[ Page 4835 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Bone marrow leukemia treatment. Mr. Long –– 4835

Mrs. Boone

Tribute to Harry Jerome. Mr. Barnes –– 4836

Hon. Mr. Reid

Okanagan opportunities. Mr. Chalmers –– 4838

Mr. Williams

Failure of privatization. Mr. Lovick –– 4839

Mr. Michael

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 9: minister's office –– 4841

Mr. Rose

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Michael

Mr. De Jong

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As many Victorians particularly will be aware, Gizeh Temple has its Garden City ceremonial happening in Victoria this weekend, and the Shriners are popping out from behind every lamp post and from behind some other things as well, from time to time.

This morning, in the member's gallery, we have some very distinguished visitors. We have Ernie Lockhart, Eleanor Burton, Bill Wolf and Joan Wolf. From Calam Temple in Idaho we have the illustrious Sir Bob Turnipseed and his wife, Clara. Bob is the potentate. From El Korah Temple in Idaho we have Betty Dakan and her husband Jim, who is the potentate of that temple. From Al Azhat Temple in Calgary, Alberta we have Jack and Olga Dunlop. Jack is the potentate of Al Azhat. From El Katif Temple in Spokane we have Roger Underwood, who is a potentate, and as well we have Art Fyfe, the parade marshall of Gizeh Temple.

On the floor, with your permission, sir, this morning we have a very distinguished visitor. This visitor was first elected to this assembly on January 9, 1956. He served as the member for Vancouver Centre for many years. He was the former Minister of Education, the former Minister of Labour and the former Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia and is presently a practising barrister and solicitor. He also served as the chancellor of the University of British Columbia. I would like the House to meet Dr. Les Peterson, QC, and bid him welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: On behalf of all my colleagues and particularly my colleague from Victoria, I would like to join with the Provincial Secretary in welcoming all the Shriners to Victoria. In my travels early this morning, as I went to speak to the chamber of commerce — to tell them what a bunch of nice guys you all are really — I met a number of the Shriners, and we had amicable discussions about the fun they had last night. As you all know, Shriners are a quiet bunch, and they enjoy themselves. On behalf of Victoria and the constituents, I would like to welcome the Shriners to our city.

HON. L. HANSON: In the gallery today we have a number of students visiting us from St. James Catholic Elementary School in Vernon, that great city in the Okanagan. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Joan O'Leary and Mr. Nick Shaigec, Mrs. Sandi Bourgeois and Mrs. Maria Hutter. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

BONE MARROW LEUKEMIA TREATMENT

MR. LONG: Today I want to bring something very important to the House, and that's the need for us in British Columbia.... A standard has been set by the small town that I come from, Powell River, to do with the importance of bone marrow transplants for leukemic patients to make sure these people get the treatment that is necessary to save their lives. I'd like to touch on basic needs and the process to identify the bone marrow so that these patients can get it.

What it amounts to is that one of the only known treatments for severely leukemic patients is a transfer of bone marrow from a family member who has a similar bone marrow or by having a bank of people who match the qualities of the marrow, no matter where in the country they are. In this process, the odds of getting someone to give the precise bone marrow that is needed is 30,000 to one. If you're a patient with leukemia, there is a great need in this country, because it's so new, that this bank be started and that we get these people into that bank so that they have the ability to get that bone marrow.

At this time in Powell River — and I understand also in Chilliwack — a lot has been going on to try to set this bank up. The RCMP across Canada, through our RCMP in Powell River, have taken on the responsibility to set up the clinics and the process through the Red Cross to identify that marrow and to put it into a bank. So these people have got the bank there ready to go. A lot of the funding until now has been by local donations and organizations, business, through functions in different areas, and at this point in time they have raised in my own town and around in the neighbourhood of $80,000 to $100,000.

There is a downside to the bone marrow as well. Even after we have the bank in place, after we have identified this marrow and all the people who would match, it is a great decision for the leukemic patient to actually take the treatment. With leukemic patients the chances of going through the cure, so to speak, of the bone marrow treatment are very severe. It's a big decision on their part, but I think there is something that we know can help them, and it's our responsibility to make sure that they have this opportunity and that we get this in place.

One thing we have to realize is that this is not a self-inflicted disease like many others we have in our society. This is something they have no control over. I would like to see the federal and provincial governments and the Red Cross.... It seems to me that to this time the marrow has not really been identified as an organ transplant or a blood-oriented thing. I think right now they've identified that through the Red Cross; it seems to be closer to the blood type of operation. I suggest that, through the Red Cross from B.C. and through the federal government, we can possibly bring it about that the identification of the marrow can be done with the Red Cross within the blood donor system and have this bank available to all the people in Canada who need the marrow.

[10:15]

I have to also bring up that there is a bank in the United States and in Britain, and when Canada has its bank in place, it gives us the opportunity to work with these two other countries and get a broader selection of identified marrow for our people in Canada as well. It seems to have a multiplying factor of three because of the three countries. I would like to see British Columbia, by whatever means it can, through the Red Cross and with all the people in my town and in the Chilliwack area and right through the province of British Columbia — now that it's started, the RCMP have carried it on; the people are working hard at it — get involved with the feds, the Red Cross and all these people to make this something that we can bring in and have this treatment for the people of British Columbia and of all of Canada, as well as helping out those other two countries if there are people here who can give to them.

[ Page 4836 ]

I don't have a whole lot more to say, other than that there have been a lot of people working on it. They're looking for the chance to have their own life fulfilled, to live out their life. I guess it hits home a little more when you have friends with it. I guess we never know where we lie until you find out for yourself. I think that's true about our society.

There are many things out there we must look at, and this is one where I think we can all join together, one that we can fight hard for, and I'm looking for the support of this House — and everybody in Canada as well — to join with us and form this bank. It's only a one-shot deal. Once the people are there, it's not a large funding thing after that. You have the bank formed and the people have the opportunity, at least, to get the treatment they need. I would like to see everybody take part.

MRS. BOONE: There's not an awful lot that I can argue with in that statement, but there's something I'd like to add to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want to argue it.

MRS. BOONE: No, I'm not going to argue with it, but there are some things that I can add.

The whole issue of bone marrow transplantation came to my attention last fall when a relative of a patient who was dying of leukemia called me and made me aware of it. At that point I contacted the Red Cross, and I discovered that this is in fact something they're promoting and something they felt would do a lot for people with leukemia in this province. However, the Red Cross is a national organization, and national organizations obviously are funded on a national basis. Each province is expected to contribute so much to the national organization. The local Red Cross, therefore, has no way of making a decision to say that this is what they are going to do, or this is what they can do, or to increase their funding.

What they do have, though, is that the province sends representatives back to the national organization to speak on behalf of the province. When I found that out and realized that the Red Cross has no ability to lobby, no ability to ask for extra funds, no ability to change things, I wrote to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and asked that he advise the representative who goes back to the national organization to press for increased funding so that we can establish a blood donor bank that would take bone marrow transplants into consideration. The response I got from the minister was that he was looking into it, and I haven't heard anything since.

I don't know what happened when our representative went back to the national level, but it is clearly something that we should be looking at not just on a city-by-city or provincewide basis, but on a national basis. It can be done through the Red Cross, as the Red Cross is the organization that has access to the blood. It can do the sampling and make it possible for us to give those people a chance for their lives.

I would certainly enjoy supporting anything this government did to work toward that, and I can give you the assurance that the rest of our caucus would do the same. This is a terrible disease. It's one that hits any age group and as you stated, you don't know what it's like until somebody you know actually has it. If, in your capacity as a back-bencher on the government side, you are able to influence the government, and if this government is able to influence the national organization to increase the funding so that we can develop a computer program.... That's all we really need: computerization of names and lists of people so that people can draw on them to find out where everybody is. It doesn't mean that you have to have your bone marrow taken out and stored someplace. It's just a computerized list saying that you match up with somebody and that you could give to somebody. On behalf of the opposition, I would certainly support any move of this government to work toward bone marrow transplants.

MR. LONG: In conclusion, I think the member for Prince George North has spoken clearly of their support. One thing I would like to just touch on again is that we do have organ transplants; we do have blood donors. This is just one that we've missed, that has fallen through the cracks. The marrow now has to be identified and put into the computer so we can call on those people. I think that would complete the circle of all the body parts we need to help people who are sick.

TRIBUTE TO HARRY JEROME

MR. BARNES: I have put myself in a very difficult position trying to speak on the topic I've chosen: that is, a tribute to Harry Jerome. The reason I say that is that I knew Harry over a long period of time, and we were developing a very close friendship at the time of his death in December 1982. For some of you who may not be aware, Harry and I actually attended the same university — the University of Oregon in Eugene — but there was a ten-year spread; he was somewhat younger. It's one of those things that I feel very emotional about, because I knew him well.

I met him quite a few times to talk issues. As a matter of fact, in December 1982, the week before he had his fatal seizure, I visited him at Vancouver General Hospital. We had been discussing some projects that we were going to be getting involved in.

I am here this morning first of all to respect the event that took place last week, to pay tribute to a group of people who committed themselves to doing all they could to ensure that Harry's memory and the things for which he stood and that he was pursuing would not be forgotten. That event took place last week. One of the government ministers was present at Hallelujah Point in Stanley Park when a huge bronze statue was actually supposed to be erected but couldn't be because the base broke. There is a little story to that.

Once it's finished — I think it will be this weekend — it will be a huge statue of bronze, about twice my size. It was constructed by a very famous sculptor named Jack Harman, who, by the way, was the person who constructed the statues that were erected in front of Empire Stadium after the 1954 miracle mile of John Landy and Roger Bannister. Harry's sister, Valerie Parker, who was present at that event, was very pleased with the crowd's response, with the fact that for once we had a situation in Harry's life that was harmonious. The media, friends and coaches were there, and she was very pleased that there was an aura of friendship and enthusiasm.

Harry had several sides to him, however, and the point that I want to make this morning is not so much about his greatness as an athlete; that's well-known. Everybody was talking about the fact that this is one of the few people in Canadian history who was able to sustain himself athletically for such a long period of time. Between the years 1960 and 1974 he held six world records, which is a phenomenal feat of longevity and capacity on his part.

[ Page 4837 ]

The side of him that I think we want to keep in mind is that as he evolved he was becoming a humanitarian, somebody who was committed to a better society, a better world. It's certainly no secret that Harry carried a great deal of his frustrations on his shoulders, perhaps part of being a black person — which he has said himself — trying to adjust in a society that did not always understand the relationship between people as human beings, regardless of race. He constantly tried to address that problem.

Harry was also a person who had a deep sense of action. He was somebody who wanted to do something about things. The issue that he left me with.... There were two things, actually. One was the failure of the architects of the B.C. Place Stadium to create a facility that could bring international sport to Vancouver — in other words, an Olympic-sanctioned event. It was a surprise to a lot of people, but that beautiful stadium cannot accommodate such an event. That type of thing bothered Harry. He couldn't understand why there wasn't better communication among the designers and architects of sporting facilities. He wanted to see a year-round facility created, whereby athletes — amateurs and professionals — could all get together and develop. That never happened. We still, to this day, do not have an all-weather facility in the province.

There is one thing that Harry did do that did happen, and which is still in place today, and that's the creation of facilities in all the school districts in the province. It's called the Premier's sport awards program which allows young people — teenagers and elementary school students — to learn what it's like to be motivated, to set goals for themselves and to be able to achieve them in a systematic way. I'm sure that most of us who are familiar with that program know that it is the only program of its kind in Canada. It is unique and British Columbia-made. It is in about 800 schools in every school district. It has over 2,000 teachers registered in the program who are teaching it. This is the kind of thing that Harry Jerome was involved in, and his theme was: "You can do it. You can make it happen." It's a concept that has inspired the staff and the people involved in the program, who are emotional about it and believe that Harry Jerome was evolving in such a way that he touched not just people who were down and out and didn't have the means, but everybody right across the board.

[10:30]

I'm going to suggest, in my wind-up remarks, what I think we should do as a Legislature, as a body, to support the concept of keeping the memory of Harry Jerome's deeds alive. For now, I'll just wait and hear the response from the government's side.

HON. MR. REID: I rise in my place today first of all to commend that member for making a member's statement for the record this morning in relation to a tribute to Harry Jerome. The sports community across the province of British Columbia also recognized the leadership and achievements of Harry Jerome in his term in British Columbia, and the pride and respect that the sporting community in British Columbia, Canada and the world showed for Harry with his competition in three Olympics, two Pan-American Games and two Commonwealth Games, creating a profile for athletes and having the dedication and the leadership that he had.

As the member said, Harry's special feeling for humanity and for the youth of the province of British Columbia was the reason for the creation of the Premier's athletic award program, which comes under my ministry. I can attribute to his initiative the involvement of the schools around the province in that program and, as the member said, the pride in the people involved in it and the respect they had for Harry as a result of that.

Just last week, as the member said, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) unveiled in Stanley Park a statue to commemorate his outstanding achievements. Last week we also had a replica of the major bronze statue made and presented it to the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame, which will be a perpetual recognition of that activity and that very proud British Columbian and athlete.

As a member of the province's government and also the minister responsible for sports and recreation in British Columbia, I cannot pay sufficient tribute to a man with such dedication except by the kinds of things that have been unveiled. I am anxiously awaiting some suggestion by that member on how we as a province can continue to show recognition for the outstanding achievement, excellence and humanity of such a recognized athlete as Harry Jerome.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the minister's request for suggestions to ensure that Harry Jerome's memory is not just left to the community generally in terms of trying to perpetuate something which his statue, of course, has done visually. It is there for us when we're jogging around the park to be able to sit and have a chat with Harry. It's a very electrifying, forceful statue. I'm sure anyone who goes and looks at it will immediately get an emotional feeling about it. It's a very powerful statement.

I should say as well that this statue of a Canadian was dedicated by a Canadian, and I understand this is the first time this has ever happened in Stanley Park. That in itself is noteworthy. It's happening just before the hundredth anniversary of Stanley Park, which will be celebrated, I think, in another week or so.

Back to the challenge. I just have two minutes, so I'll just get to the point. The Harry Jerome sport awards program currently operates on about a $200,000-a-year budget. That has been pretty much stable since the inception of the program some eight years or so ago. Will the minister undertake to ensure that this program will never be at risk? Clearly it is a unique, outstanding, extremely successful program, well subscribed to, and something that we should be proud of and should be celebrating. We should be talking about the things that this person was trying to talk about. If that can happen, if we can somehow get, through a statutory enactment, a way to ensure that this program is in place as a contribution by the people of British Columbia for this athlete of the century, a guy who was around when the Terry Foxes, Rick Hansens, Steve Fonyos and Al Howies were around, just to mention a few, all in this century, all from British Columbia.... He was an outstanding person who deserves to be recognized and who is an inspiration to us all.

Even the staff say they work with a smile on their face. They're enthusiastic. They're emotional. They're excited because they feel they are part of something big. We are unique in this province with this program. I think it is a non-partisan thing.

However, I'll just tell you a little story in winding up. I haven't got much time. But I knew Harry Jerome's father, who was an old-time CCFer. Did you know that? I bet you didn't know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Harry changed.

[ Page 4838 ]

MR. BARNES: He says Harry changed. He was doing a whole lot of changing. I won't tell you how much he really changed, because I don't want to upset your day. But I will say that this has been a very interesting exercise. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that, as a result, we will come out with a resolve to save the Harry Jerome sport awards program.

OKANAGAN OPPORTUNITIES

MR. CHALMERS: As the MLA for Okanagan South living in the interior of the province, I am very much aware — as many of the members in this House are — of the many opportunities that exist in the interior of this province. Of course, there are opportunities for those who simply want a serene and quiet place to live or visit. The Okanagan provides a place to play, to work and to establish businesses.

Probably the opportunities are limited only by one's imagination. It certainly has provided an opportunity for many people who want to engage in the fruit or grape industries because of the perfect climatic conditions and constant source of irrigation water. All of these opportunities have existed for many years, and those in the fruit industry have gone there to establish their farms — in some cases many years ago — and their families have taken over. But that industry is in deep trouble financially. That has been talked about many times as well inside and outside this House.

It provides another opportunity for those of us in the interior and, for that matter, throughout the province. It provides an opportunity for government to play a role in finding a solution to the long-term problems of the people involved in the fruit and grape industries. There has been a lot of talk inside and outside this House about the free trade agreement and GATT, and the negative effect those two items have on the fruit industry. Those with even a little knowledge of the industry know that other factors have also contributed to the financial difficulties of the farmer. The grape industry has probably received most of the public's attention because of the recent free trade talks.

The government, and certainly the Minister of Agriculture — in my opinion — has responded very quickly to requests for assistance from the grape industry. Some may feel that this is not the case, but we must remember that there is more than one player involved. The federal government must also play a significant role in the long-term solution. We've had the assistance for the 1988 grape crop with the help of a lot of the interior MLAs and others. We are working on a compensation package for those affected by free trade, but we are waiting now on federal approval. There are new programs that have been talked about by the Agriculture minister and will be talked about in the near future.

I want to concentrate a little more today on the apple grower, as he is also finding it a very difficult time. There are growers in my riding — in Okanagan South — who are in some cases second and third generation farmers, and who started five or six years ago with clear title property. They are finding themselves now with no equity left in their farms, because they have had to mortgage their land to raise money to simply operate the farm, and in some cases just to put food on the table for their families.

This has been known to me, of course, for some time — certainly longer than I have been a member of this Legislature. But it really came home to me just a week or so ago when on a weekend, a local fruit-farmer phoned me and asked if he could borrow my tractor. He borrowed the tractor, took it away and brought it back a few hours later. When talking to him, I asked him why it was necessary. Was his broken down? Was it in the repair shop? He needed that tractor because he sold his, and the reason he sold his tractor was to pay some bills. In fact, that very afternoon he sold 20 lengths of irrigation pipe to buy groceries.

He farms marginal land. Some people would say that land should not be in the agricultural land reserve, yet it is.

MR. ROSE: Oh, here it comes.

MR. CHALMERS: I'm not here advocating removing land from the agricultural reserve, Mr. Member. That's not what I'm here for today. I'm here today to say that these people want to farm. These people want an opportunity to stay on the farm, but we have to help give them that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, there are some 165 farmers in my riding who are facing the same dilemma and are expressing their frustration by jointly applying to have over 3,000 acres of land removed from the agricultural land reserve. Their backs are against the wall. They want to focus attention on the plight of their industry. They want to get the attention of the general public; they want to get the attention of the politicians. They have my attention, and I am going to continue to urge members on both sides of this House to come up with ways to assist these farmers in this hour of need. If we don't give them this opportunity, they are going to have to find some way to put the pressure on all of us in this Legislature to get outside the constraints put on them with the agricultural land reserve.

MR. WILLIAMS: This member from south Okanagan should have been around yesterday when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) was saying everything's rosy, everything's fine. We didn't hear from him then. We got a bundle of garbage from the minister.

To a great degree you've created your own misfortune in this industry by swallowing holus-bolus the free trade deal that Mulroney pulled together. You look at what the banks say. The Bank of Nova Scotia analyzed that trade deal and said it was only of marginal benefit economically overall but would have a disastrous impact on the soft-fruit industry and the grape industry, the very things you're talking about.

You people are the rainmakers. You're the ones causing problems in your own region. You've got a naive Premier here who jumped on board so quickly that there was no bargaining whatsoever. It was so badly done that he's not even in on the bargaining in terms of the adjustments that are going to have to be done nationally. You've got this incredible, naive Premier who just jumped on board ideologically, and when he did so he threw off most of the farmers of British Columbia, and certainly most in your region.

You look at what's happening in your region: 32 percent of the appeals to the Farm Debt Review Board in British Columbia are from orchardists. That's the result of the Social Credit years. You're the people that have been in power. There are going to be 2,500 jobs lost in the grape industry alone because you just jumped on board.

You talk about some concessions. Do any of you people ever stop and read the material your boss approves?

AN HON. MEMBER: We read it all.

[ Page 4839 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, sure you do. Do you know what it says? It says under the free trade deal that you can't help the folks out. It says that you can't make these concessions. There's going to be an adjustment period; yes, a very difficult adjustment period while these people go out of business.

Then, after all of this, the crocodile tears from the member from south Okanagan. All of a sudden the real estate flag goes up: Open for Business. "We want to pave the orchards; it's the only answer; and I'm there with those 3,000 acres we want to take out of the ALR in my riding." Well, Mr. Hero, you and your friend, the Premier, who support Mr. Rich down there at Terra Nova in Richmond, why don't you people put that money into a fund? They're going to make $140,000 an acre at Terra Nova, over 100 acres. What's that? Were talking about making millions and millions of dollars on one farm deal for the friends of Social Credit. I suggest that if you care about your farmers in the Okanagan, you tell them that you stand for putting all that money into a fund to help all the farmers. Mr. Ilich's big fortune down at Terra Nova should go into a fund to help farmers around British Columbia.

If you're serious, Mr. Member, you won't be playing that phony real estate game you're playing; you'll be playing one that looks at this real estate game that goes on under the name of the ALR in terms of helping all British Columbians and not just real estate commissions and the friends of Social Credit — something that will help all British Columbians. That's what we on this side want. We want to see that when those lands come out of the ALR, all British Columbians benefit, not just the people who contribute to Social Credit — not just the people who provided helicopters for the Premier in his leadership campaign, but all British Columbians.

[10:45]

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, some things never change. The same old talk, the same diatribe from these people, the same rhetoric from that member for Vancouver East. If his ears had been in the same gear his mouth was, he'd have heard me say just a few minutes ago that I did not advocate abolishing the land reserve; I did not advocate letting these people out of the land freeze. What I said was that we have to either help them out or let them out.

We are legislating these people into bankruptcy. I'm suggesting that we have to work together. All of us in this Legislature have to find a way to help these people financially so they can stay farming. Many of them were born farmers; they want to continue to farm and see their children continue to farm.

Farming is a very important industry in this province, and we on this side of the House understand that. Over a billion dollars a year is put into our economy, far too important a contribution to be ignored, and just rhetoric isn't going to fix that problem, Mr. Member. I'm suggesting that we're going to find a way to do it.

FAILURE OF PRIVATIZATION

MR. LOVICK: I'm delighted to see that the temperature has risen somewhat, because my subject for today is the failure of privatization, and I suspect that many members opposite will have some difficulty with that proposition. They're going to struggle with the concept of the failure of privatization because these people are believers in privatization. These are the folks who say: "We don't need any evidence. We don't need any statistical data. We don't need any studies tabled in the Legislature, because we believe." They are the true believers: they have the faith. These are the Jimmy Swaggarts of the legislative chamber. These are the fundamentalist believers. And their belief is based on a faith the same way St. Paul talked about faith: the evidence of things hoped for, the substance of things not seen. That's the problem.

We've got some evidence demonstrating that privatization is indeed a colossal failure for a number of reasons and on a number of different grounds. First, the government has failed to provide us with the hard evidence that we've asked for to demonstrate the advisability and the desirability of the concept itself: that is, that it can improve efficiency or save us money. Second, government has consistently and assiduously failed to answer any of the questions we have posed about privatization. Third, government has failed, despite spending what appears to be millions of dollars on advertising campaigns, to allay the public's fears, to make people believe that this isn't a bad idea. Finally, government has failed to make converts to its cause, despite what it tells us.

I want to deal with some, if not all, of those points. Let's deal first with the claim that the privatization initiative will yield cost savings and look at the best authority we've got to evaluate that matter: the auditor-general's report. In 1986 the auditor-general, looking at the parks and outdoor recreation division of the particular ministry, effectively challenged the claim about cost savings and said there was no evidence. Similarly, a year later we have an auditor-general's report that looks at the Ministry of the Attorney-General, corrections branch, and comes to the same conclusion: that it has not yet been determined whether contracting in fact saves money. Indeed, the auditor-general's report in 1987 concludes: "...Contracting has no obvious cost advantages over delivering the services through public servants unless..."

HON. MR. REID: He didn't know what he was talking about. That's why he's gone — history.

MR. LOVICK: Interesting that the member opposite says somebody doesn't know what he was talking about, given that you're the paradigm case, Mr. Minister. But I'll let that pass.

"...unless," says the auditor-general, "a lower quality of service is accepted." The point, then, is that the cost saving is obviously called into question. But it is also perhaps the case that the people will indeed end up paying more for those privatized services; in the short term possibly, in the long-term inevitably.

Let's look at the latest episode in the privatization tragicomic opera called "The Perils of P." I'm referring to the recent news that this government is now using private sector labour contractors to fill clerical vacancies within government. I'm referring to the fact that this government is paying more per hour to contractors than workers are receiving. I'm referring to the fact that private sector workers are being paid between 20 and 40 percent less than their public sector counterparts, and that the private sector contract is raking off that exorbitant profit. The Premier and his cohorts see no problem with this. They see this as a cost saving, for heaven's sake. They see this as a means to give them flexibility and to reduce the total wage bill to government.

Interjection.

[ Page 4840 ]

MR. LOVICK: I'm glad to see you applaud, Mr. Member. We're finally finding out where you're coming from.

What we're talking about, correctly understood, is reducing wages. We're talking about taking away benefits. We're talking about deunionizing the workplace. We're talking about walking away from responsibility for training workers. And finally, we're talking about the exploitation of women. It's just that simple. And you guys, in your sanctimonious self-righteous way, are unwilling to accept that simple truth, despite the evidence before you.

Let's look briefly at the other great argument about privatization and the failure thereof. Let's talk about increased efficiency. Let me give you one example from the tragicomic opera called the "The Perils of P." This is the chapter entitled: "Whatever Happened to the Map Division?" The map division apparently got lost in the shuffle. The mineral titles branch in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources used to supply preliminary maps to geologists and others in the mining industry from their office on Hornby Street in Vancouver.

Unfortunately, that activity has apparently disappeared. Individuals went there and were told: "Go down to World Wide Maps and you can get the things you want." The problem is that nobody told World Wide Maps that this was their new responsibility. The Crown corporation, the Queen's Printer, no longer had the responsibility, but guess what? Nobody else had the responsibility either.

That's an example of the kind of efficiency we are apparently being told will derive from privatization. The predicament is that the failure is evident. Government hasn't proven the contrary to us.

MR. MICHAEL: I would suggest to the members opposite that if privatization is a colossal failure, why are they making such a big fuss about it? They should be glad. It's obviously not a failure, and they don't really believe it's going to be a failure, because they're spending a lot of effort and money trying to downplay what is going to be a massive, successful program. I would suggest that they would do well to spend some time examining another socialist government — New Zealand — and the format that government is advocating; or Australia, or many other countries where privatization is indeed moving ahead very strongly and successfully.

I find it interesting that the members opposite would suggest that highway maintenance cannot be privatized. Yet we look around the province and find that airline maintenance is in the private sector. It's interesting to look at the fact that logging roads, which are much more hazardous, and have steeper terrain, heavier snow, more rain, narrower roads, and all those types of hazardous situations in which companies must meet certain timetables, and carry workers to their workplace, and carry very heavy and wide logging trucks.... Those roads are privatized throughout the entire province. I find it interesting that the members come to the conclusion that the highways can't be privatized, but we have several situations such as that that are indeed privatized, with no suggestion whatsoever that they should be put back into the public sector. We never hear any suggestions along those lines.

It's also interesting to note as an example that slightly in excess of 40 percent of those currently working in the Ministry of Highways are indeed privatized. There are many functions — I do not choose to name them all — currently in Highways that are indeed privatized.

As for the success to date, I haven't heard any complaints about those areas that have been privatized: the labs, the Queen's Printer, the sign shop out in Langford. I don't hear the workers out there complaining.

Perhaps if the member opposite is really concerned about private agencies supplying part-time or full-time workers to areas of government that need them on a temporary basis, he should get hold of the Office and Technical Employees' Union and suggest that they go out and organize them. They're open for organization. If he's concerned about their wages and working conditions, which I suggest are certainly meeting the public sector level at the present time....

I also find it interesting to notice that in the private sector we have drug stores throughout the province selling drugs across the counter. But for some unknown reason the members opposite seem to find it wrong to even suggest that a small liquor store should be privatized. It's okay to have drug stores selling material across the counter, but it's not okay for liquor stores.

I would suggest that you give this government a few more months, another year, until all these things unfold. Let's look over our shoulder a year from now and see the success of privatization by this government. It will indeed go down in history as a success story.

MR. LOVICK: I enjoyed that response. It's obviously true that some people prefer a shotgun to a rifle, because clearly the odds are better that they'll hit something if they aim at 20 targets. That's clearly what the minister tried to do, and unfortunately he didn't seem to hit any.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: The ex-minister — sorry for that backhanded compliment.

When the minister says he can't understand why we say that privatization is a failure, why we are making a fuss, I have to struggle. I wonder if there is any semblance of logic left on that side of the House. Obviously it's precisely because it is a failure, because the evidence is there. This government, however, can't read the evidence and is carrying on. By heaven, somebody has to make a fuss, because the government will carry on regardless of the evidence. That's the predicament we've got.

[11:00]

We've got the greatest and most colossal irony of all time, when the member says we're spending a lot of money on the anti-privatization campaign. For goodness' sake, Mr. Speaker, I would love to get one answer to even some of my 12 written questions on notice asking this government to come clean and tell us how much it's spending on promotion and advertising for this insane scheme. But they haven't. They've been as mute as mollusks and as quiet as clams. They haven't said a thing — not a thing.

Just let me touch very briefly on the minister talking about logging roads and the privatization of logging roads. You bet — the expert on the subject had a private logging road built directly to his own private property. You bet, Mr. Speaker; we know about private roads. The point is that the government is not listening. It has failed to sell the scheme, despite spending megabucks and despite using mega resources. We've got mailings, posters, advertisements and staff diverted entirely to working on privatization at tremendous cost to this government.

[ Page 4841 ]

But it's not selling, Mr. Speaker. For example, today I have one of many submissions to my office. I've got about 1,000 names here from China Creek. The first paragraph says it all on one of these two petitions which I'm going to give to the Premier. "Please find enclosed 528 signatures opposing privatization."

I have now sent you, Mr. Premier, over 1,000 signatures. But you guys aren't listening; you're just not listening. Mr. Speaker, the privatization initiative, unfortunately, is an effort to redraw the map of this province. Over the years, British Columbians have worked very hard to create a unique economy and a unique society called British Columbia. What we're dealing with here is an alien ideology and an attempt to remake this province in somebody else's image, and it's a bad image indeed.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $254, 982.

MR. ROSE: I'll wait for a moment until the House clears out, which is what usually happens when I get up to speak.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, I certainly hope the Minister of Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) doesn't leave, because I will certainly miss his beautiful dulcet tones.

Mr. Chairman, the minister gave a tremendously upbeat speech yesterday. I was really thrilled with it; as a matter of fact, I thought about crossing the floor. But the problem is that I heard the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) this morning, and he gave just the opposite speech. He said everything was terrible, and that things were so bad in the Okanagan that we should subdivide it all and blacktop it, take it out of the ALR and do all kinds of things. Well, he hinted at it.

HON. MR. REID: I said that too.

MR. ROSE: Yes, the Minister of Tourism said that.

But you know, there's been a tremendous change in the attitude and hopes and dreams of the agriculture sector in the last two years. I think that it's noticeable, and the minister has noticed it too. I'm not blaming the minister for this, but I attended the Federation of Agriculture in 1986 in Richmond, and there was the minister up on the stage practically wearing a halo. Everybody just loved him. We had a farmer Premier, and we have a farmer Minister of Agriculture, and from now on, everything will be sailing. It would be wonderful.

He was up in Vernon again this year in December: look ma, no halo — gone. What happened to his halo? The same thing happened to his halo as the hopes of the agriculture sector in this country in the last two years. You don't have to take it from me; just listen to the member for Okanagan South.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Somebody suggested it wasn't a halo: it was a hole in his head. I don't know about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if next year when he goes to the Federation of Agriculture committee meeting, he might need a bodyguard. He might be wearing horns instead of a halo, such is their disillusionment. God knows what's going to happen next year. If the trend keeps up, there might not even be a Minister of Agriculture, because there won't be any ministry.

MR. WILLIAMS: The farmers may even vote for us.

MR. ROSE: I don't know about that. I think that the farmers and the people in the rural areas, many of whom have voted for Social Credit, are vastly disillusioned. We'll see next Wednesday how they feel. They're going to send you a message next Wednesday, and it will be a powerful one. I'm not making any precise predictions, but I would suggest to you quite strongly that there will be a vast change in the percentage of votes awarded the different parties. Yours will fall, because your people are going to stay home. You add the terrible situation in markets and the prices in the apple industry, and look at all of the problems in the cattle industry and the grazing industry, to say nothing of the soft fruits and the grapes, and you've got....

HON. MR. SAVAGE: What's wrong with cattle?

MR. ROSE: I'm glad the minister asked that question. If he looks at the farm income insurance statement, he'll find that by far the largest part of the claims this year — some $17 million — are from the cattle industry. The second-largest is the orchard industry. I've got the documents from his ministry. I wouldn't think that the minister would want to criticize the accuracy of a report emanating from his ministry. I would think it would be very unfair to the very strong ministry he almost has left.

This is a bleak time for agriculture. You don't have to take my word for it. Here are some things that the minister said yesterday, for instance. Farm incomes up 3 percent. Terrific! What's the inflation rate? It's not even keeping up with the inflation rate. So it's a bleak time. Their bankruptcies are unreasonably high, and I can give you the figures on those if you need them.

The wine industry is a terminal industry. This year the marketing boards have been threatened by the interference of the Premier; he threatened to pull out of the national marketing schemes. What lunacy is that? If we pull out of those national marketing schemes, we'll have stuff dumped in here from every province. That's why we have national marketing schemes: so we can have an orderly approach to development. Sure, you may not have exactly the market share you feel you deserve nationally, but you can work for that without using a bludgeon to put everybody at risk.

That was just nonsense. I'm sure the minister doesn't support that, and I'm sure the minister found another few initiatives particularly embarrassing as well. I feel sorry for him on that. The milk industry was in turmoil and may still be, despite the Shelford report. So things are not that great.

Privatization of certain labs. The soils laboratory in Kelowna was sold at a fire-sale price. The dairy lab in Burnaby is not sold yet, but it will be, because for some mad, ideological reason it's got to go. So what will happen?

[ Page 4842 ]

There'll be a profit-making service put in, and either quality or service will suffer. That's certainly not fair.

Again, the member for Okanagan South tells us.... You don't have to take the word of the radical pinko over here: take it from the right-wing real estate man from Kelowna. Farmers are in terrible shape in that area, almost driven into a kind of peonage. Why would a young person want to go into farming these days?

The answer to the problems is better farm income. But what's happening to the ministry? Less and less and less. They didn't even spend the money they budgeted last year on farm income insurance. Everybody's going broke. Farm income insurance, they told me when I was in Keremeos two or three months ago, isn't enough to keep them going, or even to start the next year. This is what happened. We estimated a spending of $62,000,800 in farm income insurance, and do you know how much we spent with crisis all over the agricultural industry? Twenty-four million bucks — less than half.

What's wrong with this outfit? All of these crocodile tears for all the poor farmers in trouble all over the province, and nothing is happening. It can't even pay out what's needed in farm income insurance. That's absolutely scandalous.

So what are they driven to? What the member for Okanagan South said, and I quote from the Province, Sunday, May 8: "They're sending a message to B.C.'s Social Credit government to take their orchards and vineyards, all 3,860 acres, out of the agricultural land reserve, because most of them are being driven deeper into debt and some can't get bank credit."

What happens when you drive all of these people off the land? You drive them into the cities. I heard on television this morning that half of the people in Canada live in the corridor between Windsor and Quebec City, and that the same thing is going to happen around Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. Do we, as a society, really gain very much by having a large urban mass, like the people driven into Mexico City? Do we want Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg to be another Mexico City? They can't make any money on the land. They can't make a living there.

We have to have some radical restructuring, and it certainly doesn't start by not even paying out what you've got in farm income assurance. That's all the requests were. Why don't you beef up the payments, instead of cutting them down? Why don't you do that? You've cut them and whittled away from when it was farm income assurance to farm income insurance. It's not good enough. We could list a whole litany of cases where it's not good enough. No amount of upbeat b. s. is going to change that one iota. The minister's speeches are fine, but it's talk.

I want to do everything I can to strengthen the minister's hand. He knows what he needs to do, as well as I do.

MR. WILLIAMS: He needs some backbone.

MR. ROSE: He needs some backing. I'll ignore the last comment, but he certainly needs some backing.

What's the point of having huge urban masses and a desolate rural society in Canada? We don't need that; that's just nonsense. You don't have a proper farm income in these rural areas. Your town goes, your school goes, your hospital goes and everybody's kids go, and there is nothing but a big urban mass of impersonality.

What man in his right mind would talk his kids into going into this business now? What about the capital investment?

You could probably say: "Well, we don't need so much money in these payments now because interest rates are going down." They are not going down anymore; they're going up, and they're going to go up some more, too.

What's not in the estimates or the minister's speech? Funding for the grape growers. We wiped them out. Free trade has wiped them out, and it has wiped out a lot of other things that the minister might like to do to help agriculture. In future you won't be able to do it, because it will be considered preferential or a subsidy. You won't be able to do it without getting the Americans mad at you or offending the free trade agreement.

Every time he is in the Okanagan, the Premier announces aid to the grape growers. Every time he goes up, it's aid to the grape growers in two weeks. I want the minister to tell me when this agreement with the feds was approved. "In two weeks." There is no agreement. There is no funding in the budget. There are no adjustment costs; there is no adjustment program — none.

No new funding for international market strategy. Okay. I saw some apples from B.C. on the streets in Chiang Mai this February. That's international marketing strategy. I think they were about $2 each. I don't know how much the grower got for them, but I applaud those moves. It's promised in the throne speech: international marketing strategy — just $1.5 million in it. The Premier goes up to the Okanagan, and in Oliver he says: "B.C. has failed to market as well as we could." Yes, this is the report in the Oliver paper on April 20. No money for marketing strategy, and then he gets up there and self-righteously says that we haven't marketed as well as we could. You've got no money to market anything.

[11:15]

Funding to provide all farmers the level of financial support the Premier wanted to commit to the dissident dairy producers. What was he going to forgive them? We'll get into that a little later. Levies were turned back that were supposed to be in trust. In trust for whom? For the feds, that's who. We're going to give back that kind of money, right? That's interference again. Mr. Shelford said court costs and the special offer made to the dissidents.... Remember, "special offer," not regular offer — they didn't line up like 500 other people trying to get into the business. They allowed ten or 11 in it last year.

You add the court costs — and we'll go into that in some detail — borne by my hon. friend over there and one from Langley. These special court costs were probably over $200,000. I would like to know who bankrolled the dissidents. That's what I would like to know. I would like to know if our court costs were over $200,000. The mavericks' court costs.... And we won. Who bankrolled the dissidents? What were their court costs? They had levies running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Cyril Shelford costed the special offer made to the dissidents of millions of dollars. That's out of his report.

Here's something else that's not in the estimates: some 9 million fewer dollars for financial assistance to farmers than was allocated in 1983, the year of restraint, and an even smaller proportion of the budget pie for Agriculture. It's down from 2 percent when my hon. friend here from Nanaimo was Minister of Agriculture to barely one-third of that — just 0.77 percent of the budget. The minister over there isn't even Mr. One Percent; and I'm your critic, so what am I? Point 77 percent and falling — diving.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Dewdney requests leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 4843 ]

MR. ROSE: I would be delighted, even though I was in full flight.

Leave granted.

MR. PELTON: I hate to break the eloquence of my hon. friend across the way, but we do have in the House today 40 young grade 7 students from West Heights Elementary School in Mission. These young people are accompanied today by their teachers, Mr. MacLeod, Mr. Jepsen, Mrs. Beatty and Miss Lozinski. I would appreciate it if the House would make all of these young people and their teachers very welcome.

MR. ROSE: I'm very grateful for that, actually, and also welcome the young men and women from West Heights Elementary School. I went to high school and elementary school in Mission, and my niece Barbara Miniaci taught at West Heights for many years, so I feel that I know them. It would be nice for them to have this little lesson in democracy and perhaps even want to emulate a distinguished former attendee in the Mission school system. No names noted.

As I was saying before I was so graciously interrupted, when you take away the words and look at the bucks, it looks to some of us as if agriculture is becoming a sunset industry. People say you can't solve problems by throwing money at them. Some of that debt problem would be helped by throwing some money at it. One problem you can solve by throwing money at it is poverty, and there is a place, I think. And it's a real place; it isn't part of the dreams. It's not the ideologue's dream that wants to get out of subsidies. People say: "Those bad Europeans and those bad Americans are subsidizing everything out of sight." Our agriculturalists, our farmers....

We can't fight the treasuries of the United States and the European Common Market. Either you're going to let them go down the drain or you're going to remove those subsidies. I'll bet you something: you wait until the economic conference in Toronto at the end of the month. There'll be no action on those subsidies. There will be lots of ranting and raving, but there won't be any action. If we are pure and insist that there be no support for our farmers, and the rest don't give up theirs, you can kiss your farmers goodbye. That's what I think. If you need some figures on it I will give them to you, but I know that the minister is well aware and well briefed on the figures.

I think the Social Credit administration has been disloyal to the people who have supported them for years and years and years. They can count on their vote every time, so they don't care about it. They don't give a damn. They've got the habitual voting patterns no matter what they do to them. Do you know that a banker is running in Okanagan South? I wonder what W.A.C. Bennett would have thought of a banker running in Okanagan South. The ordinary people haven't really deserted Social Credit; Social Credit has deserted ordinary people to look after their special friends and special interests. Day after day we hear in this House what is happening along that line. Farmers are pawns for a loose-cannon Premier, and he abuses the federal government in Ottawa. First they were bailing out our national food marketing arrangements over the objections of producers, and now they are not.

One of the questions I want to ask the minister when I get around to it — when I finish my own rant here — is, just what's the status of it? Now we're in, now we're not. There's a threat that we're going to pull turkeys and eggs and everything else out of the national marketing scheme, and now we're not. Is it just a threat. Just a bluff? Just wild accusations and actions, which I'm sure the minister doesn't support. He couldn't. He knows as well as I do that other than those who have special interests, such as blueberries and raspberries — the Canadian banana — the only commodity groups that are making any money, the only ones that are in decent shape right now are the ones that have supply management. That's true in the States as well. Citrus is the only agricultural commodity doing anything like well in the United States, because it has market orders. I think the minister knows that too.

Maybe we should be increasing that. But better hurry, because when free trade comes along you won't be able to do it. Don't ask me for that kind of confirmation; just ask the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I mentioned that yesterday.

I think the farmers are paying the price. The federal government has not come through with anything yet for the grape growers, and nothing yet for the tree-fruit sector. That's the case, is it not? Well, the two cents came from where?

AN HON. MEMBER: The two cents is provincial.

AN HON. MEMBER: One cent from the farmers.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about the feds. Where are they?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I know, but where is it coming from? It came from the province.

I think the Premier has made it more difficult for the farmers, because it certainly hasn't enhanced relationships with the feds. John Wise is an easy guy to get along with. He's a wonderful man, terrific. I was in the House with him in 1972 to '74, and on his door he had a sign that said: "Love is never having to say you're Tory."

What we need is farm income. John Wise says he has increased the federal budget by 400 percent since he's been there. Do you know why? Bail-outs. That's what he needs the money for, because everything else is in such a mess: bail-outs and more bail-outs.

When we speak about agriculture here we speak about the minister distinct from the Premier. It seems to be almost — I wouldn't say forked tongues, but actually two different directions here, one from the minister and one from the Premier. We just wonder how much wiggling-room the minister has. I don't need to remind him right now of the kinds of questions he got in Vernon last year: "Will the real Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries please stand up."People are concerned about this.

Sixty-seven positions are now vacant in the Ministry of Agriculture. What kind of fight has the minister put up to preserve these positions? At the present rate, if you take the trend line of a graph, by the year 1992 there won't be anybody. That should make some of the members who are sitting back with their backs to the wall somewhat nervous, or at least a little bit concerned.

Look at the entries in "Who's Who in Agriculture." You can find many acting and many more vacant. According to this same publication, vacant are the supervisor of accounts,

[ Page 4844 ]

a senior financial analyst for the agricultural and finance branch, a livestock specialist, a poultry health veterinarian, a poultry supervisor, an agricultural engineer, a coordinator of farm management, a director for the farm management extension branch, a farm management specialist, a farm business management technician, a publications coordinator.... The list goes on until you get to 87. Where are these guys? There are lots of technical people unemployed. Why don't you fill them? I didn't mention the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. We have an acting Deputy Minister of Agriculture over there. He's acting pretty well, I think. He can't defend himself, so I won't attack him here. I'm quite sure he could in an another environment.

You've got all these people missing, and then the Premier tells the interior editors that B.C. does not do enough to market itself. What's it supposed to do, raise itself up by its own bootstraps? In the same month's "Who's Who in Agriculture," in the listing for the ministry, the trade and development officer position is shown as vacant. We don't do enough to market ourselves, so we don't hire anybody. This is very funny if you think so. So are the market analyst and the food-processing specialist. We just gave a whole flock of money or at least loan guarantees to a Summerland cannery a little while ago, and we haven't even got a food-processing specialist: vacant. Seafood marketing specialist: vacant. See?

It shows almost a terminal decline. I know there must be a good reason for it, but I don't know if there's any better reason for it than that you haven't spent the money you had on farm assurance. I don't know that, and neither does anybody else. Maybe it's time the farmers gave up on this government. I'll wait till we hear from the member for Central Fraser Valley. I don't think he'll bring quite the same message I do, but certainly he'll have something to say, because farmers are really concerned about this. I don't think any amount of sweet-talk is going to hide it.

It might be worthwhile to say what could be done — some of the things that might be done. I don't think this love of the family farm is some sort of agrarian nostalgia. Some people have called it that: Jeffersonian agrarianism, how we need to keep people on the land, and after all, they really don't contribute very much. Do you know what they contribute in the United States compared to the total GNP of the United States? Two percent. So they're not a very powerful voice, except politically — and they are in the United States. But economically, they are not.

I tried to mention some of the things that I think we need to keep the family farms for. It's very important to the provincial economy. The minister said that. I don't need to repeat the figures that he outlined, the number of jobs it produces. One of the greatest benefits, I think, is that they keep people out of the cities. They spread the population around the country — the way it should be.

[11:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. MICHAEL: You don't like the cities?

MR. ROSE: I represent a city. I just don't think cities have to get to be as large as Mexico City, at 20 million people, because people can't make any money away from the city. They can't make any money there either, most of them. Oh, some can. But I'm thinking about the pollution-laden place, where at 7 o'clock in the morning you see some poor guy out fire-eating for tips on the freeways in Mexico City.

I think we should spread around our population more evenly, into such beautiful places as Salmon Arm, for instance. That's where it would be nice to have.... We should have more people there. They would buy property and enjoy the benefits and the scenery of the great Shuswap Lake, and be represented by the eloquent, distinguished member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael).

What I'm saying is that there are benefits to the provincial economy. The family farm is an essential part of the social structure of our country. That's why we need it, if for nothing else: to preserve the small communities of British Columbia. There wouldn't be much, without agriculture, in many of these communities.

When you do things like you did last year.... You let the post of secretary to the district agriculturist in Smithers go vacant. So that guy, a reasonably well-paid — well-trained if not well-paid — professional had to do his own clerical work, and he threatened to quit unless he had that replacement. That's just bad management. That's not treating him with a great deal of respect either. That's what happened last year, and the minister knows it.

We think interest rates are going to climb up again. And we think it's time for a thorough review of how the government can be supportive to the farming community on an ongoing basis. Certainly this hit-and-miss band-aid stuff is not good enough.

Interest rate protections have been provided in many other provinces. That's not something new. I think it's a desirable policy objective for our government. Why isn't anybody exploring that seriously? I've got a private member's bill, patterned after the one in Manitoba, that might be helpful. There are other devices used in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I know that to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, Manitoba is kind of a bad word. Anyway, they're not gone; they'll be back. Other governments have been defeated, you know — even Social Credit governments. It doesn't mean they're gone; don't consign them to the cemetery. They'll revive.

You don't, though, plan things through a 30-second clip — and I think that's what the Premier has done. It's just not good enough. Effective planning requires genuine consultation and understanding, with no pre-set hidden agendas. Was anybody ever talked to at all before the Premier made that blunder about pulling people out of the national marketing screens? Maybe a hasty phone call. The turkey people said no. The egg people got.... Well, they're in a different position, because their appointment is a little different. I know you used a heavy one on the chicken producers. But they're all very conscious of the need for the national market protection. They're not very happy with you, and neither are the milk producers, even though the dissidents have gone underground for a little while. I'll have some more questions about that a little later.

Are we going to support beginning farmers? We're the only province in Canada — certainly in western Canada — without any support for beginning farmers. God knows, with things as they are, why people would go into it. But some people inherit that sort of thing, and the old man's pension is really tied up in the generatio-to-generation change in ownership of land. The minister should know about that, because I believe his family has gone through that for almost a hundred years out in Delta. So he didn't have to go out and buy land, I would assume. I don't know anything about his personal business, but I assume he inherited some of it.

[ Page 4845 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. Maybe I should make another introduction.

MR. ROSE: I'll be through soon.

MR. STUPICH: There aren't very many of us, but I am enjoying the member's remarks, and I'd like to hear him continue.

MR. ROSE: Coming from the former Minister of Agriculture — a distinguished one, who will go down in history as probably the most innovative Minister of Agriculture British Columbia has ever known — those are indeed great compliments. In spite of the fact that some people might discourage me to continue, that encourages me to continue — so I will.

Tory Saskatchewan. Land banking, vendor financing — those are all possibilities. Some protection against seizing implements under bankruptcies — all these things are helpful. They would help effect the transfer of farms from one generation to the next. But we need a government with the ability to consult with people, to work out problems and reach a consensus.

Nobody said this job was easy. Agriculture is in difficulty all over North America and Europe. Maybe part of the difficulty is the distorting subsidies, but I doubt it. The fact is that in Europe, farm labour gets approximately 80 percent of the industrial wage. They think it's important to keep people there because they were once hungry. They know what it's like to be hungry, so they're not going to let their agriculture industry drop at all. And yes, I readily admit.... I'm not calling for that for this country or for this province; but we have to know what we're up against. The subsidies are probably double what the food is worth. In 1985 Britain spent 2.5 billion pounds sterling on agriculture, and out of it they got 1.25 billion pounds sterling in farm-gate receipts. That's what we have to compete with on the export market. That's the kind of stuff we're up against. I could name a whole flock of commodities. Oil seeds have about a 700 percent subsidy. That's something we grow — perhaps not in the Peace River, but certainly over lots of the Prairies. It's a substantial problem.

Farm debt's a major problem. I'm going to go into it in some detail. I don't know if anybody in your ministry keeps track of farm debt. Do they? I've looked and I can't find it. I'd like to know about that. The minister was unable to answer questions when I asked him last year about the size of farm debt related to stress. I'm told it's one of the highest in western Canada, if not the highest, here in British Columbia. We can have a special run from the computer — maybe we can get to that. I'd also like to talk about the provincial debtor program. The Ministry of Labour — the minister's sitting over there — provides impartial mediation and advocacy with lending institutions for farmers in trouble. Maybe that should be expanded, because there are certainly lots of them in trouble.

Moving on to just say something more about the marketing agencies, I think it's for the health of the industries they serve — milk, turkeys, chickens, eggs; and there are others wanted. Mushroom people want it, and all they've got so far is the mushroom treatment — three years of requests for supply management, and no action.

I think the consumer gets a very good deal from the marketing agencies and supply management. I'll quote Ted Turner — you know who he is: the head of the wheat board or the wheat pool.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.

MR. ROSE: Right. He spoke at a free trade meeting in Milwaukee last summer. He quoted figures; these are his figures. He's not much interested in free trade. He says: "What's free trade, anyway? We sell only 1 percent of our wheat to the United States, and their subsidy is so high, they've destroyed a lot of our other markets." So he's not all that happy about free trade. He talked about supply management and the threat to supply management from free trade. He said the conventional wisdom is that consumers are being robbed by these marketing boards. There are people like Thorpe out at UBC and some other right-wing market economists who will say the same thing. Here are Ted's figures: "Since 1976, eggs have gone up 50 percent and other commodities have gone up 150 percent." So they keep the cycles away, the boom and the bust and the breakage, and give people — both farmers and consumers, I think — a break. So anything that threatens them is alarming to many people.

I think that before anybody, such as the Premier, decides to shelve a marketing board or destroy it, or say he's going to get out of a national marketing scheme, he should consult with the affected commodity groups, and certainly get their permission. He didn't the last time. I hope that the milk industry can settle back to normal. I'll be interested in what the member for Fraser Valley has to say about that one.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the trade deal. I'm going into greater detail on some of these a little further down the line. The grape growers know all they want to know about the trade deal. They've been sacrificed to the Americans. The promised adjustment never comes.

What does adjustment mean? Adjustment means that you're put out of business and have to be retrained because of it. If you go to university, the cost today is roughly $6,000 a year. So the young people might be retrained at university. But what about the people that have all their money in acreage, some 3,800 acres of these things — what happens to them? What kind of adjustment costs are you going to give them? What is the cost of an orchard or a vineyard per acre? My guess would be somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 — 3,800 times $10,000 or $20,000 just for the land — adjustment costs — and we haven't got anything. It's more like the BS fund of the Minister of Finance.

Grape growers cannot get any assistance. Provincial lobbying has so far been unsuccessful with the federal Minister of Agriculture. We haven't got any full discussion even at the federal cabinet level, I am told. It's mired in the trade executive committee, and it has to go through another committee before the federal cabinet even begin to bring their minds around to it. These are the casualties of free trade. They are only the first. That's how important we are perceived as in Ottawa, and I think it has a lot to do with the attitude and the intemperate language used in the throne speech by the Premier.

B.C. cattlemen have been promised one-third of their costs up to a maximum of $4,000 in drought assistance. I've got more to say about that too, because they are getting far more than that on the Prairies right now for wells and all this other stuff. They got one-third of their costs on the Prairies under PFRA and could — depending on how much work they

[ Page 4846 ]

did — get more than $4,000 from federal sources alone. Now they have another $12 million of federal money.

I'd like to know — and I would welcome the minister's assurance — whether B.C. cattlemen will be getting equal treatment. If you just look at the farm income assurance, you will see that $17 million has gone into that. That hardly indicates great health in that industry. I think they've had one good year in the last five, and that's about it. I don't think that's going to be so great for them down the road. I don't want to be pessimistic, but you must remember we are critics. Critics are not supposed to stand up and say: "Rah, rah, rah!" That's for the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael). He is the cheerleader. I don't know how you describe our friend here from south Okanagan. He didn't have so many nice things to say.

I think we're better off in many commodities than in the States, and we've got to be able to preserve those. I think the Mulroney trade deal will be bad for Canada and will make us more like the United States. I will have more to say about that. Legal challenges are already in the works on some of these items. We really worry about our social programs related to free trade, because we're likely to become more like Liberal-Tory Ontario is. They've just got a new bill before their House now giving preference to hospitals and clinics run by Canadians. That's contrary to the free trade deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not; it's irrelevant.

MR. ROSE: It could be contrary to the free trade deal to give preferential treatment to Canadians over this. If we want to get into a legal debate here, we can go back to other items such as the ones that appeared just yesterday in the Toronto Globe and Mail about the various constitutional things that are likely to become legal problems with the feds vis-à-vis the province in the next few months. There will be lots of jobs for lawyers. If the hon. member is as good a lawyer as she is a skit-writer, she will have no trouble finding productive employment.

As I was saying, there already have been — this morning or yesterday — challenges on those grounds. There is a question about whether the Ontario legislation does or does not violate the free trade agreement. I know that new programs here that give preferences, such as the mushroom supply management program or the one for cattle, will not be grandfathered because they will be new. We might well be prevented from doing them under those programs. It may not be possible when we cosy up to the Americans.

Lumber producers in the U.S. — just ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) how they regarded our safety nets when he was the minister. The U. S. regarded them as subsidies. Language is very broad in agricultural subsidies, but I think we are going to find that all our subsidies will be examined. Somebody — I've forgotten who; I can get the name later — when I was down in Milwaukee said that in the United States, when domestic policy comes up against international agreements, domestic policy always wins. There are some very powerful lobbies down there, and they're going to be acting as soon as they perceive they're hurt at all. Never mind the dispute-settling mechanism. Just remember that there is not one U.S. trade bill that has been abolished in preparation for this so-called free trade.

[11:45]

There are a couple of other things, and I will complete what I have to say now. GATT is of considerable importance, and free trade has to be consonant with GATT. We've got a lot of trouble with GATT now on fish and wine, and we're going to have it on other things. I'd like to ask the minister if he knows how much of our shelf space in Canada is devoted to American wines. Little or none. They want to get in here badly. How much of it is devoted to European wines? Fifty percent. That's right.

I talked about the family farm. We talk about it as a team, but we forget that a lot of children and women are exploited on that family farm because they're part of cheap farm labour. That's our substitute for the Mexican labour they have in the United States.

I'm really concerned about the future of the Land Commission too, and what is going to happen to it when it's divided up into the regions. We want to know whether it's going to be the same or different criteria. There's already talk this morning from the member for Okanagan South that there's substantial pressure to get 3,800 acres there out of the land reserve. I don't blame those people at all. You can't be frozen into peonage, but is the solution to destroy our agricultural land in vast acreages? When we come down to the figures we've got since the Land Commission was first established, we have an area almost the size of the city of Vancouver excluded from the land reserve already. It's just a licence to print money. Just ask all the Riches and people like that out in Richmond. I'm going to talk more about that too.

I'm concerned about the soil lab privatizations. They're going to charge fees and make a profit, and there's another service to agricultural gone.

To conclude, I don't think it's that bleak; it's just awful for many people in the farming fraternity — unless you're in supply management, and I don't know how long those are going to last where we have free trade. I don't think we're giving enough attention to it. We're not fighting hard enough; we're not filling our vacancies. It's not good enough to spend less than 1 percent of our total B.C. budget on agriculture if you really want to flourish. Farm income is not good enough, and we've got a lot of problems.

I like the minister to be optimistic, but I also want him to be realistic. He's got a tough job and needs all the help he can get, and that's why I'm so supportive.

MR. MICHAEL: I have a few concerns I'd like to relate to the minister from my constituency. A couple of them are not solely the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but in my view they are responsibilities between the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

First of all, I'd like to hear some comments from the minister regarding river erosion as it affects farmland. There are many areas in my constituency where we are having trouble with high water during spring runoff, and I'm wondering what the minister is doing with the Minister of Environment and Parks to provide funding to alleviate that situation.

Again, relating more to environment than agriculture, but something I would like the minister to comment on because it certainly affects his ministry, is the question of the pollution of river waters by the agricultural community in the way of both manure and fertilizer. In Shuswap Lake we have recently undertaken some very well-documented studies on Shuswap Lake water management. It was found that certainly the greatest polluters of Shuswap Lake are the rivers running through agricultural communities. It's not the normal runoff,

[ Page 4847 ]

the human use, the use of boats or houseboats, the sewage treatment plant in Salmon Arm, or all those other things. I would like the minister to comment on what he is doing in the way of working with the Minister of Environment and Parks and whether there are any programs underway to work on easing up on that problem.

Certainly it's one of the greatest causes of the growth of milfoil on Shuswap Lake. The Salmon River is the greatest polluter and, in my view, the one that's causing the greatest problem with milfoil. There are a couple of points I'd like the minister to comment on.

Before I sit down, I'm not asking for any comments from him on this, because I've made my position clear on previous occasions, but I do think the minister must give consideration to increasing the provincial funding for the IPE in comparison with the PNE. The PNE is currently getting over three times what we are receiving in the interior for the Interior Provincial Exhibition, and I must re-emphasize to the minister that I don't consider that equitable. We in our constituency would like to see greater funding for that great exhibition in the city of Armstrong.

I would also like to express some concerns regarding farmland and the ability of farmers to expand their production and commerce on farmland. We have seen problems time and time again where the agricultural community would like to build greenhouses, slaughterhouses or what have you on agricultural land and are continually faced with roadblocks by other sectors of government in attempting to bring these enterprises about.

I can relate all kinds of good experiences in the constituency where there are really good success stories, and I can relate one to the minister right now. In the area of Silver Creek, there is a family who have been working for over a year and have spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000 attempting to get a slaughterhouse on their agricultural land so that they can expand their business, employ people and create economic activity. They have spent over one year with red tape and spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000. Somehow that is just not right. They live in a farming community; they want to carry on in the field of agriculture; they want to broaden their base and create jobs; and they are faced with a tremendous number of roadblocks. I'm not saying that hearings are not necessary. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a look from the public point of view. But surely this is an example of something that has gone on for far too long for one family to have to endure.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the minister's comments, particularly in the area of river erosion and river pollution from the agricultural community.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Just to respond to my hon. colleague on the number of issues that he has raised, a couple of which he has touched base with me on before. . . . On the last one, the slaughterhouse proposal in the Salmon Valley, the application that came forward was for industrial use. I'm not so sure that that would have been the logical approach I would have taken had I been in that particular position, but I can concur with you that the proper proceedings under the act have to be followed, as you can well appreciate. It may appear to be frustrating, but nonetheless that is what is required and that process has to be followed through, Mr. Member.

The pollution of the lakes relative to fertilizers or outfall from streams, drainage canals and ditches, etc., that may well go through the farming community: the Ministry of Environment and our ministry and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture are all working together to monitor the flows of those waters and see what nutrients are in fact flowing out into the lake. I agree with you, and it's no different than the discussion we had here yesterday about the nitrates and phosphates that flow into the Baltic Sea and have caused the massive growth of algae bloom and plankton that has killed so many millions of fish in the last week or so. It's the same type of effect, where you are emitting those sorts of things and they become a pollutant. They have a negative effect when they get out into some of the waterways. So we are looking at those very closely.

On the other issue of erosion of some of the shorelines or the movement of soil and gravel, I guess I need not tell the hon. member that the more we build in some of these places. . . . It is just like adding blacktop to soil. You take away any absorption capability from some of those areas, and consequently the water is going to move that much quicker. I can tell you of a number of areas that I have visited where water used to take a day and a half to arrive at a stream and can arrive in a matter of hours now, depending on how the absorption capability is taken away by building or asphalt or whatever.

In the case of the dikes or the systems to hold back the erosion, we have had discussions with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and it is not unique in any way to the Salmon Arm area or Revelstoke or wherever it happens to be. It's a phenomenon that seems to be more and more of a problem. It requires a greater response relative to how we stop the erosion, and I agree with you that in some cases it goes out into the farms. When it happens, that soil — or it may even be sand or gravel — is moved downstream, and when it gets to a slower flowing point it settles out and consequently raises the water level and creates flooding problems further downstream. I have seen several examples of that. The hon. second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) could tell you the same thing about the Matsqui-Abbotsford areas where sand has moved downstream and settled out when either the river or the stream widens. The flow slows and you have a sediment that raises the flooding capability or flooding concern within that given area. We well recognize that, hon. member, and we are working with the Ministry of Environment and Parks to see if we can alleviate some of those concerns. There will need to be better work done on shoring up some of these streams and creeks and so on.

I'd like to take a minute or two to respond to my hon. critic. I didn't write down everything that my hon. critic mentioned to me, but I would like to touch on a few things brought forward that I thought were quite important.

You talk about the issue of FII — farm income insurance — and the commitment in the budget. You have to understand, contrary to what you said about the $17 million in the beef sector, that that was for 1986. In 1987 there will be very little, if any, claims to beef. It might be in one particular sector. But the market conditions dictate under the farm income insurance contracts we have that market return, as opposed to a model of costing that is agreed to between the farming community and the provincial government, is what we live by, and that is covered in the Financial Administration Act. We must follow those guidelines. Nobody can predict

[ Page 4848 ]

exactly what the market will do, but as you know, Mr. Member, we're required to submit a budget for estimate purposes. That's exactly what it is: an estimate. There's no guarantee as to what the commodity price will be for any given sector. Consequently, when you budget $40 million or $50 million and you only use $25 million or $30 million, that's because the market price itself has improved substantially. There is a possibility it could go the other way too, depending on market conditions.

[12:00]

You mentioned a fair amount about the support for the apple producers. God knows, with a 100-million-box crop just south of the border in Washington State. . . . It's the biggest crop they've ever had, and it has created some problems for us. Consequently, as you're well aware, the apple producers in the Okanagan have come forward and asked for a special program, which we did consider, and we offered them two cents a pound for a particular variety. Other sectors within the apple industry have had fair market returns. It's really specific to one variety of apple where the injurious effect of the market return impacted so negatively on them.

I believe firmly that the federal government holds a responsibility as well. There's no doubt that the federal government is considering the other two cents a pound. The one cent a pound I mentioned earlier is a commitment under the tripartite agreement that apples fall within. There are three signatory groups: the province, the producer and the federal government.

You touched on our national supply management system. There are provinces who are in and there are provinces who are not. If we can use milk as an example, the federal MSQ system, British Columbia has 6,158,000 kilograms of butterfat assigned to it, with a consumption of approximately 18,300,000 kilograms, which is a substantially smaller proportion of our market share quota as opposed to our consumption. Consequently, we felt it important to send a signal that it should be a fair share of our ability to supply our own marketplace. The same thing applied to turkeys, chickens and eggs. As you can well appreciate, turkey got a substantial improvement, up to 10.7 percent of our national market supply situation. We have a population base of just over 11 percent, if that is the necessary criterion. Some people would question if that's the right criterion to judge market share by.

Realistically, the MSQ situation for milk was far below what we felt was fair. I had discussed it with some of the producers, contrary to what you have said. That decision is not made to this day. We still have until September 30; the date has been extended from June 30 for notice purposes to September 30. But in the meantime there has been a task force.

You asked me questions before, hon. member, about our participation in the hearings that were going on across the country. We have said to the federal ministry and to the federal government that it is necessary to have an in-depth study of the fairness of the national MSQ system as it relates to industrial milk. Consequently, that task force has gone across the country. As far as I know, they have just reported to the federal minister or will very shortly. It's important to recognize that some of the other provinces are now agreeing with us that B.C. is not treated fairly in our allotment of the MSQ for industrial milk.

I'd like to tell you that a report we have had done has suggested that if we could produce in British Columbia the 18.3 million kilograms of butterfat that are required, we would likely have another 900 farms operating at 60 cows per farm. In other words, another 54,000 dairy cattle could be producing milk here. I think it's honourable that we try and get a fair share.

You talked about our young farmers. I think there's an opportunity where you have a national system; it's under supply management, but it would give an opportunity for some young farmers to get into business.

I think that's the ultimate goal I have to pursue. Let me assure you, it is obviously in good faith. It would benefit a number of our existing producers who might be in a marginal situation as to viability of operations by the size of the operation or the capital investment they have made. All of those have to — you talk about stress — have a bearing on the income level of a farm family.

Incidentally, mushrooms was mentioned. There's also an approach on apples, etc., to have a national supply management system put in place. I don't disapprove of that in any way, as you can well appreciate. The issue of whether we get them or not, as you say, is a matter of urgency. I think the federal minister well recognizes that, as does the federal government. Certainly I have been supporting their effort.

As far as the grain situation is concerned, and some of the programs that the federal government has had to come up with. . . . If I'm not mistaken, and I could stand corrected on the figure, wheat in the United States is subsidized to the level of $2.37 a bushel, in the EEC it's $3.13 a bushel, and in Canada it's 83 cents — a substantial difference. We talk about handing out a billion dollars from the federal treasury to our grain farmers. Well, if that only amounts to 83 cents, adding up all the other programs, we're still far short of anything the United States or the EEC does. I might tell you that the deficit the EEC is facing today from agriculture subsidies is worrisome and near the point of crisis, and the sectors that have been contributing to the subsidies are now saying they cannot afford to continue on and on.

We have an economic summit on the horizon very shortly. I believe there's going to have to be some recognition that those subsidies are distorting the natural marketplace to quite an extent. We have an overproduction. Mr. Member, you know very well that there are a lot of people starving to death in the world today, but that's a monetary situation more than anything else. Good God, I hope we can alleviate some of those problems somewhere down the road too. We are capable of producing an awful lot of food. I believe that, realistically, if we can get to a position of coming to grips with the subsidies around the world, the natural marketplace will make a better return for the farmers so that they don't have to depend so much on government subsidy.

As for the issue of beef, the predictions are that prices for hogs and beef will remain relatively stable, and there have been fairly good returns over the past year.

I accept the comments the hon. member has made. Things are being done. The staffing levels you referred to — a lot of those are presently advertised in the listings, so a number of those positions will be filled. It's not that all of those 67 or 87 you talked about are forever vacant. We are advertising in order to fill a very large number of those positions.

MR. ROSE: I thank the hon. minister and want him to know that I consider his ministry to be a good works ministry. Much of what's done in his ministry is done by very dedicated

[ Page 4849 ]

people, professionals. I told him when he assumed his job and I became the critic that there were many times and many areas where I could support him, and I have tried to do that. It's only when he gets a bit naughty or negligent or something that I have to go after him.

I'd like to tell him, though, that I think his dreams about the natural marketplace are just pipe-dreams. I don't think we're ever going to see that. Our whole history in Canada has been one of providing protection against the brutality of the natural marketplace. That's an American term, the market economy. They don't even follow it themselves: $2.65 for wheat; $3.13 in Europe. Sure, some of those other sectors are sick of subsidizing the farmers in Europe. The Germans are, but the French aren't. I just don't think that sort of thing's going to disappear.

I just wanted to give you a list of the things we've done in Canada to distort the natural marketplace. We have land banks; why don't we sell them all to the real estate people? We have land reserves. We have wheat pools. We have coops. We have credit unions. We have Crow rates for grain. We have the Farm Credit Corporation; why isn't that done by just the bankers? Export incentives, deficiency payments, two-price systems, wheat boards, subsidies, farm income insurance, marketing boards: there's just no end to it.

I don't want to lay an obvious trap for the minister, because he's too smart to fall into it. But I'm sure when he talks about the market economy he doesn't really think we're going to get rid of all of those things. If nothing else, he's a realistic man. I wish he wouldn't use those buzzwords. To me, they're un-Canadian in many ways. Canada is an embarrassment to the market economists, the Barichellos and the other people of this world who think that everything would be wonderful if we just had the free market system. We're not going to have the free market system. Just let the beef growers of Canada know, when they take that 20 million acres of marginal wheatland in the States out of production — and guess what they're going to stuff that grass through. We'll see what happens about free trade and balance and natural advantage when all of that happens.

Let me make a couple more comments. I'm not going to go on and on, because the member for Central Fraser Valley would like to have a shot at this before noon, and I know my hon. friend here is interested in bees and intends to sting you with some very interesting questions.

You talked about the MSQ. Certainly British Columbia, with 11 percent of the population, shouldn't be stuck forever with 3.8 percent of the national quota. But there's an old song, which I'm sure the hon. secretary of state will remember. It's called: "It Ain't What You Do, It's the Way That You Do It." That's what was wrong with what you did. You got out of the national marketing scheme for milk when MSQ wasn't worth anything. You got back in again and signed up from '83 to '89 at 3.8 percent. You did that; nobody else did that.

Now you're welching on the deal and threatening to pull everybody else out — or the Premier was — unless this thing goes up immediately. When the people were out here on this task force, the minister didn't appear. I was told later that an official did. That wasn't the information that I got. Sure, we want this to happen. I don't think we could use it all — up to 11 percent. We couldn't gear up for it that quickly. Certainly you would have our support in having it raised, because industrial milk and new products demand a different attitude to that system than when it was first advocated.

One of the reasons we're in difficulty on that is not just because of the new products, but the fact that historically we got into supply management or discipline to avoid overproduction long before many other provinces did. We had no surplus. We didn't need a big part of the quota. Let's not blame everything that's done on the feds. Sometimes our own efficiency was our own undoing, as in that case. We certainly need to have that matter altered, and we should go up gradually.

I don't know if every province is going to move to self-sufficiency in that regard; certainly there are some. That's another part of it that interests me in free trade. We don't even have free trade in Canada, let alone internationally. I'm not sure that we necessarily need to on that subject.

On the farm income assurance, you didn't need the money because there weren't the problems, but the payouts have been eroded over the years. The minister has to be aware of that. There's no reason why they couldn't be liberalized, because the need is there. According to the Financial Administration Act, you have to toe the line on these things. I don't quarrel with that. It's an audited or an accountable position, but I do think they were once more generous than they are now, and the need is greater because we've had all these years of inflation. But you're cutting back and eroding that system.

The system was set up by my hon. friend. He knows far more about it than I. I won't elaborate, because most of the time I try to avoid talking about something of which I know nothing or little. Most of the time I make it, but not always — like many other people.

I want to ask just a few questions about ARDSA; then I'll sit down and let other people take over. Yesterday the minister mentioned ARDSA. He said $11.4 million has been allocated as of October 1987. I want to know if the minister can confirm that it's now around $15 million. And the program announces $40 million over five years starting in 1985. Fifteen million suggests that the thing is underspent. Will the minister confirm that he said yesterday — and I agree with him — that ARDSA grants resulted in improved productivity or capacity which will increase our effectiveness in the future, and whether or not some of the ARDSA funds went for hothouse and stuff for export? Under the free trade agreement this will no longer be allowed. There are two questions basically.

[12:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Under the ARDSA agreement — the five-year agreement between the province and the federal government — there are qualifications in five sections within the agreement, and the applications come in for a number of different. . . . There are a number of different applications that come under all five different categories. The $11.4 million that you talked about is correct.

In fact, in the early part of the agreement, because of all the engineering studies that are necessary and a number of the projects that were proposed, the funding wasn't taken care of in the first two years. You accumulate over the years of involvement in the program, and you are correct that we haven't expended the allocation on a per-year basis. Whether or not some of those are subjected to some countering action from the free trade agreement is dependent on, arguably — and that's the way it's going to be when we negotiate — whether there is a subsidy type of program under ARDSA or not.

There have been a number of studies done, and one in particular that says a top-loading program is not necessarily

[ Page 4850 ]

the one that could have a countervailing action. It may well be the "bottom-loading" type as we call them. It's not all clear at this stage that top-loading is necessarily so bad — as we call it. The only definition between top-loading and bottom-loading is how and who makes the payment and on what basis it's made.

The whole issue of what would generate an action by our trading partner depends on how you define it.

Regionalization is also talked about now. We're not talking decentralization here; we're talking about regionalization projects as they relate to agricultural improvements. It might be a diking project; it might be drainage improvement. A number of those fall under ARDSA. It could be a number of things that may not necessarily be subject to countering action. Take a number of programs in the U.S. You could argue that in the upgrading of some of the river dikes — the Sacramento River, for example — the benefit accrued solely to the city. That's not true; it also benefited the agricultural land. That's our argument. You can make an argument both ways — and we're quite prepared to make them.

MR. ROSE: There will be arguments — there's no question about that. And that means we lose our freedom; we lose our sovereignty. For instance, as you know, ARDSA funds went out just recently for greenhouses on Glover Road in Langley. If they grow tomatoes in those greenhouses for export, it could be argued that this is an export subsidy. That's just the point I'm making: you're losing. . . .

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, you can charge it, but you might not get away with it. The mouse is lying down with the elephant on this thing, and I think the elephant is bound to win. I'll leave it for now and come back to it again.

The other thing has to do with the results of the free trade threat to the grape growers. Is the province going to contribute equally with the feds? Or are we just waiting for the feds for these so-called adjustment funds?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: As the hon. member can well appreciate, I have been negotiating, as has the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, with the federal government. We have made an announcement that we have guaranteed the 1988 price for our grape producers. The wine industry, obviously, may have made some forward contracting agreements with other producers, whether they be in Canada or outside Canada. Nonetheless, we have guaranteed that our grape growers will have a 1987 price for their 1988 crop.

Beyond that, I am continuing to negotiate. As you can well appreciate, we feel the federal government has a major responsibility in the adjustments they said would be in place for those industries that were going to be impacted. And we continue. . . . I met with Mr. Wise, as you well know, on Tuesday, and I brought the issue up with him. I was quite confident that the negotiating process was working very well. I will not preempt the announcement about the amount of money the federal government will be putting in — or will go to Treasury Board and through to cabinet — but I do know that it is been very positively looked at.

MR. DE JONG: I just want to back up a bit in the discussions to yesterday when we talked at length about Canadian aquaculture and the aquaculture program in British Columbia. It's a new relatively new industry; however, it's an expanding industry, and I guess that's been the experience on the east coast as well. Apparently they have had some problems on the east coast that hopefully we can avoid.

While I appreciate the quick response of the Minister of Agriculture as well as the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to meet with individuals involved in trying to solve some of the problems, like the mort problem and so on, I notice here in an article from the Canadian aquaculture paper, the May edition, that in the province of Newfoundland the provincial government received a $4.5 million grant from the economic and regional development agreement to assist the industry in research and development.

I would like to ask the minister at this point whether any effort has been made to apply for funding to not necessarily solve but to avoid problems in British Columbia that have been experienced in other places.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would like to thank the hon. member for the question. Yes, we are in constant discussion with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the monitoring of any finfish aquaculture or mariculture, seaweed, kelp — a number of proposals that may well come forward. We want to be able to constantly monitor what the impact will be on our coastal waters. I compliment the member for bringing a number of issues to my attention relative to mort situations, etc., in fish-farms and how we could better handle them, and I think that obviously is the goal and objective of all of us because we have an environmental sensitivity out there, and we want to be able to make sure we can respond in the quickest way possible.

As far as research funds go, we have been consistently working and have a working agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Nanaimo and the biological stations where our staff work together with the federal staff. As you can well appreciate, in our marine resources branch we have a number of very capable people who are facilitating the research in some of those sectors.

MR. DE JONG: That's good reassurance. The opposition House Leader mentioned at the outset of his comments this morning that agriculture is facing a bleak time. I don't necessarily ascribe to that statement. I think the farmers may be facing a difficult time or perhaps a time of challenge, but not necessarily a bleak time. Making that statement would indicate that this government really does not do its best for agriculture. I'm not saying that we perhaps could never have done better, but I think we've tried to do our best.

The statistics show that the agriculture industry is growing in British Columbia. New products and new techniques are continually being introduced, and what was produced in a man-year ten or fifteen years ago certainly no longer applies to today's situation. With the new techniques much more can be produced from a man-year.

Having said that, the House Leader of the opposition also mentioned the support programs — in particular the insurance program. I think we should recognize that it's been changed from "assurance" to "insurance," and that you only collect insurance when things go wrong. Personally I don't think that insurance or assurance is the answer to farming, nor is it to any business. We live in a country where free trade should be important to all of us in order to provide the lowest product price for the consumer. I think a more

[ Page 4851 ]

effective way would be to assist the farming community. When we talk about retaining the family farm, it does not only apply to the young person, but also to what the older one leaves behind. I will just go into a few situations that have happened.

In the dairy industry, for instance, we've had the problem of younger farmers going on the building program list — one of the 500, you might say — and when their time comes around to start, the father sells the milk quota, which has been the economic factor of that farm. The young farmer supposedly is then to start on a building program where he has only got perhaps one-fifth of the fluid quota that would have been initially available to him if he had in fact taken over the father's farm — or the family farm, as we call it. So I think there are some discrepancies in that.

Another point is that in some instances the farm is not rented to the son but may have been sold to the son — or daughter, for that matter. Immediately, these young farmers are faced with a high mortgage, like anyone else who buys a home. But on the farm, of course, it's of a much larger magnitude and the consequences are that much more difficult, particularly as we have experienced in the last ten years, where you cannot obtain a mortgage beyond five years, for one thing. If you do pick up a five-year mortgage, you're paying the top rate. If you gamble on a one-year basis, there is no assurance that you'll be able to meet the interest rates which you may be seeing the following year.

So I think the big problem of farming today is in the investment side of things, in particular the real estate aspect of the farm. Farmers need more land than most other people do, and that's where the cost is — in the land and the buildings.

MR. ROSE: And the quota.

MR. DE JONG: The quota as well; I agree. But the quota is not a real estate matter. With respect to the banking institutions, the federal programs, the provincial programs for farm improvement loans, where you can get little loans -up to $20,000 to $30,000 — to buy a certain number of things. . . . I think the key issue in farming is the investment in the land and buildings, the real estate aspect. That's been overlooked by the banking community and by the governments. I think if we want to put some security back into farming so that a farmer can feel secure, and also the investor, the government would have to deal with that issue. I would just like to ask the minister at this point if any moves have been made in that respect.

[12:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I didn't hear our hon. colleague's entire question, because I was talking to my staff behind me. Nonetheless, if we are talking about quota policy, one thing the hon. member did not mention is that quota policy as it transfers now in the different commodities, not just those under supply management totally on the basis of the federal system. . . . We have quota policy in the province that relates to the province only.

In a number of cases the policy on transfer or sale of that product is that some will be held back. In some cases it's 5 percent, and in some cases it's 10 percent, so in fact there is the opportunity. . . . Besides the building program in milk the hon. member referred to, there's also a program of withholding 10 percent so that other people can get into the industry. It is a positive policy.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Relative to what the future quota policy will be, a number of areas are being looked at. I don't think there's any doubt that you can talk about quota policy.... I guess you can look at a taxi licence. How can a car be worth $40,000 or $50,000?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Sure, you can go on and on and on. If you look at the policy as a whole, I don't think you stop at farming. You have to look at the policy throughout the province on different issues. You can't just nail one particular sector. I think it's important to recognize that.

MR. DE JONG: I really hadn't gotten into the quota policy as such, to question it. My question was on the longterm financing and whether any effort is being made— or is intended to be made — by the minister to work with the banking system for more effective long-term financing for agriculture, particularly the real estate portion of the agricultural industry.

However, I will go on with the next question, which deals with agricultural fairs, which the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) has already touched on very briefly this morning. In a private member's statement some time ago he made a very good picture of what the agriculture fairs in the rural communities are up against. I realize there has been some discussion with the federal government, as they're proposing to change policy with regard to their share of the funding for agriculture fairs. I would just like to ask the minister whether any changes have been forthcoming from the meetings held over the last couple of years in terms of funding from the federal government for agriculture fairs.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On the first question, which I didn't answer previously, the financing relative to real estate investment and agriculture obviously has been discussed on a number of occasions, not only with banking institutions but with the Farm Credit Corporation, etc. We do see that as a major area of concern. As the member points out, the capitalization of purchasing a farm is the major investment in that farm, and there needs to be some special consideration, as we have argued, for the ability of the young person or the beginning farmer. It may not necessarily be a young person. Those who choose that as their occupation should have that same right. That is under discussion on the basis that we feel there should be some special programs in place.

Certainly on the issue of special funding that we talked about . . . . I think the hon. member opposite, my critic, also mentioned the special funding for beginning farmers that exists on a province-by-province basis. I believe they are all different. We have taken a look at what opportunities we could give to beginning farmers. I know that the Federation of Agriculture has discussed that to quite some extent and has asked where there is a point where we might distort what the business is all about by offering a preferential treatment up front, and then at some point reality has to be faced. Have we misled them in the first place by giving them a large break up front, and then reality strikes home all of a sudden and they're in the real business world? I know it's been discussed. In fact, when I was president of the Federation of the Agriculture, that issue came up time and again. There's no real consensus at this stage on the best way to get a beginning farmer started.

[ Page 4852 ]

On the issue of funding for fairs — the other question, which was also asked by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke — our commitment provincially has remained the same. As the member for Central Fraser Valley mentioned, the federal government has been reviewing its grants and payouts to prize money, etc., for fairs and exhibitions. To us it's very important, and there's no doubt in my mind that fairs and exhibitions are the agricultural community's way of attracting the general public and general consumer to a particular location, whether it's Matsqui or the Interior Provincial Exhibition, wherever it happens to be, to tell them just what agriculture is all about.

We are committed to around $193,000 or $198,000 in fair grants that we have put out, and that has stayed relatively the same throughout. I have had discussions with the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke on whether we couldn't increase some of those grants. That is not resolved at this stage, and discussion is still going on with it. I'm not so sure that's the answer you're looking for, but we're still discussing it within.

MR. DE JONG: I'm not entirely happy with the answer you gave. As recognized by yourself and the predecessor in the Ministry of Agriculture, the funding for fairs is inadequate and should be expanded. I think that through your ministry it's being recognized very well that the exposition of food, in particular, is very important for all segments of the industry, and I applaud you for putting on the B.C. food fair again this year. However, I would sure like to see you review your budget to see whether there isn't some flexibility in it this year to grant some more money to the agricultural fairs.

We have the PNE, which has been a good fair for many years, but it's sort of losing its agricultural potential. Because of the large population around there, they have no problem gaining revenue from other avenues in terms of entertainment and so on, and they can in fact provide a good level of entertainment to attract the crowds, which is not always that easy to do at an agricultural fair. In order to get the people to a fair, there has to be something more to attract them than just cattle and machinery and so on.

I think the fairs and the various fair boards throughout British Columbia have done an excellent job, but at this point I think they need a little helping hand. I would certainly appreciate it if you could address the individual fairs this year, particularly those that are fast-growing.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I couldn't agree more with the member. We are constantly charged with the responsibility of getting the agricultural message to our people. With all due respect, it does take money to do it. I can remember my years in 4-H in 1948-49 through to 1953, being at the PNE. In that time-frame it was basically an agricultural fair; there was very little commercialization as in the exhibits we see today. Today the fairgrounds are taken up in large part — even though we have the food building, the B.C. buildings and so on — by the commercial sector. In other words, the agriculture faction of the fair has been reduced, and I believe its impact has been reduced substantially.

Maybe at some point there'll be more emphasis, as you're asking, put on the country fairs that are not necessarily just in Vancouver. As we see the metropolis expanding into the country — for example, into Abbotsford, the Langleys, or in the case of the interior the Vernons, the Armstrongs and so on — then maybe that's where more emphasis should be put as well. I agree with the member that it's going to require more funding.

MR. DE JONG: I would now like to address a few questions on the change of direction in terms of the food inspection program. I'll read from a short paragraph of the news release of March 3, 1988. It was indicated a program is being transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Health "to streamline government programs, ensure consistency and improve efficiency by ending duplicate inspections and ensuring inspection by certified inspectors." I have no difficulty with that part. On the administration of some legislation to be transferred to the Ministry of Health, including the Meat Inspection Act and parts of the Fish Inspection, Fisheries and Milk Industry Acts, I would like to specifically ask what part of the Milk Industry Act is passed on to the Ministry of Health?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In the milk industry sector it would be inspections after processing — the product after processing.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Minister, would this step then solve our problem, which I brought up last year in a private member's statement, regarding those who sell raw milk to the consuming public in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Are you asking whether they'd be subject to the same inspections?

MR. DE JONG: No, I'm asking: with this part of the inspection now being under the Ministry of Health, can the problem of farmers selling raw milk for domestic purposes be adequately and vigorously controlled?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think that until we have it cleared up that raw milk is even a legal product to be sold. . . . If it gets to the point of being marketed to the consuming public, I believe it then becomes a health issue. We're not even convinced there's a right to produce raw milk and sell it as raw milk.

As you know, milk produced on a farm today goes to a pooling system and then for further processing beyond that — pasteurization, etc. With those selling directly off a farm, whether it's for an ethnic requirement or whatever, I don't believe there is any health inspection. But if it's for human consumption at a retail outlet, then we have to change the act so that we can make sure inspection takes place.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, my follow-up question is: since this will not cover that aspect of the sale of raw milk — from uninspected farms, I may add, because they are not being recognized as shippers in the first place — is there any intent by the minister at this point to rectify this problem, which I understand needs legislation from the Minister of Health, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Agriculture?

[12:45]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's not legal to sell raw milk, and that's the issue under the act. If we're going to legalize the sale of raw milk, then you would have to make the changes. Once any of those producers tries to market the raw milk and doesn't have a licence, then of course, we lift the licence. Or rather, if he has a licence. If he tries to market raw milk with a licence, that is illegal.

You are talking about the four or five or however many there happen to be. That was part of the question the hon.

[ Page 4853 ]

member in the opposition — my critic — asked about. He would like to know who in the heck is supporting the five dissident producers or whatever there is out there. So would I. I know it must be coming from somewhere.

I think the frustration being borne there is not a case of the healthiness of the milk; it is whether there is enough MSQ in this province or not. If they are trying to market the product in the marketplace, then we would say it could be a health hazard, and inspection would take place, obviously.

We have not been able to track down the fact that the product is even being marketed at this stage. It's been in the media recently that. . . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In some cases it's moving to feeding cows; in some places it's moving to feeding hogs, and in some places it's moving to the manure pile.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, I'm not specifically referring to the four or five dissident shippers that we know of. I'm referring to the sale of raw milk from an uninspected farm or farms in the Fraser Valley and other places in British Columbia, where raw milk — either on the farm or off the farm — is being peddled on the streets.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's illegal.

MR. DE JONG: I know it's illegal, and this is exactly my question, Mr. Chairman. What is being done? From what I understand from past history, there's not sufficient. . . .

MR. ROSE: Policing.

MR. DE JONG: It's not policing; it's a matter of strength in the Milk Industry Act to charge these guys and have them convicted for what they are doing. It is actually wrong under the Milk Industry Act. . . . From what I understand, the Milk Industry Act does not cover that aspect adequately to force them to have this product pasteurized.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The member is quite right, but the position in the Milk Industry Act, if I understand it correctly, is that once the product is marketed.... That's the issue. When the word "marketing" is used in the act, you really have the control. We have people out there; our inspectors are out there watching the product. If they try to market it, according to legal advice from our Milk Board lawyers, that is technically when we can take legal action under the act.

MR. DE JONG: I will not belabour this in the House any longer. I will probably discuss it with the minister a little further at his desk sometime, because it is a real concern. I think it should be a concern to this government if it is continually occurring, because we are not only allowing the people of this province to participate in an illegal action; it could also be endangering their health. I don't think we'd want that on our shoulders as a government.

My next question is regarding the overall milk industry. While there was an announcement last year by the Premier that we would be jumping out of the federal market share systems, we all know that the dairy industry is very short of MSQ, which has been admitted by the minister on several occasions. It has also been said that we are working on getting more MSQ for British Columbia, for which I applaud the minister. However, there is a certain amount of uncertainty among the producers in British Columbia as to what is going to happen on or just before June 30.

Perhaps it's not a bad bargaining tool to give the opt-out notice, since it's going to give us a whole year to keep on negotiating. However, I think what the farming community. . . . I've spoken to a lot of people in the dairy community in particular, and they are somewhat leery about whether there's going to be any proposal from the Minister of Agriculture as to how we would proceed, whether we opt out or stay within the system on an increased subsidy, and what the allocations of that would be toward those farmers who have been in the business for many years and have not had any increase unless they bought quota, and those who may be on the waiting-list to get into the industry. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I won't elaborate on the last part, because that part is still under discussion and I don't think it would be fair for me to tip my hand at this stage.

On the issue of June 30, as I said here a little earlier — I don't know if the hon. member was in here — that date has now been extended to September 30. We have an agreement with the Canadian Dairy Commission that any opt-out notice will now carry forward to September 30. I was at a meeting on March 25 in Chilliwack where I made a commitment that before any decision was made as to whether we would opt out, I would come back to the producers. I think the member also sat in attendance with me at that meeting. It's important that the member recognize that I do respect the industry. As the critic opposite mentioned, in 1984 we did opt out — I believe it was in March or May, or whatever it was — and went back in in September because we got a little greater allocation.

Allocation of what we may well achieve through the task force that will make its recommendations to the federal minister, and/or negotiations between the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee and/or the Canadian Dairy Commission, will be dependent on how we identify what product we feel is necessary over a phasing-in period of how many years, all of which we're negotiating on — and, I think, quite positively at this stage. Beyond that, if we get what we're negotiating for, we'll have to work out how we allocate that greater MSQ allotment to our existing producers, startup producers or cottage-industry people. But that decision will not be made until we see if we get it in the first place. We're very cognizant that all those issues have to be addressed first. There's no doubt, I wouldn't mind telling the hon. member, that we feel that there is an opportunity to get a substantial gain here and see our industry grow.

MR. DE JONG: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I am very happy with your performance in this difficult time, as these matters are being discussed and negotiated. I do think, though, that while there's a certain amount of uncertainty in the industry, in order for agriculture — and in particular the dairy industry — to respond to whatever may come about, an increase of MSQ or opt-out or whatever.... In either of those situations I would like to see the minister take the necessary steps, by committees of producers or whatever, so that various options could be worked out as to how to approach this system from then on. For the farmers to make an intelligent decision, they should know a little bit more than hey do today in terms of what may be in store for them.

[ Page 4854 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Obviously the member is saying it's important that we consult and dialogue with the industry. They would like to know what we're doing. As to the allocation, again I have to say that the B.C. Milk Board are the ones, through and with our own ministry and myself as the minister...that we're all part of the negotiating process. I believe every effort will be made to get a much greater share.

As far as the allocation and how much might be used for the cottage industry, how much might be needed by some of our processing companies to venture into a new product, or enough to make a new product a viable entity within their operations and the farmers themselves at the grassroots level as to how it makes their operation more viable.... All of that has to be addressed. I can assure you that between the Milk Board and our ministry and, of course, the producers and processors who are impacted by it, we'll have to have some consultation.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.