture so we can accomplish great things," I come back to the $60 million commitment made by this government and the federal government under ARDSA, which really did look to the future in a five-year program to assist in developing the agricultural community, to make it strong and viable; to improve our beef industry in this province. I just suggest that that's one of the major programs that has assisted in arriving at these statistics of growth. I don't think the member can argue with those statistics or programs such as ARDSA and say that we just talk in clichés. We have said we would be there to support and assist the agriculture industry in this province. We have done so in the past, and we will do so in the future.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that one of the pressures on agricultural land in this province comes from absentee foreigners. This is an issue that I have been speaking on in this Legislature for a number of years. I'm hoping that the government will soon take some action with respect to absentee foreign ownership of British Columbia land so that I won't have to keep making this speech over and over again.

The minister is probably aware that in 1974 the government accepted an amendment I placed on the order paper which required, for the first time in the history of this province, that people state their citizenship when they purchase land. Since then the Land Registry Act, now the Land Titles Act, has developed a form 16A which requires that people state their citizenship when they are purchasing land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The member for Comox has the floor on vote 10. The Chairman observes she does not enjoy the full attention of members on both sides of the floor. Would members please give the member for Comox full attention while she addresses vote 10.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

This issue is one that the present government has refused to recognize or deal with in any way, shape or form. I've had a private member's bill on the issue, which I've entered time after time in this Legislature, and still we find that the government benches have not recognized the problem. If they have recognized it, they have refused to deal with it.

It is now over a year since the Institute of Agrologists in the Peace River area contacted all members of cabinet expressing their concern about what was happening in terms of agricultural land up in that area. They pointed out at that time, Mr. Chairman, that they had done a cursory survey — even though they do not have access to form 16A and were not able to determine what was happening specifically — and found that during the years 1976, 1977 and 1978, 124,000 acres in the Peace River area had been acquired by foreign interests. Now the Agrologists of the province. quite rightly so, view agricultural land in B.C. as a resource. It's not a very big resource, because there isn't that much agricultural land in British Columbia, and they recognized that it is a resource that must be protected; that we must ensure that decisions with respect to the development of that resource are not made by absentee foreigners in some other land.

They had no response from the cabinet on their appeal. They pointed out that in the past three years approximately 10 percent of all of the arable land there had been purchased by absentee foreigners. They feel that small interest, perhaps by absentee foreigners, may not be that significant in terms of the impact on the production of food in this province. But they feel that what has happened in Peace River is significant, and that it is time the government sat up, took notice and, indeed, took some action.

The parcels that have been purchased represent a significant percentage of the arable land in the Peace River. The agrologists do not want absentee foreign owners making decisions about food production on land in British Columbia, and I agree with them. Last year in July, when the House was in session, I asked the Minister of Agriculture about the extent of foreign ownership of agricultural land in B.C. At that time the minister stated: "I am not aware of the amount of land that is being purchased." Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Agriculture states, as he did on July 30, 1979, in this Legislature that he is not aware of the amount of land that is being purchased, and receives a question in the House from the opposition on the issue, receives submissions from the Institute of Agrologists, and hears the concerns of the National Farmers Union up in the Peace River area, you would think that he would then endeavour to find out what the extent of foreign ownership is in the Peace River area or anywhere in this province, as it applies to farmland.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to report that when I checked this last week with the land titles office not one single person from the government had been to the land titles office to find out the extent of foreign ownership of B.C. land, whether it's agricultural or non-agricultural land. The minister indicated that he might be somewhat concerned, and I think he made a press statement a few weeks ago that he was going to do something about it. Even this week the land titles people tell me that form 16A, which requires that people state their citizenship when they are purchasing land, has not even been looked at. The land titles people are over there collecting all of these forms, putting them in boxes and, unfortunately, the only thing that's happening to those forms is they are collecting dust over in the offices.

It's well over a year since the agrologists spoke out on this; it's three-quarters of a year since he admitted to the world that he had no idea of the extent of foreign ownership of agricultural land; and he has still not even made a basic inquiry as to the extent of the purchase by absentee foreigners of agricultural land in this province. I don't think he's interested. I don't think that government is concerned about what happens to agricultural land in this province. If they're not taking an interest in an issue as basic as that, and which is so easy to research, then surely they can't be interested. All

[ Page 2244 ]

they have to do — and I don't know how many times I've made this request in this Legislature — is hire a few students under their Youth Employment Program to go through those forms. It would be quite simple to compile some statistics, so that in July of this year the Minister of Agriculture won't have to stand in this House and say: "I'm not aware of the amount of land that is being purchased by absentee foreigners." I don't think they're interested in the issue.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other issue that I would like to deal with very briefly, and that relates to the proposed legislation which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has indicated will be before this House this year, as it applies to farmworkers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the member continues, I would caution that with respect to several of the topics it may not be that the present estimates are those most appropriate. I would just caution that, insofar as the land registry is concerned, the Ministry of the Attorney — General estimates would probably be most appropriate; in terms of general land ownership, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. So, if the remarks of the member could be in the context of this minister and his administrative responsibilities — similarly with the Ministry of Labour — since we're on vote 10 here....

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your advice on the subject of foreign ownership, but the issue that I dealt with today related specifically to farmland. I don't think that there is any way that that can be disputed, and certainly the question in the Legislature, as it related to foreign ownership of land, was posed to the Minister of Agriculture at the time. I'm well aware that the land titles office is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams). All land issues then would have to be dealt with under the Attorney-General, because he is responsible for that land titles office and the Land Titles Act. But, Mr. Chairman, I do wish to raise this issue because any legislation which is introduced in this Legislature relating to farmworkers certainly affects the farming community for which the Minister of Agriculture is responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, but I think we should again remember that we are dealing here with the administrative actions of the minister. If you wish to get into the area of policy and legislation in respect to farmworkers, this is probably not the appropriate time.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, and that is what I am dealing with, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what you are saying, Mr. Chairman, and certainly within the next two or three minutes you will see exactly what I am doing and how it relates to the minister's agricultural responsibility.

We have been promised by the government.... This was done by the previous Minister of Labour and the Premier outside the convention hall of the Social Credit Party convention in Vancouver, where there were a number of farmworkers who were demonstrating and seeking some coverage under the labour statutes of the province. At that time they were assured that there would be legislation introduced this session which would give farmworkers some protection under the labour legislation of the province.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture may not have been involved in working out the details of this particular legislation. We have received a brief from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture concerning any proposed changes as they affect farmworkers in this province. I want to be sure that the legislation to be introduced by the Minister of Labour that deals with farmworkers in this province is going to work. Therefore I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not he, as a colleague of the Minister of Labour, has been in contact with him concerning any proposed changes affecting farmworkers to ensure that the legislation will be workable, based on the concerns raised by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in a brief which they submitted to all members of this Legislature. Has he been involved? Can he at this time assure us...? This is legislation which is very much needed in this province because of the exploitation of farmworkers that has taken place over the years — and I don't think that anybody's going to deny that. The legislation has got to come. We just want to make sure that the legislation, once it is introduced, will work.

MR. PASSARELL: In my questions today to the minister I will be asking a few questions concerning the role of agriculture in the Stikine Valley. This minister was responsible last year for Hydro development. He wheeled and dealed, Mr. Chairman, that nothing was happening to the Stikine-Iskut dam. At that time, when he was in charge of a joint ministry, his feeble reply was that a booklet was sent to the people — one that never came.

What I have today, Mr. Chairman, are three memorandums from the Minister of Agriculture. The first memorandum is dated January 16, 1979; the second memo is dated January 22, 1979; and the third one from the Ministry of Agriculture is dated February 15, 1979. I would like to table these documents in the House for my speech today concerning the role of agriculture and hydro development in the Stikine-Iskut dam. I am tabling these to show that this minister was involved as the Minister of Agriculture in the dam schemes of the Stikine-Iskut months before he stood in the House and said he had no knowledge of this scheme up in the Stikine-Iskut....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I interrupt the member just for a moment? The appropriate time for tabling the documents would be at the conclusion of the committee this morning. They are being returned to the member, and perhaps upon conclusion he could table them.

MR. PASSARELL: Maybe you should forward them to the Minister of Agriculture; maybe he hasn't seen them.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay, I'll keep them.

The first one I would like to read is a memo from the Ministry of Agriculture dated January 16, 1979. The topic is: "B.C. Hydro development, Stikine-Iskut, agriculture. From a minister and citizen's view, this project should be encouraged, as the loss of the other valuable resources is minimized and the total capacity is equal to the 1976-77 usage of B.C. consumers. This does not include the surplus being sold to the United States at a substantial discount." My question to the Minister of Agriculture is: why are you making statements for the ministry concerning substantial discounts of electrical power to the United States in the Stikine-Iskut dam

[ Page 2245 ]

scheme, even though you said in this House on July 3, 1979, you had never heard anything about the Stikine-Iskut and there was no involvement by the ministry?

I am quite concerned as to why the Minister of Agriculture is making statements that a Stikine-Iskut dam would negate further development on the Peace River. Does this have to do with the Minister of Agriculture being responsible last year for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources? Did the Stikine-Iskut become a joint venture where agricultural aspects were set aside? As the quote says: "...surplus being sold to the United States at a substantial discount."

I'd like to know why this minister makes statements like this, at the expense of the agricultural development of the Stikine-Iskut valley. Why didn't the minister discuss this last year when I asked him about it during his Energy estimates? Why didn't he make some of these statements public?

The second quote I'd like to read is from a memorandum of the Minister of Agriculture dated January 22, 1979: "No way would the Little Canyon site be acceptable. Class 2, 3 and 4 lands would be flooded.... Site A would also be flooded, classes 3 and 4 land, as well as Tanzilla — good soil types there flooded." Once again, Mr. Chairman, this memo states that land would be flooded, and agricultural land would also go under.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member refers to letters dated January 1979. I believe those letters would be as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He keeps referring to me as Minister of Agriculture. At that time I was not; I was Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I don't have copies of the letters, so I may be in error, but I would feel that he is referring to another ministry and not these particular estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the simple rule for the member for Atlin to follow would be that he should be directing his comments to the administrative actions of the present Minister of Agriculture in that capacity. But if in the course of his remarks he is referring to administrative actions affecting agriculture in the province, those would be in order.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me. As I said when I first tabled these, on the very top of them, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, they say Ministry of Agriculture. They don't say Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Could I have a copy of the letter?

MR. PASSARELL: The Chair has directed me, Mr. Minister, to table them at the end. I tried to do it and I was ruled out, so you'll have to wait, baby.

My concern in these Ministry of Agriculture estimates is why the Ministry of Agriculture is talking about substantial discounts of electrical power to the United States.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

To proceed, the minister told this House last year, specifically on July 3, 1979, that all information on this matter was involved in a publication called Perspective '79. What about this pertinent information dated January and February 1979?

Would the minister like to deal with this third memo? It is from the Ministry of Agriculture, dated February 15, 1979:

"We are very concerned with the Stikine-Iskut hydro projects. We do not seem to be able to get the reserve lifted.... Agriculture has very definitely said no to dams below the Tanzilla where it joins the Stikine. This is only one piece of good agricultural land around that would be flooded by a dam on the Stikine-Iskut in the canyon, and that is of Mr. Willy Williams at the Stikine crossing."

My concern is whether the Minister of Agriculture ever contacted Mr. Willy Williams to tell him that his farm was going to be flooded. I doubt it. I was talking to Mr. Williams last weekend and he has never heard anything from this Minister of Agriculture.

Here is a letter dated February 15, 1979.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, again I would attempt to raise a point of order. The member is stating that a minister's letter of February 1979 was written by this minister. I suggest that at that time I was not Minister of Agriculture. He is in error.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Atlin is, from time to time, referring to agricultural matters, but I would recommend to the member that he cannot canvass ministerial statements that were not made by the Minister of Agriculture, whose estimates we’re in right now. Insofar as they relate to administrative actions of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Chair will allow them.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me once again from the minister.

Why did the minister tell this House last year — or even this year — that the Ministry of Agriculture was very involved with the Stikine-Iskut proposals? What happened to the input of a commission supposedly set up on agricultural land reserves, whereby a program with ramifications of this type would have to go in front of a public body? From some of the descriptions involved in these memos, the decision has supposedly already been made as to what is happening to the farms and the agricultural land of the Stikine-Iskut valley. There'll be more information from 1978 and 1979, Mr. Chairman — memos that I have that will be discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, showing that before July 3, 1979, this government had made a decision to allow Hydro to flood agricultural land and destroy the livelihoods of many native people in the area. Here's another issue concerning agriculture. A local Telegraph Creek man, Mr. Florian Maurer, as well as other residents of the area, want to become involved in viable farming operations in the Stikine-Iskut valley. What have they been faced with, Mr. Chairman? Denials, government red tape and no action from the Minister of Agriculture. In August 1979, Mr. Maurer made an application for 160 acres of land, which was approved by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. In a subsequent letter, the B.C. Assessment Authority wrote that the Crown land was approved, binding him into a ten-year contract to clear, break and bring under production a specific percentage of the land. This is what Mr. Maurer received from the B.C. Assessment Authority in Fort St. John. A fair number of people in the Stikine-Iskut valley received similar letters concerning their operations of Crown

[ Page 2246 ]

land which they wanted to turn into viable fanning operations. The two specific areas for the minister's attention are Glenora and Telegraph Creek. These are people who are expending money and labour to create and develop farms where there is no previous agricultural development, and also in areas where there are few employment opportunities. Mr. Maurer, like other residents of the area, has been refused farm classification for his 160 acres.

I and the people of this province would like to know why the Minister of Agriculture would be seeking avenues for the residents of Telegraph Creek and Glenora, and elsewhere in this province, to develop farmlands where none exists, while allowing Hydro, another Crown corporation, to come back and say no, deny these people the opportunity to develop viable farmlands because they want that land put under water. Is it true, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister of Agriculture buckles under the pressure of Mr. Robert Bonner and allows the people of Telegraph Creek to lose their farms and some things that people are expending a lot of time and effort in trying to make viable? They're just told: "Forget it, you're going to have a dam built here in the next ten years."

The minister stated yesterday, Thursday, May 1, that farming is the backbone of the rural areas of this province. Why is this minister attempting to break that backbone — specifically, the people up north who are trying to got a viable operation? By allowing Hydro to have its own way, our agricultural land will continue to be flooded.

In the Liard region there are a number of hot springs that could provide viable greenhouse operations for vegetables in the northern part of this province. What will happen to these hot springs as well as the hay fields along the Liard River, if Hydro has its wish and goes ahead and floods this area, Mr. Chairman? They will be under water just like Site A and B from the Stikine-Iskut, affecting agricultural land in the north, where there is very little agricultural land, as explained by the Ministry of Agriculture's memo of January 16, 1979.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture, being the previous minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, has displayed a lack of interest in seeing viable farming operations in this province. If he did, he would make public statements opposing the concept of stopping the Stikine-Iskut dam, the Liard, but he hasn't come out once to make a statement that he's opposing these dam developments. He's allowed Hydro to make secret reports on a time-frame of when construction will begin in the Stikine and what agricultural land will be flooded. The Minister of Agriculture should remember what he said in this House on July 3, 1979, and subsequent days, pertinent to the interest of agriculture and not of Hydro dams.

Mr. Chairman, I just can't understand why a Minister of Agriculture would allow memos to come out of the Ministry of Agriculture 16 or 17 months ago, talking about flooding agricultural land in the north, agricultural land that some people are spending a lot of time and effort in developing, and being told that all that farmland, work, time, dedication and dreams are going to be flooded over.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to table these documents now, if possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They'll be tabled in the House; we're in committee right now, hon. member, but that will be done.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to talk to the Minister about the aid to developing countries as part of his budget, and to make a couple of comments about it. The first thing I wanted to comment about is that the percentage of his budget being spent on aid to developing countries seems to be diminishing. In fact, in 1978-79 the percentage of the entire budget which went into this fund was 0.008 percent, and I notice that this year it's been decreased to 0.0071 percent. In the minister's own budget the decrease is even more significant that that.

In 1979, in dealing with the annual report on Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries, in the Colonist of September 22 Jim Hume pointed out that really it was a little bit of money that was being stretched a long way. With the increase of hunger on an international level in these developing nations, I'm wondering how the minister can justify decreasing the percentage of this budget even further.

I want to tell the minister a little bit about what probably happens to this aid when it gets to the developing countries. First of all, agricultural work is recognized in most of the developing countries as women's work. In the Himalayan region, for example, 70 percent of agricultural work is done by women; in Africa 60 to 80 percent is done by women; and in developing countries as a whole the average of rural women involved in agricultural work is over 50 percent. So, really, most of the aid going to these countries out of this fund is going to create employment for women in these nations and to help them not to purchase food but to develop a base whereby in time — hopefully in the not too distant future those countries will be able to feed themselves.

In 1975, as the minister may remember, during International Women's Year, a conference was held in Mexico of women from all around the world, and at that time the presentation of the women from the Third World countries was that their basic and most important need had to do with food. Hunger and starvation was what they found oppressive. Whereas women in other parts of the world may place oppression in different terms than the developing countries, they certainly saw the economic deprivation and the real starvation, in some instances, of their children and themselves as the major form of oppression.

Their recommendation was that one way in which women in other parts of the world, certainly in North America, could assist them in terms of their liberation was to ensure that they had the kinds of tools and skills and these kinds of things needed to get on with the business of growing more food. They weren't asking for tractors and the like; they were, in fact, asking for the kind of aid which would come out of this fund.

As a result of that conference, a group of Canadian women got together in Ottawa and created a community of women which is known as MATCH — and I have no idea why they chose the word MATCH except that in their preamble they say it is matching women of the Third World with women of, presumably, the second and first worlds. So operating out of Canada at this time — and this is a question I want to put to the minister — is this group of women representatives from right across Canada working with Third World women in terms of helping them meet what they see as their greatest need.

In September of last year there was a conference held at the Lord Simcoe Hotel in Toronto. It is interesting to note the kinds of recommendations that came out of that conference. The representatives to this conference were from all of the Third World countries — they sent in some instances one,

[ Page 2247 ]

sometimes two, women — and there were also representatives from all of the provinces across Canada. There even is someone from B.C., although that person is not actually funded by the British. Columbia government.

Again, the women said that women tend to get the lowest priority in aid for developing countries, because projects for them are wrapped up in a national package. They were specifically talking about CIDA and aid at the federal level when they talked about that. They said that really the sort of aid that benefited them was the aid directed specifically at agriculture; at helping to develop the agricultural base and build the agricultural base. That's what this fund does. It seems to me that we would be a lot smarter to put more of our resources into helping these nations build their agricultural base so that they can feed themselves, rather than always having to deal with funding to help them deal with starvation by shipping food or those other kinds of resources to them.

That really was the basis — the whole reason — for the establishment of this fund in the first place. On the original fund, under the previous Social Credit administration, Premier W.A.C. Bennett put aside, I think, $5 million originally for this fund, and then we raised it to $10 million. It wasn't to buy food to ship off to these countries, but really it was to give the kind of support that would help these nations eventually to be able to feed themselves. We can't go on just waiting until people are starving to death, and then giving handouts. That is not the solution. That's why I am so surprised that the percentage of this minister's budget, which is being spent on this particular fund, is still decreasing. I don't want him to tell me that in terms of dollars and cents it's increasing, because if you look at the increases in the cost of living and inflation and take those other factors into account, in fact in real dollar terms the contribution is decreasing, if one considers that the Canadian dollar, even on the international market, is not worth the 100 cents that it used to be worth, certainly when this fund was first introduced.

I don't know whether this is the kind of thing which the minister would be willing to take a second look at, and possibly through an order-in-council, or whatever, try to have a larger injection of money into this particular area. I notice in his 1978-79 report, which he tabled in the House some time ago, that we are not dealing with large sums of money in terms of each particular country. We are talking about tools which will help 300 families in one village in Tanzania, and the contribution to that was $1,500. We are not dealing, Mr. Chairman, in millions of dollars, when we are talking about this kind of contribution. Yet to those nations the impact is so great that it seems to me that surely, if we are serious about helping these nations to become independent and to find themselves in a situation where they can feed themselves, it would make more sense to put the money in at this level, rather than to wait and try to rehabilitate and to deal with refugees who are leaving countries because they are starving, and to try to deal with the kinds of health problems that develop because of the lack of nutritious food for people.

In the workshops, at the conference which I mentioned earlier, the women from the Third World countries were very clear about that. They said one of the problems they deal with is that developing countries are always having things sent to them — Nestlé’s milk, powdered milk and these kinds of things. It is always being said to them: "Here, this is good for you. This is what you should have." These woman in MATCH are saying: "We would prefer that you keep your powdered milk and that Nestlé’s keep its products. That's not what we want. What we want is money to buy seeds, tools and those kinds of things so we can get on with the business of growing our own food or raising our own cattle, chicken, poultry and eggs and these kinds of things." This was a very specific plea which those women at this conference made to the Canadian women who are part of this MATCH community of women, who are saying: "How can we work together in terms of what you perceive as your oppression?"

So, Mr. Chairman, I felt that, really, under this minister’s estimates I would certainly have an opportunity to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture in terms of this particular fund. I would like to ask him whether he is aware, first of all, of the existence of MATCH, because if he isn't, I'd be very willing to pay the government's subscription so they can be on the mailing list and get the kind of material that comes directly from the women in the Third World countries, most of which has to do with agriculture and the whole basis of food, because that is such an important issue there. Food and pure water were the two really major concerns that they talked about. I'd like to ask whether he's aware of MATCH and whether he would be interested in my taking out a subscription to their journal for his department, and also whether it's too late at this point to ask for an increase in the percentage of his budget — not even the national budget, but his budget — which is going to be spent on this particular fund.

I noticed that the minister, according to his estimates, increased the budget for his own office by 15.19 percent. That was the real increase in the budget to be spent on his own office, whereas in the aid to developing countries it went from $354,000 to S393,000. That's a mere $40,000 increase. It's supposed to be an increase of 9.7 percent, but $40,000, when you are talking about international aid.... It's so wonderful that we are not aiding countries to build guns and helping them to deal in weapons of war. What this fund is doing is such a positive thing. We're really trying to come to grips with the whole concept of sharing. That's what we're doing: "There is sufficient food for us and now we would like to help ensure that there is sufficient food for you." I think it has to be more than a token gesture. If it's not too late, I wonder whether the minister would tell me whether it's possible for him to increase the percentage of this budget which is being spent on this particular fund either through order-in-council or whatever method there is, and also, if that is possible, whether he would be willing to accept some kind of input from MATCH and from the women themselves in these countries in terms of how this money should be spent, to what countries it should be directed and what on particular projects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair should point out that the member has been very much in order and has spoken eloquently to vote 11. Those are within the Ministry of Agriculture's purview.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's just an observation, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: May I add to your observation that under the minister's vote one is permitted to deal with any topic with his department, but if the minister would like to hear it again, I'd certainly be happy to give a speech again under

[ Page 2248 ]

vote 11. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for letting me know that I can do it once again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will expect the vote to be narrow under vote 11.

MRS. WALLACE: Dealing with the minister's responsibilities, one of those responsibilities is his deputy minister's office; in his deputy minister's office there is a vote for aid to developing countries. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has dealt at some length with this, but before the minister answers I would just like to add a few comments of my own relative to this particular fund.

The fund, as the member has said, was originally a $5 million fund which was recaptured by this government. That fund had been there and the interest from that fund was the amount of dollars that went into this particular program. Now we will just forget for the moment the fact that in addition to that, when the NDP was in power, there was a $5 million annual thing there to supplement that. Be that as it may, when the fund was recaptured, the then Minister of Agriculture, the now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), promised that as long as he was minister there would be an amount of money included in the estimates for that particular thing, a similar amount to what the interest had been when that fund was recaptured. That has been done, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately that amount of dollars, which was geared to the interest that would have been earned back in 1975 or 1974, does not in any way reflect a like contribution to the kind of contribution that was being made at that time.

I did a few quick calculations. For example, $5 million today's interest rate of, say, 15 percent would have brought that up to $750,000, not $350,000. Or if you want to look at it another way, Mr. Chairman, if you considered inflation to be at 10 percent over that period of years, that $350,000 that was allocated in 1975 or 1976 would have grown just through inflation to $512,000 at this point in time. So really the niggardly little increase that's in here amounts to nothing. In real dollars it has fallen far behind the number of real dollars that were made available at that point in time.

I wonder if we could consider whether this is actually enough money. I have here a letter dated April 11, 1979, from the ministry, the executive officer who looks after this account. In answer to some discussions we had he advised me that the number of projects that were applied for during the fiscal year of 1978-79 was 77. Now the number of projects that were actually accepted was 59, so there were 18 projects that were not even considered. In addition to that, the total number of dollars that were requested by those 59 projects that were accepted was $1,157,565. Of course, the only amount that could be granted was the amount in the budget, which was $355,000. I think that speaks for itself — that there is not enough money in that budget. They give some reasons why this isn't done — that it was not agriculturally related or something like this. One of the reasons they, give for lack of support — they talk about "outside guidelines," "insufficient information" — what really concerns me is "politically sensitive."

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter what your politics are if you have a child that's hungry, if you have a child that's starving. This is politics of food being used at its very lowest level to refuse an opportunity to people to help themselves because it's "politically sensitive." That that would be in a letter from that ministry really upsets me.

We can talk about the agrarian reform conference which was held in Rome last year on July 12. Out of that came a statement which was headlined: "Close to Half of the World's People Live in Rural Areas of Developing Countries." More than one-half of that total — that is one-quarter of the world's population — have an annual income of less than $200 U.S. More than one-third of them — 800 million people — are destitute. We increase our assistance to them by $40,000 and we turn down applications because they are politically sensitive. I am ashamed, Mr. Chairman.

Recently the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Waldheim, noted that in Africa, 83 million people receive less than the critical minimum level of food intake. That's three and a half times our total population living daily on the edge of starvation. Other estimates put it at more than half a billion. The problem is tremendous. We are just beginning to break the very edge of it. We can look at the Philippines, for example, where the president of the food council, who is the minister of agriculture for the Philippines, says that three out of five children in his country die from malnutrition. The problems go on and on. They are horrendous problems.

This is a program that could really help. It could help the people in those countries, and it could have some real worth if the government was prepared to put its money where its mouth is and increase that to a reasonable, feasible amount of dollars. Not only would it help those countries, but in the long term it would help the farmers of British Columbia, because one of the biggest problems the farmers of British Columbia face is the problem of imports. If, in fact, we can get those countries utilizing their land and their resources to produce food for themselves, instead of producing carnations, hemp, or something else to ship into our developed countries, if we can stop those imports, it will be a real boon to our own economic well-being.

That's the long-term thing. But in the short term we have to look at those starving children regardless of what the politics are, because starving children don't have politics. I am concerned that you would give an increase which is really an insult — a $40,000 increase on a sum of $350,000. That is much, much too small to begin with.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I certainly was aware that if I hadn't got up, somebody else would have, so I don't think we've lost the opportunity to get the vote passed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, I'm quite prepared to debate my estimates as long as the opposition wishes to do so. I find their comments very interesting, and they will be of assistance to me.

The increase in Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries — I recognize that it does really come under vote 11. I would just comment that there is an 11 percent increase in that vote. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) mentioned the total expenditure in relationship to that vote going down from 0.008 percent to 0.0071 percent, and I guess I could comment, somewhat facetiously, that the minister's salary went from 0.0004 percent down to 0.0003 percent of the total estimates. I just mention that that type of statistics really doesn't tell the whole story, Mr. Chairman.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is, I'm sure, fully aware of what my ministry does in assisting and helping

[ Page 2249 ]

developing countries to become more self-sufficient, more independent in meeting the needs of their people. Our dollars go into irrigation projects, land development projects, agriculture education projects and nutritional projects. For the benefit of the members of the House — I know the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is probably fully aware of this — where a local organization raises a dollar, such as the B.C. Teachers' Federation, or the Canadian Catholic association, or the Canadian Hunger Foundation — there are many of them: CARE, Oxfam, UNICEF — if these projects are placed in front of us and we find they fit the guidelines, we match that amount of money. Then it goes to the non-government organization division of CIDA, and they contribute an equal amount. So what I'm saying is that a dollar raised by a local organization grows to four dollars. Of course, that indicates the amount of involvement the province and the federal government give to carry out these projects, whose goal is more independence on the part of the developing country in supplying its own foodstuffs.

Some of the projects put in front of the committee on which my deputy minister sits don't qualify within the guidelines. In other instances some are turned down because it may be in what is classified as a war zone, where there is disruption and there is really not a sound government or a sound agency which could administer these funds properly. In most cases those matters, of course, are federal matters, and we would not want to provide aid where we would possibly be in conflict with federal policies. Of course, some of those assistance programs are directed to the federal government for consideration.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really sorry that the minister made that comparison between this fund and his salary, because I think that was really an unfortunate comparison. However, I'm not going to dwell on that.

I specifically wanted to use this opportunity to talk to the minister about MATCH, and I was hoping that he would respond to a couple of the questions which I asked. I do have some membership forms here, and I'm wondering if I could send one over to you, because it seems that provincial organizations and national organizations can join. So it would be possible for your ministry to join, and I'm willing to put up the $15.

I just wanted to give you one statement from their newspaper about what their three principles are, Mr. Chairman, through you. Firstly, on a daily basis, basic needs of food, water, fuel, sanitation and shelter are in most societies almost solely the responsibility of the women. Secondly, any development approach which fails to affect and involve this crucial and concerned half of the population is unlikely to succeed. And thirdly, valid projects which originate from within a community have a much greater chance of succeeding than the ones planned and implemented by outsiders.

I know that CIDA contributes greatly to this kind of funding, and I'm wondering whether the minister, in dealing with my questions, would recognize MATCH as one of the groups, even though they do not have an office here in British Columbia. I know that one of the criteria for getting this aid is that preference is given to a Canadian group that has their headquarters here in British Columbia; their headquarters are in Ottawa, but they are a Canadian group and maybe the minister would tell me whether they would be eligible.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I didn't respond to the member earlier. My ministry is on the mailing list of all the CIDA publications, first of all, and the member has mentioned that...I believe it's MASH — is that the name of the organization?

MS. BROWN: MATCH, like in match-making.

HON. MR. HEWITT:...that organization is partially funded by CIDA or is funded by CIDA. I would think that some of the communication that we get, being on the CIDA mailing list, would include information about that organization or agency in regard to whether or not they would qualify. Their organization, as I understand it, if it is headquartered in Canada and they wish to apply for assistance on a specific project, could be taken into consideration. As I mentioned, there are a number of agencies that we do look at, and as long as it's a Canadian organization, it would be taken into consideration subject to the project that they're looking at.

MRS, WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that we're not going to get any more money for aid to developing countries than the minister has included in his estimates. He seems to miss the point of the argument. I guess it's like the interest rebate to the farmers; it's going to stay at 1 or 2 percent below prime and nothing is going to change that minister's mind.

The minister posed the question to me about the price of quota when he was speaking before, and spoke of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I think the minister will recall that we both agreed at that time — you know, we do agree on things once in a while, not very often — that the price of quota was too high. But where we ceased to agree was whether or not the farmer should be the person responsible for picking up the tab in trying to reduce the price of that quota.

Certainly the difference between British Columbia and Saskatchewan is that here in British Columbia that quota was retained by the farmer and as such he was able to trade it and capitalize on it, where in Saskatchewan that never happened. When the situation came about where it was obvious that there was going to have to be quota initiated, the Milk Board retained the control of that quota and issued it on the basis of ability and viability and all those sorts of things that they would consider. So it's a different situation entirely, and it's a situation that, unfortunately, to get back to is going to take some dollars out of the ministry's pocket or else is going to take dollars out of the farmer's pocket. I think that's where we differed, because once again the minister was not prepared to pick up any of the tab for that.

But I'm glad the minister mentioned the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. We used to say, when we met in those committees, that that committee and those reports could be the subject of a filibuster in this House that could last for months and months and months, but I would like to assure the minister I have no intention of doing that,

However, Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions for the minister relating to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. One of the things I would like the minister to confirm for me — and just a nod of the head would be fine — is that at the present time, I understand, there is an ongoing program that has been ongoing for some ten years, whereby you establish by consensus cost- of-production figures for certain crops in certain areas, and that this ongoing program

[ Page 2250 ]

has now been put on the computer. Am I right on that, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Okay. What I am getting at here, Mr. Minister — and I'm sure you're aware of what's coming — is that when we sat on that committee we voted dollars upon dollars upon dollars to Boeing Computers to set up a great many studies, but one of those studies.... The reason we were always convinced that it was okay to vote this was that it was going to be computerized and it was going to give the cost of production of any farm product at any given time in any given place just by pushing a button. Now we spent a lot of dollars in the select standing committee to set up that kind of a system, and I had some concerns about its accuracy; perhaps you had some concerns about its accuracy. What's bothering me right now, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that here we have this system all in place, as established by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, and theoretically in the hands of the ministry at this point in time, so that they can use that to come up with cost-of-production figures, and now I find out that they have another entirely different system that they have been working on for ten years, which has also become computerized. I am wondering why we can afford to have two computerized sets of cost-of-production figures when we can't afford anything more than $40,000 for aid to developing countries, or anything more than 1 or 2 percent below prime for interest rebate to farmers.

It is a strange set of priorities, and I wonder whether or not the minister could tell me just whether or not he is proposing to use any of those figures that were gained with much blood, sweat and tears, at a great deal of cost to the taxpayer — something like $3 million in total. I have the computer runs here from Public Accounts, and I see that for the year ending March 31, 1979, Boeing Computers received $114,500 — just in that one year. Of course, that committee went on much longer than the one year.

I do have a lot of concerns about that committee, as the minister is well aware. I think he had some concerns about it too, quite frankly. We have authorized that kind of money on the understanding that it would be of some use to the ministry, that it would be available to the ministry — to establish cost-of-production figures. He has talked about delays in the Farm Income Assurance Program, that part of the problem is they are trying to establish new costs of production. How many costs of production do we need? We've got one set up by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. They've got one set up by the ministry on a consensus thing. Now we've bogged down on the farm income assurance for treefruit growers because we don't have any cost of production.

I wonder what's going on in that ministry. What are they doing with their money over there, if that's the kind of conflict and repetition that is occurring? I guess my specific questions to the minister are: Does he have the cost-of-production figures that we paid for in the select standing committee that were supposed to be made available to him? Is he proposing to use them? Does he believe that they are accurate, good, reliable figures?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the cost-of-production models that were worked on by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture's research staff don't relate to the cost-of-production model in the Farm Income Assurance Program. I am sure the member is aware of that. The research staff was attempting to evaluate what the costs were for four different products. I just finished asking staff, for the member's benefit, whether or not we have adapted some of that cost-of-production model information from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture's research into our programs. You will recall the Boeing setup. I wanted to see whether or not it was adapted. I don't have an answer but I will be glad to get it and report to you.

MS. BROWN: There is just one small issue which the woman raised, and I forgot to question you about it. It has to do with genetic erosion. I'm sure you know a lot more about this than I do.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now I know why I went bald.

MS. BROWN: I have to read from my notes because it is not a topic I am very familiar with. However, one of the things that they wondered was what the government's position was in terms of contributing to the cost of establishing gene banks and quality storage — and this has to do with seeds, I gather, Mr. Chairman. There's an international concern about the shortage of storage areas and the lack of funds. They point out that many of the seeds which they're using in the Third World countries were originally their seeds, apparently, which came to this country and then were refined. Then we sell it back to them and now they are ending up buying their seeds from us. It sounds very complicated. The problem is that if there is disease, there is none of their old, original strong seed left, and this is known as genetic erosion. Right?

Would you give me the answer in a very simple way, Mr. Minister, in terms that I could understand, so I could pass that information on as to whether we are, as a government, interested in contributing to the cost of the gene bank.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, just for the record, I can't miss the opportunity to say something about genetic erosion, because genetic erosion to me seems to mean that you've lost your hair — but I'm not sure whether that's genetic erosion or not.

I would advise the member that the federal government and some private companies in Canada have established gene banks for the preservation of strong, good seed, to ensure that over a period of time we don't lose that good-quality seed stock.

MS. BROWN: This government, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, the federal government under their research branch, as I understand it.

MS. BROWN: But nothing under this government?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

MRS. WALLACE: That's probably just as good a lead as any into a question about the plant breeders' rights act. I know that's federal legislation, but I'm wondering what the provincial government....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if that is federal legislation, the Chair cannot accept that.

[ Page 2251 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it's a federal act that is being proposed by the federal ministries, and I'm wondering what the provincial government's position is relative to that act, because they're looking for input from the various provincial authorities before they pass the act. I have never yet heard the Minister of Agriculture make any official announcement as to what the government's stand is here, vis-à-vis plant breeders' rights. I have heard indirectly that the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development has made some statements which would indicate that they think the act is okay, that it should proceed. I have, and the farm community has, some very grave concerns about the plant breeders act, because it has the potential of putting the control of our seeds in the hands of multinational corporations, putting us in a position where we could well be held to ransom in the agricultural industry for our seeds. I would very much like the minister to tell the House exactly what the position of his ministry is, what the position of his government is, relative to the plant breeders legislation that's proposed, and also whether or not he has or will be making any representations to the federal minister relative to that proposed legislation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, regarding plant breeders' rights, the ministry is in favour of that type of legislation. I will give you some examples. Producers of good nursery stock or good seed in Canada do not have any protection against their particular seed or nursery stock being exploited by others after a tremendous amount of research and development. At the same time, in many cases we lose the opportunity of having good varieties of seed coming into Canada just because, once they get across the border, the plant breeder could automatically lose his rights and somebody else could be developing that seed, after all his work, and selling it without going through the amount of research that had to be gone through to develop that particular type of seed.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very interested to hear that the ministry supports this particular piece of legislation. I wonder if the minister has discussed this with the farm community, because my discussions with the farm community certainly indicate to me that they are very concerned about this. I would urge the minister to review this with his contacts in the farm community, with the Federation of Agriculture and the farmers' union perhaps, just to review it a little further. I would beg the minister to review it a little further before he makes that commitment, because I do have some concerns about that.

While we're on federal legislation.... I see the minister is going to get up, but I may as well just pose my second question relative to federal legislation. It's something that concerns the local farmers very much. It's something that the farmers are waiting to see — what the minister's stand is going to be. Again, I understand the minister who is just leaving the House — the minister of small development — was in Ottawa and made a statement relative to the Crow rate, suggesting that the Crow rate should be abolished.

Now I am wondering whether that is this minister's stand. Is this minister opposed to the continuation of the Crow rate? Has he or his staff reviewed the Hall report? Has he made any representations to the federal authorities relative to this? Is he going to? I would be very interested in knowing just what this government's position is vis-à-vis the Crow rate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regards to the plant breeders' rights, Mr. Chairman, both the B.C. Seed Growers' Association and, as I understand it, the Canadian Seed Growers' Association are in favour of plant breeders' rights. I have not heard an expression of opinion by the BCFA, but I am aware of the National Farmers Union, who are not in favour of it but, as I understand it, they are mainly concerned with grain crops, etc., and they haven't looked at the total picture.

Our concern with regard to cost of moving domestic feed grains in this province and the Crow rate we have had in place.... We have had good cooperation with the federal government and the federal Minister of Agriculture on the Feed Freight Assistance Program, which does give some relief to the transportation costs of the domestic feed grains, and we would continue to support that concept to ensure that our domestic producers get a reasonable freight cost of moving that grain in British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: I take it that you are proposing that the Feed Freight Assistance Program be done rather than the Crow rate be continued. Is that what the minister is saying? When you are talking about the Feed Freight Assistance Program, are you proposing that as an alternative or continuation of that in opposition to the continuation of the Crow rate or in conjunction with the Crow rate? Where do you stand on the Crow rate? That is what I really want to know.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of the Crow rate is a very complex issue. I can only mention to the member for Cowichan-Malahat that the Feed Freight Assistance Program has been in place, I believe, since some time after the Second World War, and it does give that consideration to the domestic producer in relationship to the Crow rate, which deals with grain for export.

I don't have a government-stated policy, Madam Member, as to our position concerning the Crow rate, except to say that compensatory rates are items that have been discussed, and we would also look at assistance directly to the farmers and placing that assistance where I think it should be directed as opposed to looking at a Crow rate that's been there for a number of years and never been adjusted, even though cost of moving product has gone up.

MRS. WALLACE: We've had an interesting debate on agriculture this morning. Mr. Chairman. We've had a flow of information back and forth. We still don't have a meeting of the minds, of course. That minister thinks he's doing a great job and I'm a little bit concerned about the kind of job he's doing. If he is doing such a great job, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why last night there was an emergency meeting of the B.C. Council of Marketing Boards? This is a council representing all the various commodities that are marketed under marketing boards. And why would the meeting be held if they are so assured that everything is rosy in the garden of agriculture?

If there is such growing confidence in this minister on the part of the agricultural industry, I'm wondering why that meeting was held, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering why the farmers are sufficiently concerned to convene a meeting of their B.C. Council of Marketing Boards. Certainly the poultry producers in this province are concerned. We've talked a

[ Page 2252 ]

lot yesterday about Cargill and some of the problems that the poultry people are facing.

We have had a directive — well, a recommendation — to the minister from the B.C. superboard, relative to the Broiler Marketing Board. I know the minister was concerned that that was made public. But I think he should check with the chairman of his B.C. Marketing Board as to how that was made public. It certainly was not by any insidious means that I received this information. It came to me very openly and above-board. I would suggest that you should check with your superboard and perhaps give them some directives if you don't want this information public.

But it's probably a good thing that it is public, because I am concerned, having been a member of the B.C. Marketing Board, and knowing full well what their responsibilities and prerogatives are, to see a recommendation that would attempt to use a sledge-hammer to kill a flea, apparently. It's a very strange recommendation to come from that board. Granted, there are all kinds of problems with the B.C. broiler board, but the superboard does have certain powers under the act. They can amend or cancel regulations of any commodity board. The big problem there was representation, and that could have been dealt with by the superboard without even bothering the minister. Perhaps then his genetic whatevers would have let more hair grow.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that with those thoughts in mind, and with the full knowledge that there are a great many other things to discuss with this minister, and with the hope that the Premier will still be indisposed on Monday and we'll be able to continue with agricultural estimates, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Mr. Passarell tabled documents referred to during committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the House until 2:30 on Monday afternoon. I'd like to say a few words concerning the motion. For your information and for the information of all hon. members in the House, in the coming week British Columbia will have some very significant visitors.

Firstly, on Monday a large number of federal economic ministers will be in Victoria for an historic meeting with their provincial counterparts, both as a group and in one-to-one sessions, to discuss important federal-provincial issues.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, May 6 and 7, the Prime Minister of Japan, His Excellency Masayoshi Ohira, will be visiting Vancouver for the first time as Prime Minister, at the conclusion of his visits to Mexico, the United States and Ottawa. The Prime Minister of Canada will be hosting a dinner for the Japanese party on Tuesday evening in Vancouver. On Wednesday the Premier, on behalf of the province of British Columbia, will also be meeting in Vancouver with the Prime Minister, prior to his departure that afternoon home to Japan.

In order to facilitate these visits and the attendant activities, we are proposing these minor changes in the times of sittings of the Legislature for those three days. Firstly, as I've indicated, to accommodate the scheduled meetings on Monday between the federal and provincial ministers, I have moved that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2:30 on Monday. I would be proposing, subject of course to the wishes of the House, that we continue until 6:30 on Monday so that it is the same sitting time.

On Tuesday, in order for members who have been invited to attend the dinner being held in honour of the Japanese Prime Minister, we will be suggesting the House sit from 1 o'clock until 5 o'clock. That event is scheduled in Vancouver for 6:30, and there is a need for the members to leave Victoria to attend.

Thirdly, on Wednesday, as I've mentioned, the Premier and a number of members of government will be attending a Vancouver meeting and luncheon to honour Prime Minister Ohira. To facilitate that and to permit adequate time for the party to return to Victoria, it will be proposed that the House sit on Wednesday from 3 o'clock in the afternoon until 7 o'clock. On all of the days in question the normal business of the House will proceed according to the usual routine, question period and so forth.

Further, I know all hon. members would wish to be early apprised of the date it is proposed to call Motion 10, moved by the hon. Premier and seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is proposed that that motion be called as the first order of business on Tuesday afternoon.

MR. BARRETT: I welcome the statement by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Certainly the changes of the hours for Monday and Tuesday of next week are completely understandable and totally acceptable to the official opposition. In terms of Tuesday's debate I'm pleased that the government has made the decision to call a motion. Perhaps unknown to both the minister and myself there may be Whips functioning. I recommend that if such mysterious figures are functioning, perhaps an agreement on debate time and debate structure could be forthcoming to facilitate that very important debate in the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.