[ Page 547 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Dent — 547

Mr. Wallace — 548

Mr. Richter — 552

Mr. Cummings — 554

Mr. McGeer — 554

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 556

Mr. Gardom — 559

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 560

Mr. McGeer — 560

Mr. Nunweiler — 561

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 562

Mr. Gibson — 563

Mr. Schroeder — 564

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 565

Mr. Gardom — 566

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 566

Mr. McClelland — 568

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 570

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: Minister's office, $74,516.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak on this particular vote. However, since a lot of the discussion in the last while has concerned my constituency, I felt that I should say at least two or three things in defence of the position as viewed from our riding.

First of all, we have one egg producer in the whole of the northwest of the province at the present time who has a quota from the Egg Marketing Board of 200 cases per week. The consumption in the whole of the northwest, I would estimate, is in excess of 2,000 cases a week. This includes Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Terrace, the Hazeltons, Smithers, Stewart and all of the other smaller communities in the whole region.

This is a very large area with a very rapidly expanding population, and the quota has been fixed — it seems now etched in stone for all time — at 200 cases per week. The agricultural industry, as far as poultry is concerned, is now a very small thing as it's been set.

The reason, of course, that we are given is that the National Marketing Agreement has set the quota for the Province of British Columbia at 12 per cent of production. As it happens, B.C. is now producing up to that full amount, give or take a few thousand cases per week, and most of that production is in the Fraser Valley. In excess of 90 per cent of that production is in the Fraser Valley.

Because the quota is already at the peak — at the total allowable production for British Columbia — this means there's no room for any increase in overall quota. The result is, we are told in the north: "Therefore we cannot allow your production to be increased; however, we will be nice to you and you can buy Fraser Valley eggs — all you want." This applies to the whole of northern B.C. There's no production of eggs whatever in the Bulkley Valley, there's none whatever in the Peace River....

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Oh, come off it!

MR. DENT: Well, according to this chart there isn't.

I will read the list of producers that are in the north: Mr. H. Egli, in the Vanderhoof area, I believe; Mr. Stan Kovachich in Prince George; Mr. Arnold Link in Prince George; Sampsom's Poultry in Terrace; Mr. Sutherland — I'm not sure where he is but I believe it's in the Prince George area; Quesnel; Veeken's Poultry in Prince George. Now show me on this list where there's any production in the Peace River or the Bulkley Valley. This is the situation that we find ourselves in.

A couple of winters ago, we had a very heavy snowfall. The result was that we were cut off by road and rail and air. The only eggs that were available for a period of 10 days or so or for a considerable period of time were locally produced eggs. As a result of the demand for locally produced eggs at that time, and continually, the allowable production of 200 cases a week was exceeded. Because the allowable production was exceeded in order to meet the needs of people who couldn't get eggs anywhere else for a period of time, for his public service, for his concern for the needs of the people of the region, the man was fined.

I don't understand the system fully, and I sympathize with the Egg Marketing Board's position in trying to administer a complicated and difficult thing for the whole of the province, but the fact of the matter is that we have these little producers in the north with small quotas. I say small because we have a little farmer down in the Fraser Valley named Wall and Redekop, who has 900 cases of quota per week. He's got more quota down in the Fraser Valley than the whole of the north combined — all of the producers in northern British Columbia combined — and certainly more by far than our little producer in Terrace has got. That little man in Terrace, who fights daily for his existence and has to import grain at a higher cost over the CNR and has various other charges that they never dreamed of in the Fraser Valley, is billed with a penalty when he feeds people when they're almost starving and they're snowed in. To me there is a little bit of thinking to be done about this.

I appreciate the Egg Marketing Board and their problems, but there are three members of the Egg Marketing Board that live in or about Abbotsford, and I can't see for the life of me how these three men living in Abbotsford can have any concern about Terrace or any concern about Prince George. They certainly haven't demonstrated any as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a free enterpriser by nature, but I've become really sick at heart and sick at the stomach at the fact that we are totally and utterly ignored in the north in terms of what the people want. We are not able to produce our own eggs to have for breakfast. We have to have the privilege of buying eggs from down south.

[ Page 548 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): It's the system, not the people.

MR. DENT: I agree that it's the system, but the fact is that two producers, one living in Terrace and one in Prince George, are the subject of certain comments that have taken place. I want to come to the defence of that man in Terrace and say that Sampsom and his successor, Mr. Kincaid, are two of the finest examples of free enterprise at its best. They're efficient, they're hard working and they're respected in the community. Yet they're totally and utterly frustrated by the system. They've been penalized.

I would say that if our Minister — and I don't know whether he has or not — has done anything to come to the defence of these men he's a hero, as far as I'm concerned. He's not a villain, and the same with the Premier. If the Premier has done anything to come to the defence of these men — these little free enterprisers struggling for an existence in the far north — then he's a hero, he's not a villain.

I'm not blaming the Egg Marketing Board, because they are doing a good job under difficult conditions. But viewed from our vantage point, as we look down from the north into the south, we have a continuing feeling of frustration.

As far as influence is concerned, the quota when I became MLA was 200 cases a week. The quota today is still 200 cases a week despite all of my influence and despite everything else. The Egg Marketing Board says: "No, no, no, no, no!"

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): You know darn well you were holding your own.

MR. DENT: I'm lucky. Certainly the Egg Marketing Board is an independent body, and we wouldn't want it otherwise. All we're asking is for them to consider the unique, very special problems of the north.

As far as I'm concerned, this whole issue that's been raised in the papers is just a phony issue. It has nothing to do with the real issues that are at heart. I'm not saying that they don't have a right to defend their honour. I'm just saying that our problems were there 16 months ago and they are still there today.

I don't believe for one minute that the Minister has used undue influence — not a bit. I wish in a way that he had, if it was going to make a difference for us up there and if we were going to get a little bit of justice out of the situation. We haven't got any yet. We're still looking.

I just want to conclude with this remark. I met the members of the Egg Marketing Board, and I think that they're extremely fine people doing a good job under difficult conditions.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's the system that's all screwed up.

MR. DENT: I don't blame them, but on the other hand I think that there's something drastically wrong when we've got such a terrible situation as we've got in the north in this regard.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I had to miss part of the afternoon discussion, but I heard the latter part of the debate on this marketing board problem and the intervention of the Premier in a certain situation. No matter how you look at it, the marketing board situation is supposed to be an independent system with the primary goal of bringing about a system of orderly marketing of produce, whether it's turkeys or chickens or eggs or what-have-you.

It defeats me as to how the Premier can suggest that he did not interfere in a system which is supposed to work in an independent way, devoid of any — never mind the Premier — any government interference. I don't really think it matters a great deal how well his actions or his words were defined or not defined in an affidavit. The fact is that the Premier himself admits very clearly to the fact that he called them to his office and by whatever mechanism, he said.... It sounds to me, Mr. Chairman, as though one can appreciate the Premier's position. He was sick and tired of people behaving, as he said, like children. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that whether he was of that opinion or not, he was, in fact, interfering with a system which is supposed to be independent and self-sufficient.

If these people were behaving like children, I think it is reasonable to ask the question: Is not the system wrong? We have heard from the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) tonight that producers get into difficulty and they are penalized financially for trying to help the system of producing certain farm products in their own area — in this particular case, up north

As an example that was brought to my attention, I have a person who was granted a quota through the Turkey Marketing Board in 1966. The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) touched on this same period of time in the debate just before supper. This man was given a quota of 50,000 turkeys and, on the basis of the income which he expected to generate, he borrowed $110,000.

Apparently in the first year he fell below the quota, and was not able, for whatever reason I know not, to produce the quota. So his quota was immediately cut. With this reduced quota he could no longer generate the income to pay off the interest on the loan — which makes a lot of sense. It is quite obvious that if they cut his income-generating capacity, having already got into the red to the tune

[ Page 549 ]

of $110,000, he was not in a position to meet his financial commitments.

At any rate, he struggled on, and by the time 1972 came around he was able to meet the commitment that he had. Then, by golly, in 1972 he produced a little more than the quota, so he was penalized again, and he was hit to the tune of $9,862.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that you can't win in this game. If you don't produce your quota, you are in trouble. If you produce a little more than your quota, you are penalized.

I would like perhaps the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to get into the debate on this point, because I've consulted with a distinguished legal gentleman in this province. He says that the board far exceeds the powers that it legally has to exert some of the penalties that are exerted against producers.

In this particular case, the marketing board went direct to Canada Packers, and apparently this penalty that I mentioned of $9,800 was the equivalent of a penalty of 10 cents a pound. They told Canada Packers to mail the cheque direct to the marketing board; the man was not even involved in any way in which the penalty was inflicted.

As I say, I have the opinion of an eminent lawyer in this province that the board only has power to levy for expenses to the marketing board. It certainly does not have the power, legally, to exert a penalty against an individual. Anyway, this man is taking legal action against the Turkey Marketing Board, and it will be very interesting.

Mr. Chairman, I might just put on record the fact that he asked for an answer by January 7, and the board has stated, in a rather arbitrary and arrogant way, that they would give him an answer by March 7.

Another point along the way is that this man is also involved in the market for turkey hatching-eggs. I brought this to the Minister's attention last year, and took the matter no further in this House. But at that time American eggs at 26 cents were being imported. If my figures are inaccurate I hope the Minister will correct them; but the information I have as of today is that American eggs are coming into this province costing 26 cents, and the cost of production to the B.C. farmer is 32 cents.

So here again we have the problem of a Canadian farmer, a B.C. farmer, or a producer, doing his best in the face of rising costs, and apparently he can't even get reasonable protection against lower costs by foreign imports, or imports outside our borders.

This same producer tells me that in the last 8 to 10 years this particular marketing board has been taken over by persons who really have limited experience in this field, and that, in fact, the quality of expertise and experience is really less than one would want for such an important role.

He tells me that the original chairman in 1966, Mr. Chairman, was granted a certain quota, and the degree to which the regulations governing these marketing boards are broken is shown by the fact that this gentleman apparently increased his own quota by 50 per cent, off his own bat, without consulting with anybody else; and two years later he sold his business for the same increased quota.

Whether or not there is any fair reward for this, or whether it is a lack of supervision, the fact is that that gentleman is now employed in the Department of Agriculture by this government. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very distinct lack of supervision of how these boards function. It is obvious that they are not successful — and I am not suggesting that it is easy to wave a wand and provide the answers. But from the amount of debate we have had, I suggest that surely the Minister will tell us that he is taking a very serious and long look at the whole question of these marketing boards.

We have had obvious evidence that the Premier, perhaps well-intentioned but misguidedly, interfered in the particular case that we have had discussed this afternoon. I am now quoting an example, which is documented, of a person acting outside the regulations for his own benefit.

We also have the fact that we've heard from Members, such as the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent), that well-intentioned producers are penalized. Surely these two or three examples are reasonable evidence to suggest that the situation is not working well.

When one criticizes, it is fair, I think, to suggest alternatives. I understand that in Alberta there is a form of trusteeship, and there is an advisory council created by the government, and the respective marketing boards are responsible to the advisory council. The advisory council is composed of representatives of the different industries, together with two government representatives.

The Minister knows of this other issue that I raised last year about the import of American eggs, which makes it impossible for the producer to compete, and he may have up-to-date figures. I hope that he will explain to some degree whether the producer in B.C. is to be subsidized, or whether the market is to be arranged in such a way that he can compete.

I understand that also in Ontario there is a marketing board for hogs which is under a form of trusteeship. It would seem to me that it is pretty basic that the thing that is lacking is an adequate, independent supervisory body to ensure that the marketing boards follow the kind of policies and adhere to the regulations which exist.

It has been brought to my attention on several occasions that in fact the regulations are quite frequently flouted for the benefit of certain individuals. The one example that I have quoted can certainly be documented, and I can name names if this is necessary.

In more general terms, Mr. Chairman, I would just

[ Page 550 ]

like to say a few words about the whole matter of agriculture. It seems to me incredible, with the world population increasing as it is, and the great anxiety expressed by many very eminent highly intellectual individuals such as Arnold Toynbee and others, that this world may soon be facing a crisis which makes the energy crisis look like a picnic. Yet here we are setting limitations on food production.

I think it illustrates the central challenge to mankind in this century that our expertise and technology far exceed our capacity (1) to understand what is going on around us, and (2) to grapple with the problem and provide the solutions.

It would appear that we certainly have the technology and the know how to produce more and more food, which certainly is needed. I think the figure is that we are up to 3.7 billion people on the globe, and I think it is something on the order of 100 million additional human beings a year.

It just amazes me that a rich province with the capacity to produce such as British Columbia, or Canada for that matter, can apparently produce more than we can market. But I think it should be made very plain that to produce more than you can market is not the same as saying you produce more than is needed by the rest of the world. If we can devise the engineering and the technology to put a man on the moon, it just leaves me completely bewildered to think that an individual in his own profession or calling who can produce more eggs than can be sold is penalized financially. This just doesn't make any kind of sense; and if it doesn't, there has to be some better system which we can devise in British Columbia and in Canada.

I think you can probably hear somebody saying it's all the big-time manipulators who manipulate the market and that British Columbia is in the grip of forces beyond its provincial boundaries and beyond Canadian boundaries. I didn't accuse you, Mr. Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich), of saying that. But when I try to understand this crazy situation where we can produce livestock and wheat, I just get so impatient with myself.

Just check back on the federal government programme with the delightful title of LIFT: Lower Investors For Tomorrow. It was announced as recently as February, 1970, by the federal government. It proposed to spend $140 million telling farmers not to grow wheat. Its aim was to cut the number of acres sown by many millions of acres; a reduction of 22 million acres of wheat. The programme was to apply to 188,000 farmers in the four western provinces. For every farmer who was eligible, there was to be $6 for each acre he converted from wheat to summer fallow up to a maximum of 1,000 acres, or $10 an acre for each acre he converted from wheat to forage up to 1,000 acres.

I know it's very easy to be wise in retrospect. The world situation regarding wheat changed abruptly within the succeeding two or three years. I understand right now that even the great United States is finding itself in a position of having contracted to sell more wheat than it can probably comfortably supply. So I think we have to be temperate in our criticism of this government or any government when it seems to be unable to cope with the difficult problem of supply and demand.

But at least, to be reasonably practical within our own corner of the globe, it seems to me there is an urgent need to review the whole system of marketing boards. I have the feeling that there can be some form of supervision set up where the industry is represented, where the government is represented and where the consumer is represented. We hear a great deal of lip service to the importance of the consumer and the need which exists for the consumer to be protected in various ways. It would seem to me an eminently reasonable suggestion that some form of advisory and supervisory body be set up which maintains the independence which the Premier wishes to maintain but which at the same time contains this kind of representation from government, from producer and from consumer.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Tell us about the rose-bush farmers in Oak Bay. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Well, we spread a lot of manure on the rose bushes, I'll tell you that. I notice it never gets any headlines when you talk in rather philosophical terms in this house and try to look at the broad picture.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I tried to highlight the fact that there's something far wrong with our organizational and administrative capacities when the actual technology exists to solve the problem and the human capacity seems to lag so far behind our technological ingenuity. We have this kind of farcical situation where well-meaning producers are penalized for producing too many eggs or too much grain. We have the federal government paying people not to grow wheat, and then within two or three years there's a world shortage of wheat. We have to ask ourselves why we're not solving that kind of national and international situation.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) wouldn't think it was philosophical, but there seems to be this increasing question of conflict between the needs and the merits of agriculture and the needs and merits of recreation and conservation. We have the whole question of the use of grazing lands and the degree to which we should have more parks and more in number and

[ Page 551 ]

larger in size.

MR. FRASER: Radford is going to put the whole province in a park. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Well, I see the need for more parks.

MR. FRASER. Grizzly bears instead of beef.

MR. WALLACE: It's very interesting. The Member for Cariboo mentioned grizzly bears. I talked to a group of agriculturists who said we must be careful not to reach the point where we get more sentimental about the predators than we do about the needs of agriculturalists.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Don't worry about the grizzly bears....

MR. WALLACE: I shouldn't want to incite the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to give us his four-hour speech on wolves. (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: He has it down now to 45 minutes.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for Cariboo says we have reached the point where agriculture has been sacrificed — perhaps that's too strong a word — where agriculture is suffering because of the increasing demands of recreation and conservation. I, frankly, don't know enough about it to know if that point has been reached, but I'm listening to people in the field.

We have a meeting with many members of the Federation of Agriculture and they, at least, are working in that profession. I listened to them and they tell me this is something on which they would like opposition Members to sound the note. They are concerned that there is a degree of expansion of parkland so land is no longer to be available for grazing. The people of British Columbia had better understand that they can't have their cake and eat it as well. If we are to increase our cattle and meat production you cannot for obvious reasons do it without a certain amount of available acreage.

MR. FRASER: Radford's policy is to eradicate the cattle.

MR. WALLACE: As the Member for Cariboo says, I come from the rose bushes and the leafy lanes of Oak Bay; I don't know much about farming. But I like to listen to the people who are trying to make a living out of raising cattle, farming and out of the dairy-produce industry. I think it's a real responsibility of opposition Members to deal with this kind of subject.

It is such a popular policy to follow these days because the citizens in our urban areas in particular are becoming very aware of the need to get out of the cities, get away from the blacktop and the highrises and into the bush and the parks and the open space. That's a very legitimate wish they have.

MR. FRASER: We don't want them.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe they'd go to Alberta. They want the tourists to secede as well as the people from the Cariboo. There's not going to be much of B.C. left at this rate, Alex. But they do feel this note of concern should be sounded.

Hopefully, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) will take it easy in this tug-of-war with the Minister of Agriculture so that they can decide just how many acres of grazing land should or should not be taken away from the farmers.

MR. FRASER: They're both hopeless.

MR. WALLACE: I think another point which comes up on this issue, Mr. Chairman, is this whole question of expropriation. These Members of the federation make the point that some of these farmers have had grazing leases for many years. If there's to be some dramatic change in the ground rules, or if the Minister of Recreation or the government wish to introduce a system of permits instead of leasing, there may be undue suffering to the farmers concerned. They feel that they then run the risk of expropriation if they do not go along with government policy in this respect.

As far as expropriation is concerned, I understand there are still ranchers in the Kootenays who still have not satisfactorily settled expropriation claims.

The whole question of expropriation, Mr. Chairman, is a serious one and, in passing, I think it's one which this government has failed to even suggest they are tackling.

Our Attorney-General looks all distressed, but I happened to be on the committee that sat around a table in the days of a former administration and we studied...the Law Reform Commission; I guess that was 1971, three years ago. And the Attorney-General holds up his hands as if to say, "Well, so what?"

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): We've just been here a few months.

MR. FRASER: The Minister of Lands wanted to put it into effect then.

MR. WALLACE: But the fact is, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 552 ]

that in terms of land use and land acquisition by the Crown for whatever purpose, whether it be to bring grazing lands under control or to limit grazing or for any other purpose, the whole question of expropriation in this province is in a sad situation, as we've all said many times. It's scattered through 50 or 60 different statutes.

MR. GARDOM: It's 27.

MR. WALLACE: More than that according to the.... The fact of the matter is that it's scattered through many different statutes. The primary recommendation of the Law Reform Commission was that at least the government should produce one single statute dealing with expropriation.

It's been made quite plain to me that many of these people in the ranching business are very unhappy at the example of other ranchers who have been expropriated, and they would like to feel that the government's aware of their concern and also aware of this conflict between the opposing demands on land.

They might also say that they think, while the government hasn't acted at all on expropriation, that they've acted in the most picayune way in regard to removing tax from land. I spoke to a farmer today who says that $30 to $40 doesn't help much when your tax is nearly $5,000.

It seems to me that's a pretty valid point. The farmers were told that this government, in seeking election, would promise to remove the tax from land. At the present point in time, with the budget we've just finished debating, they feel that $30 to $40 a year really doesn't help.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough, too late.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just return finally to the whole question of food prices and the whole question of the greater production of meat. It was always my impression, from what I read, that there was seemingly no end to the potential to raise more cattle and produce more meat. The impression is created that if we provide enough land for grazing and if we provide incentives for industry, we will always be able to meet the demand. But the Minister shakes his head, and rightly so.

I understand that at the very maximum we can increase our output by 25 per cent. So I think that these kinds of hard facts that are put out by the professionals are the kinds of figures and facts that should be recorded in this debate. We shouldn't go on assuming that because more and more demand exists for meat, red meat.... I understand that even heifers that are supposed to be maintained and raised for meat production are already being sold because of the meat shortage.

MR. FRASER: Radford advocates grizzlies.

MR. WALLACE: But we hear — and we've debated in this House on former occasions — about the viability of a packing plant in British Columbia. I remember that one of the Members down the way, I can't remember which one, said that the last packing plant had closed down, and it was all being done in Alberta. But I ask the question, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — and you can question these facts and figures; I'm quoting professionals when I quote these figures — I'm told that even if we went to our capacity and increased our production by 25 per cent, it's still marginal to decide whether a packing plant in British Columbia would be a viable unit.

It has always been suggested in debates in this House, as I recall, that there was no question that we should have a packing plant of our own, on the implication that it was good business. Well, apparently this isn't the case. These hard facts and figures should be borne in mind and should be publicized so that at least we can have constructive debate, and we can be making suggestions that are realistic or otherwise.

So I would feel that the main problem facing the Minister at the present time lies in this very confused and troubled area of marketing boards. I would hope that in replying to the questions he would give us some answer as to whether he's planning to set up some kind of intermediary, advisory and supervisory council to settle that problem.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I finally made it on the third try.

I understand that this afternoon I was rather subject to some very critical remarks in relation to my administration as Minister of Agriculture. I think the date referred to was 1968; I was Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. However, I was still interested in agriculture. But to be quite frank, the Egg Marketing Board did come in under my administration.

Surprisingly enough, many people have a misconception of how a producer board comes into effect. It comes into effect under the authority of the statute, the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, which sets out very wide guidelines, and certainly there are some wide provisions of powers in there. However, that isn't what the board operates under; it operates under a scheme that's approved by the executive council by an order-in-council. The Minister and the executive council...it is their prerogative to set out the powers which they wish to grant.

Now I didn't hear all the remarks of the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), but I think he was talking in his own interest as much as for anybody else, because he does have a pecuniary interest in the

[ Page 553 ]

particular industry.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ten thousand hens and two tired roosters.

MR. RICHTER: Actually, as far as the procedures are concerned in obtaining authority to undertake a scheme, it requires that the Minister receive a substantial number of names on a petition to authorize a plebiscite. Now the plebiscite was to cover the entire province. At one time they had thought that it would be confined only to the Fraser Valley. It was to cover the entire province, and everybody would be treated equally as far as a quota was concerned on the basis of what they had produced over a previous period of time.

It was my particular request, because of the experience in the sale of milk quotas, that all egg-producing quotas were to be held by the Egg Marketing Board. They were to have no monetary value as far as sale was concerned. If anyone went out of business, that quota then reverted back to the board. It is earned on the basis of production. If they could show where they were producing and there was quota available, then quota was issued, taking into consideration the demand for the product. Certainly there's no use in growing two blades of grass if only one can be used.

This is entirely a matter which is asked for by the growers for their benefit — for their own preservation. Now there were three plebiscites on the Egg Marketing Board before the Egg Marketing Board was finally approved.

Since that time I haven't been that close to it. I don't know where the train got off the track, but I thought it was going along pretty well. Now we are hearing all this furor today. If the Egg Marketing Board, through its members, is not able to resolve its own problems....

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well, this could be, particularly if their roosters are tired; they are not quite so active. But they should, without interference, be able to resolve their problems. However, the powers that are held under the scheme can be earned if they are not given in the first place. There are a number of powers that are under the marketing Act that were not extended in the concept of the marketing board for eggs, and whether they have obtained further powers or not, I'm not aware. However, I wouldn't think it would be the place of government, or anyone in government, to interfere.

Certainly the Minister can give guidance, and I think that many of these problems we become involved in Balkanize our province from one area to the other. Either we are British Columbia or we are not British Columbia. So you are not going to resolve any problems by Balkanizing.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the Member's remark, but I think it had something to do with peppermint-flavoured ice cream. (Laughter.)

There are many commodity boards, all the way from oysters. At one time they even had a shingle marketing board under this particular legislation. But there are all kinds of marketing boards. Some are functioning well; some are not functioning well. It's a matter of guidance from the Minister, plus the fact that they must apply themselves as individuals with the broadest intentions of doing a job for the industry on a provincial basis rather than on a particular area basis.

We've had a lot of discussion about other aspects of agriculture such as the milk industry. We know that over the course of time we've got fewer cows; we've got more milk per cow on a production basis. There is a great deal of our land that could produce more agriculture than it does today, but it means intensifying.

I think the whole problem with agriculture in British Columbia has been that we have had a lack of technology in the distribution of the products we produce. If we would get a better form of distribution, a wider form of distribution — we are going to need it as the northern part of the province develops — then we are going to be insufficient in a number of the commodities that we have excess in today. Certainly there are many, many imports that we can produce a like commodity of with as good a quality, or better, right here in our province, and our home market is always our best market.

The beef industry in British Columbia gives me a great deal of concern in the fact that we are rapidly decreasing our available grazing land and the forms of tenure, whether by permit or lease. There is nothing wrong with a permit rather than a lease, provided you have security of tenure over a long enough period.

I know that ranges can be made more productive. It takes a little management. It takes a little care. I think the technology is available for those who wish to use it. Certainly when I was in the industry I used it to extremely good advantage. I was able to increase my production manyfold.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): That was because of the fertilizer.

MR. RICHTER: Well, we really didn't have too many CCFs at that time. Now that the NDP are around, we have all kinds of fertilizer. We have it almost to burn. It doesn't do too well when it burns.

We can have very substantial grazing in this

[ Page 554 ]

province under good management, and still maintain good grazing for game animals. The whole problem is if a person doesn't conduct the range in a proper manner, and I will now give you a rule of thumb that I used. I left 45 per cent of the grass on the range when I took my cattle off. That may seem rather an extravagant waste of grass, but it was a preservation of plant life so that you didn't have weeds grow in place of the more palatable grass. And it works. I know it works, and it can be done.

MR. FRASER: Radford won't take the grizzlies off.

MR. RICHTER: Well, we'll teach the grizzlies to eat grass. We'll dig anthills for the grizzlies.

However, I think this is an area of which I spoke the other day where a great deal of information can be obtained from the Ashnola game area, where cattle have not been on for a number of years and today we can see an abundance of grass. But it is not being eaten by the California Rocky Mountain sheep. It is not being grazed by the deer, because they usually pick the areas higher up for the summer months, and in the winter months the snow has covered that grass and they go to the ridges where the wind has blown the snow off. So I think that is an area to which a great deal of attention should be applied, because I've seen that range when it was over-grazed, and I've seen it today when it has come back in a relatively few years.

I think this is an area where you could establish a criterion for the future, as far as grazing is concerned.

MR. FRASER: Ask Mother Barrett. She knows all about grazing.

MR. RICHTER: There is one particular area in which I have some concern, and that's the fruit industry. We have had a considerable amount of problems in this area. It's not new. It's been there since the beginning of the fruit industry, way back in the very, very early part of this century. I think that probably with the change in variety, the change in the types of trees, the fact that they can come into production earlier, there is no question in my mind but that we can produce as good a quality fruit as anywhere in Canada, and certainly as good as what we have in the United States.

Our problem again is to get it to markets that will return a return commensurate with the costs, with an additional amount for some profit.

A discovery has been recently made through horticultural research. Probably the Minister could advise me on this particular question, and that is: do political plums grow from seeds, or do they come about by careful grafting? (Laughter.)

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to join this debate on the Agriculture Minister's estimates.

MR. FRASER: Cluck, cluck, cluck, Little Mountain.

MR. CUMMINGS: Actually, I have a problem. I have about 60,000 consumers in my riding. I'm not like the Hon. Member who has 20,000 chickens, or the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who has lots of rosebuds — and please, no Liberal platitudes. Actually, I really yearn for that old fashioned Cariboo manure, because at least it's sincere. It's six feet deep at Quesnel right now.

MR. LEWIS: You'll probably hear a lot of it tonight.

MR. CUMMINGS: Actually, Alex, you know your friend the mayor? He says you've flipped your lid. You know that, don't you?

MR. FRASER: He's entitled to his opinion.

MR. CUMMINGS: You're right.

Mr. Chairman, I have this question for the Minister. Somehow through the years $58 million of quota have been created by milk boards, egg boards, and broiler boards. This means that at 10 per cent it takes approximately $6 million to service this. This is a lot of money, and this has to be borne by the consumers.

I wouldn't mind if it went to the farmers, but it goes to an abstract — I don't know who gets it, the bank, or who — but it costs us two cents a dozen for eggs, three cents on every broiler, one cent, approximately, on every quart of milk.

I'm all for supporting the farmers, because everyone knows there is a growing food shortage. But I wish the Minister could explain this quota system to me so that I could clearly understand it, because I don't like seeing consumers ripped off.

MR. McGEER: Before the dinner hour, Mr. Chairman, I asked a number of questions of the Minister. They say a soft answer turneth away wrath. The Minister got up and gave a very soft answer. It was as though the boys of the Egg Marketing Board got together with the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, and they had a little friendly session in which the Premier and the Minister did their best to help out the members of the Egg Marketing Board with this thorny question.

The Minister couldn't remember very many details of that meeting. But, Mr. Chairman, the member of the Egg Marketing Board who swore an affidavit remembered that day with crystal clarity. We don't

[ Page 555 ]

expect the Minister of Agriculture to have total recall, but when a Premier threatens to kick the "censored" out of a group of people he calls into his office, we don't expect either the Premier or the Minister to have total amnesia for that event.

Mr. Chairman, this is virtually what the Minister has used as his defence. He simply cannot remember an event that any reasonable man would have recalled in complete detail. It is all very well for the Minister to stand up in this House before Members of the opposition and the public, and to suggest to them that it was a reasonable and fair meeting in which no improper pressure was applied. But that is not what took place behind closed doors. The members of the Egg Marketing Board were clearly threatened.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Who are you calling a liar?

MR. McGEER: I am asking the Minister to begin recalling for us. And if he can't recall, Mr. Chairman, I am asking him this: over the dinner hour did he have his memory refreshed by Mr. Pope? He was present at the meeting, according to the affidavit. According to the affidavit, he followed the Minister's orders in saying that the settlement they proposed wasn't satisfactory.

The Minister had an opportunity over the dinner hour to discuss this matter with one of the members of his department, Mr. Pope.

He had an opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Peterson. I dare say he could take that opportunity now, if it slipped his mind over the dinner hour to do that. Perhaps the Minister keeps diaries of the critical meetings in his department. A responsible Minister would do that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I say this: it takes a great deal of courage for a small man in this province to lay an affidavit against a Minister of the Crown. That isn't something that is undertaken lightly. I want to publicly give my congratulations to that man, because the Crown has power, awesome power, Mr. Chairman. And every Minister of the Crown should understand that.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) should understand it. When he gives a recommendation for one of his friends to a Crown corporation, that amounts to an order. The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) must understand that. And I can tell you that a few months after an election, if somebody is called into the Premier's office and the Premier says he is going to beat the "censored" out of him, they remember it.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): He didn't say that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): What did he say then? Do you know?

MR. McGEER: Well, it was words to that effect. I wasn't there, but the Minister of Agriculture was there, and perhaps he could tell us precisely what was said.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The affidavit doesn't say it. It says, "or words to that effect."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How many cases have you thrown out of court on that ground, as a lawyer?

MR. McGEER: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General understands very well what is appropriate for a Minister to say, and he understands very well what is involved when a small citizen of British Columbia undertakes to lay these kinds of charges against a Minister of the Crown. Mr. Chairman, it isn't good enough for the Minister of Agriculture to stand here and offer the kind of soft answer to Members of the opposition and the public that were not offered at all to these people who were appointed to do a job independent of politics in British Columbia.

Let me interpret, Mr. Chairman, what was said in this affidavit. The marketing board was ordered to reduce levies from $21,000 to $7,500. That is a $13,500 favour to someone. That someone was a political friend of the government. Doesn't that message come through to the Members of the cabinet benches? Isn't that an invitation to every egg producer in British Columbia — how to get your problem solved?

We had better have some recollections here tonight, Mr. Chairman. And if the Minister cannot remember, he had better start asking some of the members of his department who were there. We don't want vague generalities. We want specific answers to specific questions.

Certainly the public has a right to know, when someone is ordered into the Premier's office in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture, and told to carry out the Premier's orders or he'll kick the "censored" out of them; and then he is sent off to an office in the Minister of Agriculture's department to prepare an order forthwith for settlement by his lawyers, and when that member of the Egg Marketing Board didn't quite get the message — it wasn't enough, a $6,000 favour — a civil servant was sent over — not the Minister — a civil servant was sent over with orders from the Minister to draft up a different agreement, and the ante was upped by $7,500 more.

Then the Minister of Agriculture, in the presence

[ Page 556 ]

of witnesses... If the Minister can't remember, the members of his department can; other members of the Egg Marketing Board who were there can. The favour wasn't enough; the ante had to be upped by another $7,500.

Mr. Chairman, if that isn't improper use of office, I don't know what is. We invited the Minister to stand up and tell us we were wrong, to tell us that that member of the Egg Marketing Board had been mistaken — that somehow he couldn't believe his ears, or had misunderstood the meaning of the Premier.

Well, certainly the lawyers can remember when the member of the Egg Marketing Board went up and signed a settlement for $7,500, when the day before, when he walked into the Premier's office, it was $21,000. Something happened in that day to change their minds by $13,500.

Now the member of the Egg Marketing Board may have forgotten, but he remembered pretty well on Sunday. He laid it down in a 36-point affidavit. We certainly didn't hear any kind of studied response from the Minister. He had all day to prepare his answer. The Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked the questions perhaps in a kinder way. He has had more Latin than I have. He invited the Minister just to give the general gist of it, if the specific questions were difficult to answer.

Mr. Chairman, we've got bafflegab.

Somehow we got the impression, in listening to the Minister, that his memory had deserted him for this particular event. He could recall somehow that this was critical to British Columbia joining the national Egg Marketing Board. He couldn't tell us why, but he tried to leave us with that impression. He said it was necessary to satisfy the egg producers in British Columbia because there was this war on, as if this were the way to do it. But, Mr. Chairman, quite clearly in that affidavit the chairman of the Egg Marketing Board said: "You tell the other guys, because I don't want to take the responsibility for letting an NDP supporter off the hook," or words to that effect.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister this: if it were so important for joining the national Egg Marketing Board to have this particular question settled in a manner satisfactory to the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, why was it that Mr. Stupich told that man, when he asked if the Minister would make it clear to the other egg producers in the province: "I will do it if necessary, but I hope it will not be necessary"? What the Minister said, in effect, was this: "I've made a deal with my friend and I won't tell if you won't tell." It was an under-the-table deal if there ever was one, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FRASER: Rotten eggs!

MR. McGEER: They didn't want to tell the other egg producers. You bet they didn't!

Mr. Chairman, we want some answers from that Minister tonight — not bafflegab, but straight honest talk. That's one thing the members of the Egg Marketing Board have done — they've given us a simple, clear exposition.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Or words to that effect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shocking! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: You're hopeless.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't hire the Attorney-General to defend me in this case — or words to that effect. That's a chicken "censored" explanation.

Mr. Chairman, we want straight talk from the Minister and we want it now!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I think now would be an appropriate time to answer some of the points that have been made by Members opposite, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It certainly would.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't have any left over from you. I asked you, if I missed any of yours, to give them back to me and I'll come back.

On the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) this afternoon before we wound up, I made one note. I don't know what I had in mind when I made it. It doesn't make any sense to me now, but he did ask one question: "Did the board have any alternative?" The board certainly did have an alternative. The board was preparing to take the case to court, was preparing to take these members to court and could indeed have gone ahead with that court case if it chose to.

MR. GARDOM: You remember that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not a case of remembering. The board has that authority. I certainly do recall that they were considering that action.

The producers had an alternative. The producers could have said — and they were threatening this at the same time and that's why they wanted these negotiations — "Take us to court. We're not going to pay unless you do take us to court." The producers,

[ Page 557 ]

in spite of the settlement that was negotiated, could have said: "We're not going to pay the reduced amount. Take us to court." In answer to your questions, both the board and the producers did have the alternative.

The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent). Just a very brief comment is that there's something wrong when we can't get more production into the north country. I think there is something wrong, too. It's Terrace. Who would — I was going to say who in their right mind — but who would want to go to Terrace to produce eggs? In spite of that, when the scheme started in 1967 in the north country, the quota issued at the beginning of the scheme was 575 cases.

MR. FRASER: Order! He's talking about Skeena!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Thanks, Alec. You might want to hear it.

When the scheme started there were 575 cases of quota issued initially in the north country. I have the names, I have the amounts. In the five years between that time and August 30, 1972 — that historic date — another 260 cases went into that country, bringing the total up to 835. In the next nine months there were a further 227 cases issued — almost as much as happened in the previous five years. The programme is still going on and will continue to go on. So progress is being made. Now, I'll admit they haven't gone into Terrace. We've been able to get them to go into other parts of the north country, not Terrace yet. But we're still hoping that somebody else will be induced to take up egg production in the Terrace area.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised a question about a turkey producer that he didn't name and I won't name at this point. That particular producer, and I know the Member is aware of this, has had problems in maintaining a reliable supply of hatching eggs. He's had problems in maintaining a high hatchability for the eggs that he's producing. He has had many other problems, and you detailed some of the problems. He's meeting with the turkey board this week on those questions, and the fact that he is meeting with them is encouraging from his point of view. He is meeting with the turkey board this week to re-examine the question of his particular quota. So perhaps we'll find out more about that any day this week. I'm not sure what day but I understand that he is meeting with them this week.

Your other question, the philosophical one, I find very interesting. I certainly enjoyed what you had to say about this and it reminded me of a similar speech that I gave myself 24 years ago at a CCF, in those days, convention on this whole question of production. I agree with you — why should we be limiting production in the world where there is a food scarcity? But what we have to look at is not so much the idea that we're limiting it. It's supplying management.

I'm repeating something now that I said 24 years ago: what we really have to decide as a community is what are we going to do with what we're producing. We know roughly what we consume locally, domestically. How much are we prepared to go beyond that in supplying the needs of other nations? How much are we going to produce for trade? How much are we going to do to help countries that are unable to buy and unable to trade; through food programmes to help other nations of the world? We don't produce to any limit and perhaps fluctuate from one year to the next. We decide ahead of time what the figure is going to be. That should be our target.

But we do have to have a target, I submit, if we're going to have supply management. I do believe in supply management. I don't believe in limiting production when people are short of food, but I do believe that we have to consciously determine what kind of a programme we're going to adopt and then we have to have a supply management programme to achieve that.

The alternative is the system that we had before, where there were boards in some particular commodity groups, and where if some people were trying to manage supply so that the prices they obtained for their produce were reasonable, others could ride under that umbrella and take full advantage of the ones that were willing to hold up the umbrella, which was a pretty unsatisfactory situation.

The co-operation between agriculture and wildlife. I've discussed this to quite an extent earlier today. I'm reminded of one other example of co-operation, and that is this year when there was such a desperate shortage of forage in the province, when we are looking for it in Alberta and even beyond that. At one time we even considered bringing forage in — at the suggestion of the federal Minister — from Quebec and Ontario, from the Creston wildlife reserve, since they had far too much land reserved for wildlife in that area and they had a surplus of fodder and we were able to get some of it for agriculture. I'm not sure that's the way the Minister behind me would phrase it, but we were able to....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The important point I want to make is that there was co-operation. Sure, there's no conflict, and that's the point I made earlier today. There is this conflict for a limited resource, but the point I was trying to make also is that within our cabinet we are mature people who are willing to sit down and try to resolve these conflicts.

[ Page 558 ]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I hope you win.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not a case of winning. It's not a case of any one Minister winning. It's a case of negotiating, discussing and, as I said earlier, of maximizing production. In any case, we'll sort that out.

The question of supervising marketing boards: I think more and more there is some justification for something along those lines — not necessarily that I believe that the marketing boards perhaps always require that supervision, but I think it's time we convinced the community as a whole that the marketing boards can stand that kind of supervision and that kind of examination, and give us an opportunity to prove to the community as a whole that the marketing boards are doing a job not just for the numbers of their own organization but for the community as a whole.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: We will be discussing that later in the session under another heading.

To the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) I just have one question: do political plums grow from seed or come from careful graft? I would just suggest that the party of which he is a member formed the government much longer than this one has and has had a great deal more experience in dealing with questions like that than has this administration.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer): I've said that I can't remember details, and frankly I have no particular interest in trying to remember details at this point and I still haven't. I didn't try to discuss it with Harry Pope during the dinner hour. I'm not sure about the Member opposite; perhaps he did too.

As far as Mr. Peterson, the Deputy Minister, is concerned — he's right now in Saskatoon attending a conference. Perhaps not at 10 minutes to 10, but certainly today he's attending a western provinces conference, so no opportunity — and it didn't even occur to me to try to ask him about any of these conversations.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As suggested by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey that the author of this affidavit remembered with...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: ...crystal clarity, Mr. Chairman, such crystal clarity that.... And the Hon. Attorney-General interjected at this time, and the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey kept saying "or words to that effect." Not just that; that's not the wording in the article. The words are "or similar words to the same effect." Not even as strong as "or words to that effect," just "similar words to that effect." That's a pretty weak affidavit, in my mind, and something rather short, Mr. Chairman, of crystal clarity — used not once in this article, but 17 times in this affidavit that he's going to go to court with. Crystal clarity indeed!

MR. GARDOM: Who said he's going to go to court?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Diaries of critical meetings.... You said this would be a good affidavit to go to court with earlier this afternoon.

Diaries of critical meetings; if I had considered any of these meetings that critical for tonight's debate, then indeed I might have kept written records of those meetings. It never occurred to me that I would need them on a night like this. I was simply trying to deal with a situation that existed and which had existed for several years in this province and which I was called upon to solve and did solve.

What about the affidavit itself? How carefully have you read it? You read it out in the House, but what did you read into it and what can you read into it? What could you have read into it if you're reading it from a different point of view? You say that the author of this report said that he was ordered to appear in the Premier's office. He doesn't say that. He says he attended a meeting. He might have asked for the meeting. It doesn't say otherwise in the affidavit. Why do you have the right to stand up here and say that he was ordered to attend? — when he in his affidavit says, or similar words to the same effect: "I attended a meeting."

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Why was it a critical meeting? I didn't deny this afternoon that there was a meeting; I'm denying any crystal-clear recollection of the words that were said at that meeting. I recall that for some months I took part in an effort, a successful effort, to resolve a conflict that had been building up for some five years. And it has been resolved, that issue of it.

Why was it critical? Mr. Chairman, I told you that it was important from the point of view of the poultry industry in this province and from the point of view of the poultry industry in the whole country that B.C. join the national egg plan.

It was important because B.C. had a better system of supply management than they had anywhere else in the country, and they were looking to B.C. for

[ Page 559 ]

some leadership. But B.C. was holding back because B.C. wasn't prepared to throw everything in without getting something out. And B.C. wanted some good to come out of that plan, not only for Canada as a whole but also for B.C.

We had to straighten out our own house before we went into that. We had to show that the scheme was working, not just for the 410 producers in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island but also for the seven people north of the 52nd parallel. We had to show it was working for everyone.

We did clear that up; we did join the national plan. We are partners in the national plan to the extent that the man who is managing the egg board at the time all this was going on has been invited by the national council to come to Ottawa and try to come up with a national scheme that will work throughout the country, because they are having trouble putting the national scheme together. And the manager from B.C. is back there on a six-month leave of office to try to get the scheme working nationally as well as it has been working here in B.C.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Why would I go? Only if necessary to tell the producers over in the valley.... Again there's a quotation...I don't recall those exact words either, but I do recall this: I recall the manager and the board at the time saying something or other about they were going to have a hard job selling this particular solution to their membership, and asking me would I come and present it to their membership. I recall discussing it with them at the time and coming to some conclusion that it would be better, really, if they as board members handled it themselves.

But I also agreed that if they felt it was advisable in the interest of convincing the people there that this was in the interest of the total production industry, that I indeed would come to that meeting. I was invited to that meeting and I attended that meeting, Mr. Chairman. And the meeting received me well; they asked questions for two hours — standing room only — every producer from the whole valley. I think it was something like 20 more than every producer, although it was producers only, because some came from the Island and some from the Interior. But it was a very good meeting.

I came at the invitation of the board. I did what the board wanted me to do: try to help convince those producers that this was indeed a solution that was good for everyone. And it was accepted by the poultry producers at that meeting, in that spirit.

That's the last question I have for the moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister is making a great case and a great play out of the statement that we find in the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon, "or similar words to that effect." But Mr. Brunsdon, Mr. Minister, is not laying claim to total recall of precise words. But he's definitely laying claim to general facts and a general assessment of what happened. And he is being prepared under oath to lay on the table a specific and a direct and an unqualified statement of facts of a power play, of perhaps favouritism, of, without question, pressure — and from the highest office in this province. Make no mistake of that, that's crystal clear. That is crystal clear.

The question that you have not answered to this House is — I put it to you, my colleague from Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) put it to you — was the substance of the account of Mr. Brunsdon correct or incorrect? Answer that question. Answer that question.

Let us hear what your version is, because it seems to me it's not really doing good service either to your office of to your personal credibility to attempt to hide behind total unrecall, or words to that effect.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Or similar words to that effect.

MR. GARDOM: Or similar words to that effect. And what are your words to any effect?

This man is prepared to be on oath; he is obviously prepared to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He could face very serious consequences if this affidavit is incorrect — none of which you're facing by the statements you're presenting in this House today. None of which.

But Mr. Brunsdon, and the Attorney-General knows this as well as I do, has made a prima facie case here. He's made a prima facie case, and one that could well, without any question of doubt, constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the highest degree of proof; it's required in any kind of a trial when the liberty of the subject is involved. And it's certainly no question that this statement, as it stands, is completely satisfactory proof and would be accepted as proof to the balance of probabilities unless you chose to make an answer to it in a court of law.

Now, it was not suggested by myself. I have never seen, heard, or even known of Mr. Brunsdon's name until I read the affidavit in the paper today. But there's no question, Mr. Minister, that this man has made a very strong and a very serious case against the Premier personally, against you personally, and against the office of the land. It's up to the two of you if you decide to state your own position on it. But insofar as I'm concerned, I do not like the inference upon the office, and the office owes an explanation even if you don't choose to give one.

[ Page 560 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: If I could just suggest something else then, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon. Member opposite — where Mr. Brunsdon claims general recall of what happened. I said earlier there were meetings. I said earlier there was at least one meeting in the Premier's office. And there were meetings in my office; there were meetings with staff; there were meetings with the board and with producers concerned. All these things happened.

I'm not going to try to recall the conversations, but I'm just going to ask you this: what charges, what statements of wrongdoing — where in this article does Mr. Brunsdon say that anything was done wrong?

You want to read something into it. Could it not also be read into it that in everything Mr. Brunsdon is saying, what he is indeed saying, is that the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and his staff helped us out of a mess? Because nowhere does he say, nowhere in this article does he say anywhere or suggest that anybody was doing wrong.

He says what happened. You're reading the inference into it that it was all wrong. You are, because nowhere here is he charging anybody with anything. He's simply repeating conversation. He's not trying to say what those conversations prove or anything else.

In any case, I'm not going to try and recall the words, to deny them or to accept them. I've admitted there were meetings in my office. There were meetings in the Premier's office; there were many meetings. That happened.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not sure. I was at a meeting at the Premier's office. I don't know what date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members to maintain order by waiting until the Minister's seated before they put further questions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: If there had been, Mr. Chairman, any doubt in anyone's mind as to the culpability of the Minister in this affair, his answers have surely removed that doubt. Mr. Chairman, the charge is improper conduct of a Minister. If the Minister doesn't understand that that's the charge, let us make it to him now very clearly. And let's make one other thing clear, Mr. Chairman, while you're hunting through your rules, and that is that in politics, particularly as it applies to the cabinet, the end does not justify the means.

The Minister has recalled the end with crystal clarity, but he chooses to forget the means. Mr. Chairman, that's what cannot be forgotten in government. That's why any Minister of the Crown, caught in a prima facie case of using unfair means to achieve an end, should resign. In any kind of jurisdiction that had respect for the British parliamentary system, that would be accepted without question.

Now, Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister does not expect any reasonable person to accept, much less Members of the opposition whom he probably doesn't consider reasonable at all, the explanation as he put forward that the man who laid this affidavit was not suggesting anything improper was done.

How, Mr. Chairman, can the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) or the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) interpret as being proper the statement of the Premier in item No. 5 of the affidavit, and let there be no mistake, the Minister's read this very carefully. He's counted the number of times that words "to that effect", or whatever the phrase was, was used.

The gentleman who laid the affidavit quotes the Premier thusly:

"There will be no court case against I. Koubicek." Did I pronounce his name correctly?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. It's close.

MR. McGEER: Help me out. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I haven't met the man. I respect his courage and, to me, he's got a great deal more credibility than the Minister.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Minister stood up here not 15 minutes ago and told us that the Egg Marketing Board could take Mr. Cy Kovachich to court. I ask, would you or anybody else deign to defy the Premier when he says there will be no court case against Cy Kovachich? Is that proper?

I thought we set up these marketing boards to be independent of political meddling. I wasn't so sure when I listened to the Member for Shuswap. He didn't want politics brought into it but he sure as the dickens brought them in this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: You better believe he did.

MR. CUMMINGS: Right next door to the Cariboo. He's got boxcars there.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister sent a

[ Page 561 ]

member of his department over to the Strathcona Hotel with orders — orders to the Egg Marketing Board. He doesn't want to remember it. He's trying as hard as he can to forget it. The one thing he thinks sure not to do is to ask Mr. Pope. Now wouldn't a reasonable man, who wanted to prove that this was all nonsense in this affidavit, wouldn't a simple telephone call, if he'd forgotten, to a member of his department, bring it back that evening?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's retired now.

MR. McGEER: Well, if the Minister can't phone him, perhaps somebody else can.

MR. FRASER: We should phone Regina for the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the Premier. Get 'em back right now.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things the Provincial Secretary boasted about was that people in government could make long distance telephone calls now. I would think it not inappropriate for a Minister faced with a charge as serious as this one to place a telephone call to his Deputy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right. And the Premier, get them both back.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: It's quite within the Minister's power, if he has any defence at all, to provide that by simple conversation with other witnesses to those meetings.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What are the charges?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Minister, I hope you won't find me guilty of being tedious and repetitious while I try and make this Minister understand that in the British parliamentary system or in any system of government, the ends do not justify the means, and that when he does a $13,500 favour on behalf of someone who's alleged to be a supporter of his political party, he's guilty of improper influence. When a member of a marketing board which is supposed to be independent of government attends a meeting in the office of the Premier and is sent over that same day to go to work in the office of the Minister of Agriculture, and come to a settlement that isn't within their conscience but fits the prejudices of the Minister of Agriculture, that is improper use of the power of office.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing tonight the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. We're discussing the way that Minister has handled his office since he came to power. No matter what indiscretions may have marred the office of cabinet Ministers of this government or prior governments, it does not excuse for one minute the misuse of office by the Minister of Agriculture or any other Minister of that government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) is a supporter of that Minister and the other cabinet Ministers. It's his responsibility just as it is the responsibility of me or any other Member of this House, to see that the Ministers of the Crown behave with propriety in all their actions. If an affidavit is laid on the floor of this House, those Members must deal with it in conscience just as do Members of the opposition. If the government cannot understand what their responsibilities of office are, it's that Member's responsibility to remind them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it's time we had some straight answers from the Minister and we ask for them again now.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments in response to the former speaker, the first Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

I think it's very unfortunate indeed to see such a top-notch city slicker making such a fine, wonderful, fantastic attack on our small poultry producers from northern British Columbia. I think it's an absolute disgrace.

He talks about one person, but there's two people. Apparently he's flying on one wing. You know I'd like to mention Kovachich as one, and the other one is Mr. Sampsom who is also an egg producer in Terrace. Mr. Sampsom has never been involved in our political party and Mr. Kovachich is a member of our political party. To me this is a fine example of how impartial we treat all people all alike. So please quit flying on one wing.

MR. FRASER: We don't want to break it.

MR. NUNWEILER: He forgets the fact that six years ago in Northern British Columbia we had 36 egg producers. One year ago we had 10. Today we've got six. If the Egg Marketing Board doesn't snap out of what they were doing, next year it will be zero.

When egg producers are going to be sued by a government commission, being threatened to go to court, and they're going to say: "You buckle under fellows, we're taking you to court under the power of a government", these are the kind of things that we

[ Page 562 ]

are mighty proud to tell people of British Columbia and that we're going to do something about.

We're not going to sue the people of Northern British Columbia and bankrupt them. This is what would have happened. They would be out of business in Terrace and in Prince George and the list would not be six today, it would be four and probably three, two and zero.

When it hits zero the policy of the board would have all its problems solved because they'd have 100 per cent of the market in Northern British Columbia, and the people up there would be at the whim, the colonialistic whim, of a board in the Fraser Valley. I'd like to inform the Member for Point Grey that consumers up there are ready to purchase the product. The producers are ready to produce it. All we need is an egg marketing board or some political assistance to provide the vehicle to be able to do it. It's very simple.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the issue with this affidavit is fairly straightforward. The man who swore the affidavit that was printed in today's paper, Mr. Brunsdon, made a number of statements, which apparently, according to the Minister and according to the Premier are not true.

Another man, Mr. Unger of Yarrow swore another affidavit which we don't have a copy of, which was not printed, which apparently supports the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon.

We can play games as long as we like about whether or not and I quote "or similar words to the same effect" actually mean that the statement that precedes those words was 99 per cent or 98 per cent accurate, or whether there might be one error perhaps or two, in the actual words used. But it's a clear statement of the meaning conveyed by the words used by the Premier and of course, the Minister of Agriculture as well.

The issue is pretty simple. The fact is we have an affidavit printed in the page of one of our major newspapers in the province which flatly contradicts the statements made in this House by the Minister, and in particular, the Premier of the province. Now the man may be wrong. His recollection may be wrong. He may indeed have done this maliciously.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Or may have just misinterpreted the situation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well that would be the explanation, Mr. Attorney General, that you'd like to find, I'm sure. But the fact of the matter is that whether whatever the explanation exists there in black and white for all the people of the province to see. We have a weird situation tonight where the Minister constantly claimed amnesia on these issues as to what was said, and yet, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to contrast his lack of memory, his amnesia, the man who was so concerned and charged with the responsibility of dealing with this issue. He had the real responsibility.

When a settlement was reached you'd think it would stick in his mind. But oh no, he can't remember. But the man in whose office they drifted in for a meeting and drifted out again, the Premier, he can recollect with absolute clarity his side of the story, and the Minister who should have been following this right the way through doesn't seem to remember anything. A pretty clear indication to me that he hasn't put his mind to thinking about or indeed he may not want to remember. He may not want to state to this House what he remembers about those conversations.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier was asked by me about the statements in paragraph 5 and 6 of the affidavit: 5 — "That at the meeting aforesaid I was informed by Mr. Barrett in the following words that 'there will be no court case against Sy Kovachich' or similar words to the same effect; 6 — That I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that 'The charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced' and if these charges are not reduced he will break him. Or similar words to that effect."

The other statement, paragraph 15: "that I was informed by the Premier in the following words that 'If anything is said outside of this office I will deny every word said' or similar words to the same effect."

Now in reply to a question yesterday where I asked whether the Egg Marketing Board was requested by the Premier to substantially reduce their financial claim against Mr. Kovachich, the Premier replied: "Mr. Speaker, they were not asked or ordered, or suggested to be ordered to do anything."

He had a clear recollection and yet it was not his primary responsibility. It was his primary responsibility, the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who apparently cannot remember a thing about his conversations, about the statements, and that's the thing that is really getting members of my party and other Members in this House, and indeed causing concern in the backbench of the government party if they're looking at this thing honestly.

The fact of the matter is these conflicts of statement cast real doubt upon the credibility of Ministers of the Crown and they should not be left in that state. Mr. Chairman, another critical factor here is whether or not the Premier asked the members of the Egg Marketing Board, or told them, to draw up an agreement incorporating such reduced charges against Mr. Sy Kovachich.

In paragraph 9 what do we see? Paragraph 9 of the affidavit: "That I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that the said marketing board was to forthwith draft an agreement for reduced charges against Mr. Kovachich and that the Premier added in

[ Page 563 ]

the following words, 'It has to be done today. Is there any office they can use?' or similar words to the same effect."

A clear statement by the swearer of the affidavit Mr. Brunsdon, a clear statement in total contradiction by the Premier of this Province. Yet the man who was most responsible, the man sitting there charged with the job of settling this problem apparently has no recollection at all.

The Premier has a recollection, Brunsdon has a recollection, Unger has recollections of this, but not the Minister and I'd like to know why not. I'd like to know why not because, in my mind, Mr. Speaker, we've seen him twist and we've seen him turn and we've seen him refuse to comment, and we've seen him attempt to bring in red herrings in his comments about the wording, the correct legal wording of this phrase "or similar words to that effect, or to the same effect."

We have heard that. We've heard him attempt to confuse the issue of the clear contradiction in testimony, a sworn testimony on oath, not like the Premier's testimony, but the sworn testimony on oath of two members who had a responsible position in the agricultural industry of this province.

He's attempted to ignore that and Mr. Chairman, it's just unacceptable to members of our party. We feel in this day and age when we have the public concerned about integrity and honesty and truth in public officials, the time has come for this Minister to speak out truthfully as to what he knows about this situation, to tell us what are the facts, to tell us what his recollection is even if he has to qualify it, "That's the best that I can remember of such and such a case, and such and such a meeting, or such and such a statement."

We cannot, Mr. Chairman, in the days of Watergate when the entire United States is completely twisted and torn to shreds on the issue of honesty, the issue of truth in government, allow this sort of thing to pass by unchecked in our Legislature, or anywhere else in our country.

The issue is pretty clear. The issue is whether or not two responsible members of the agricultural community chosen by the vote of their fellow members, I understand, to head up the Egg Marketing Board of British Columbia, whether they have lied, whether they have perjured themselves, whether they have engaged in libelous conduct and whether the Province newspaper has not only condoned this but has aided them in this libelous action on the Premier and on the Minister. The question is whether that is the case or whether there is some other explanation for this.

I can accept the words of the Premier, who gave straight replies to straight questions in this House, but we cannot accept the evasion, the refusal to answer, the deliberate distortion, the deliberate attempt to ignore the issues presented by this affidavit and by the affidavit which has been sworn in support of this one. We cannot ignore that by the Minister of Agriculture.

Once more, on behalf of all the Members of this House, and the members of the public, who have a right to know whether there is honesty and truth in their public officials, and particularly cabinet Ministers, I would ask him to consider this affidavit, to reply in particular to the specific points referring to him, and to indicate to the House whether he recollects the statements made in that meeting on October 26, when they were instructed, ordered, or whatever it might have been — suggested — that they reduce the charges to Mr. Sy Kovachich — whether or not he can recollect anything about that at all.

I would like him to reply in this House, or speak in this House, on whether or not there was any deliberate attempt to have the agreement altered at that time, whether or not he did indeed, if he can indeed, recollect discussions with Mr. Pope later that evening, when Mr. Pope apparently, according to the affidavit, acted as the intermediary between the Minister and the Egg Marketing Board, and on at least one occasion was forced to return because the Minister, according to this affidavit, said the reduction in the amount to be paid was inadequate.

Can the Minister recollect that conversation with Mr. Pope? Can he recollect considering more than once the proposal of the Egg Marketing Board? These are the fairly simple and straightforward questions, because, Mr. Speaker, whether it's Brunsdon or somebody else, someone, somewhere, is lying about this whole affair. Until we get some answers, until we get some straight statements in this House, we are not going to know who it is.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, the Minister has said that the affidavit is not clear, but it is certainly clearer than anything he has yet said about the meeting of October 26, 1972. While he is searching his memory on that to improve his account of the meeting which I hope we might receive, certainly before we move from his estimates, I wonder if I might, through you, Mr. Chairman, ask him a very specific question on a topic that everyone seems to be agreed about, and that is that there was a fine, or charge, in an amount of $21,000 that had been assessed by the board against a friend of the government. That was in due course reduced through means on which we are not yet clear to the amount of $7,500.

I wonder if the Minister could advise the House what would be the criteria for the fixation of the first amount of $21,000, and what might have been the changed circumstances which would have led to $7,500 appearing more reasonable later on the same day.

[ Page 564 ]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I have held my chair as long as I dare, in hopes that the Minister would answer the questions very, very clearly put before him. I am amazed to think that the Minister of Agriculture would be afraid to answer the questions that are before him. I know him to be a capable man, and as a result....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to impugn the motives of the Members of the House, and would ask him to withdraw the remark.

MR. SCHROEDER: I am amazed that he chooses not to answer. I am amazed. He is a capable man. To leave these questions unanswered, Mr. Chairman, is to leave himself more suspect than if he had chosen to answer them. I am amazed to think that the Minister of Agriculture could not answer them.

The reason why I have held my remarks until now is because mine involve a change of subject, although in one regard the people of the flood plains are concerned about the egg marketing and broiler marketing conditions in that we understand from remarks out of the Department of Agriculture that there will be a 10 per cent reduction for quotas for the Fraser Valley. We don't understand whether this is a 10 per cent reduction in new allocations or whether this is a 10 per cent reduction in present allocations. Perhaps the Minister, when he stands to answer these other questions, could clarify just exactly what the facts are.

The next question that I have has to do with the milk pricing formula in the Egg Marketing Board quotas for production for the Fraser Valley and also for broilers. Have you got that?

The other area of concern is the new Farm Income Assurance Act which has brought to the farmers a sort of a Band-aid approach which guarantees them an increased return on their milk production. The farmers can't understand for one moment why the Agriculture department wouldn't rejuvenate and reconstruct the milk pricing formula. You know that the milk pricing formula was established when the economy was basically stable, and for a basically stable economy the milk pricing formula worked beautifully. However, in the last couple of years, we all know what has happened, and the cost of production of milk has increased. The figures vary with different farmers, from 89 per cent now to over 100 per cent. The formula allows for only a 10 per cent change per year, so as a result on 100 per cent increase in costs it would take 10 years for the pricing formula to catch up with the costs of production. But why not adjust the formula and make it more flexible, make it be able to handle these fluctuations in the economy, rather than to offer the farmer now a $2 per hundredweight subsidy? It is a subsidy which is going to have to be argued over and over again. The farmers don't understand why the department was hesitant, or why it was reticent to accept the farmers' accounting on the costs of production in the first place.

One of the farmers suggested to me that on the basis of the computation on which he will now receive in the neighbourhood of $2 per hundredweight from the Farm Income Assurance Act, when he compares his costs of production, it leaves him $2.14 per hour for his labour, making no provision for vacation pay, and no provision for any kind of pension plan. This clearly indicates that the figures that were used in the computation by the department are not adequate, particularly in view of the fact that the farmers were led to believe that their labour was to be considered at least the equivalent of industrial labour, and that perhaps they could expect something between $5 and $6 per hour as a wage.

They are concerned not only about the fact that the department was reticent to accept their accounting. They are afraid about the five-year lock-in, because in the application form which they must sign, it clearly says "I agree to participate until February 28, 1979," which is five years down the road, and they agree, over their signature, that if they should discontinue to produce fluid milk, or wish to withdraw all or a portion of that quota in the process, they would be required to carry out one of these three options.

To show you how locked in they are, they must remit to the fund an amount equal to all or to a portion of the net amount of the advance paid into the fund by the province, or they must remit to the fund the unpaid balance of the producer portion of the premium. I understand that to be the premium that would be paid should they go for the full five-year period. Now, if they have decided they wish to opt out after, say, a two-year period, they must pay then the premium for the balance of the other three years.

The other option is to arrange for the transfer of the participation and benefits and obligations in the programme to the purchaser of that portion of the milk quota.

I see nothing wrong with the last portion there.

They agree to pay into the plan, at a constant rate of 20 cents per hundredweight for a full period of five years, but there is no guarantee that they will recoup that portion which they put into the plan.

In the best of planning, with a contribution plan such as this is, you are making the farmer believe that he is gaining twice as much benefit as he really is gaining. You make him make a contribution as an insurance premium. You say that you will make up the balance out of a fund which supposedly is $10 million, and when you add the two together it sounds like a great benefit coming to the farmer. He's now

[ Page 565 ]

gaining $2 per hundredweight. But by the time he takes his own personal contribution....

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: Absolutely, he's subsidizing his own plan.

MR. SMITH: Oh sure, and his own land.

MR. SCHROEDER: As a result, the farmer is not gaining a 2 per cent subsidy at all. He's gaining perhaps $1.80 on even terms, and if the good times are longer than the bad times he will subsidize himself to an even greater extent. The farmer is not gaining at all what the plan or the department would like to have him believe he is obtaining.

I would like to suggest that it would have been far better to change the formula and let the cost of milk be reflected in the price of that product on the counter, and you wouldn't have to worry about a Farm Income Assurance Act at all. The figure has been bandied about that it will take between $3.75 million and $4 million to care for the subsidy for three months — December, January and February. There's only $10 million in the whole plan. At the same rate, and if the cost of producing milk doesn't rise any more, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you will be $4 million in the red in this particular vote in just over a period of one year. It is far better that we should adopt a marketing plan whereby the milk price would be changed by a formula that would reflect the costs, whether they be great or small, in any given year.

The farmer doesn't understand why he would receive now nearly a few cents short of $10 a hundredweight for his milk when the cost is in the neighbourhood of $12, and has prospects of increasing to $13, $14, $15, and perhaps $16 per hundredweight by a year from now. Perhaps the Minister could explain the rationale whereby it was determined that the assurance plan was advisable, and more acceptable, as far as the farmer was concerned, as compared to the adjusting of the milk pricing formula.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) raised some questions. First this concern that there may be a 10 per cent reduction in the egg and broiler quotas in the Fraser Valley. Certainly no suggestion have I heard of any broiler quota reduction in the valley.

With respect to eggs, the situation is a little different in that since the inauguration of the plan the poultry producers in the valley have operated according to the market, and currently I think they are producing 90 per cent of their quota, because that is what the market is absorbing. Now that percentage changes, depending on the market demand. It is not a case of reduction of quota, and that's the system that has been in operation for years, and there is no suggestion that I've heard of changing that. So there is nothing, that I can think of right now, that applies to the questions you asked.

The milk, why not just change the formula? Well, one very important reason, of course, is that it would mean a completely new formula because the formula had shown that it was inadequate. Apart from that, we had entered into an agreement with the federal government to subsidize the consumer price of milk by 5 cents a quart, and that agreement was based on us continuing with the old formula for the year that that agreement had to run. So it would have meant forgoing that 5 cents a quart coming into British Columbia for the B.C. consumers from the federal government. So there was a very good reason for not abandoning the old formula. If we were going to do anything, we had to do something quite separate from that.

As far as the $2.14 an hour not being sufficient, I'm reminded by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) that under the previous administration the minimum wage in B.C. was $1.85. However, the $2.14 an hour that he was earning suggests to me that he was not producing to the level of efficiency that we considered he should be producing in order to earn a decent income from dairy farming. In other words, it was taking him too long to produce too little milk, or some such combination. Because certainly, the way we worked it out, it came to a higher figure per hour than that.

With respect to the question of the producers contributing, I'm informed that the very next day after we announced the plan there was a phone call from Washington, D.C. to establish whether or not our dairy income assurance programme was a contributory plan because of the international implications of straight subsidies. So that was one reason, at least, for making it contributory.

With respect to the amount of money available in the plan, you will recall when the legislation was discussed in the House in the fall session there was the option there that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) from time to time, as was required, could add to that fund either from consolidated revenue or from earned surplus, as was needed. You will recall that I said earlier this afternoon that before this $10 million fund was established — it hasn't been established yet — but prior to that the Minister of Finance did indeed provide $3.75 million to cover the months December to February inclusive. The $10 million fund will be established during this session, I hope, and if more is needed as we get into further programmes during the year, or for this programme, then the Minister of Finance will be called upon to make further additions to that fund.

[ Page 566 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister, it seems that the gravy in agriculture over the years has been to the middle man, and he's certainly grown fat at the expense of the producer and the consumer too, and in my view....

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: It's free enterprise.

MR. GARDOM: No, it's not free enterprise, my friend, it's far from it. It's this marketing board system that you people are criticizing so strongly here, and the producers in this province are today regulated, and have been regulated and controlled to a fantastic extent, and it seems that the best ones have to pay a very, very high price for excellence. These boards bring up the level of the worst at the cost of the best, and the most efficient and hard-working individual doesn't seem to receive his proper return.

In my personal view, and I'm expressing my personal view, marketing boards are completely for the birds, and if we found any of the other primary products in this province being regulated to the extent the farmer is, we would almost have insurrection in the streets. It is a very, very encouraging thing to find today that we have the degree of upset that has now presented itself in this egg marketing field, because the point is being brought properly home. The consumer is certainly getting the gouge along the line. There is, I think, poor variety and at times even worse quality.

It is almost criminal to hear, as I did when I was travelling during the summer and having a very pleasant few days holiday in the Okanagan, that some very, very good fruit is just dumped into the dump in Penticton by virtue of not being able to get along with adequate quotas, or whatever it may be. And that is a bad kind of thing to happen in today's society. Another thing that I think would be very, very useful, if we're running into these excesses in those kinds of fields, that could be put to other things: we could establish, oh, goodness knows, jam factories, or what-have-you, or make B.C. liqueurs. You could have Stupich after-dinner nips, or call it what you would, but we could show a little more imagination in having these products brought properly into the market.

And what has happened, Mr. Minister, to probably, without any question, the best potato in the world — the Ashcroft potato? And you could remember that perhaps as a boy. I don't suppose you've had a good Ashcroft Netted Gem for many, many years, but what indeed has happened to that? Why is it that we still have to find in British Columbia if you want a really top flight Okanagan apple you often find the best place to buy it is in Seattle, or Sun Valley, Idaho, or somewhere like that, and we can't get the very best products that we produce in British Columbia on our own shelves in British Columbia?

And I think there is no question that by virtue of the urbanizing trend the farmer is perhaps the most forgotten person in society: he is the very last to receive increases, and he's the first to suffer cuts, and, as I said, I think he's being milked left, right and centre by each level of distribution. I think it would be a very great thing if the government would come out with some very strong and enterprising and innovating plans to stress the direct route, and encourage farmers' markets, and let's see if we can get the producer and the consumer much closer together so that each of them can have a break.

Before closing tonight, Mr. Chairman, I again, and with regret, have to come back to the Hon. Minister, because he has not answered really any questions at all about this affidavit and about this meeting. I would like to ask him six in number. Was there a meeting? Is he prepared to agree that this meeting that Mr. Brunsdon speaks of actually took place? And, if so, was the Hon. Minister there, and the other people who he named in his affidavit; were those people present?

So assuming that there was a meeting, and the Minister was there when the other people were present, what is the Hon. Minister's version of the particular meeting? Does the Hon. Minister remember that this gentleman legally owed $21,000 or not? Is the Minister prepared to answer the very pointed and pertinent questions put to him by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)? What was the criterion for reduction and could that be applied in similar or in other cases?

Mr. Minister, is it true or is it false that you or the Premier applied pressure upon Mr. — how do you pronounce the gentleman's name? — Mr. Kovachich or the board to settle? Is it true, Mr. Minister, or is it false, that Mr. Kovachich and the board were ordered by you or by the Premier to keep the settlement hush-hush?

Is it true or is it false, Mr. Minister, that Mr. Kovachich and the board were ordered by you or the Premier that if they didn't abide by an agreement, they would be in serious trouble? Are those questions true or are they false? What is your answer to them? And what, Mr. Minister, is your version of the meeting? That is the question you have not answered in this House all day. What is your version of this meeting?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I did answer those questions, but now that those questions are listed in that order — I've written them down — I'll repeat them one by one and comment on them. They'll be in Hansard, and then we can check tomorrow whether or not I did answer them. The answers may not be satisfactory.

[ Page 567 ]

First question: was there a meeting? There was a meeting in the Premier's office. I'm not denying or confirming that it was October 26, but it certainly was some time in the fall of 1972; I just haven't bothered checking it.

Was I there? Yes, I was there.

Were the people listed in this...? I haven't seen the affidavit, but I have a newspaper account of it. Were the people listed in that affidavit, or in the newspaper account, there? It could very well have been. Someone may prove some day that one of these wasn't there and somebody else was. But generally those were the people at the meeting, as I recall.

Did the gentleman legally owe...? That is the question — you say legally. Now I'm not a lawyer. There were two lawyers, not at that meeting, later called upon to try to negotiate this thing. The real question was: did they legally owe the larger amounts? Now the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked earlier the basis of accumulating this amount of money.

There were two levies levied by the Egg Marketing Board. First, there was a general levy for operating expenses of the board that at that time was one-third of a cent per dozen. Now whether it was for the whole five, six, seven years that we're talking about, I don't know. But it was approximately one-third of a cent per dozen.

In addition to that, if any producer chose to produce over his quota, then there was a further levy that again varied from time to time but was in the neighbourhood of 15 cents per dozen, a very much larger levy. This was part of the argument: how much over quota? How much quota did he actually have at different times? Because there was some change in quotas. How much did he owe at the one-third of a cent per dozen? How much did he legally owe of the higher levy? And where did the true figure lie?

This was the argument between the two people. That accounts for the difference in figures. You say: why did they settle at the $7,500? There was an argument. There was a desire to settle on both parts. They both wanted to save face out of it, and they both wanted to get the matter settled.

As far as the criterion for reduction, well, it was a matter of, you know, two people getting together and negotiating on an amount — and one fellow saying, "Well, I can afford...." There was negotiating in that meeting, but it wasn't settled in that meeting. There were further negotiations afterwards.

The question I was asked earlier: do I recall getting a report from the Poultry Commissioner, who was Mr. Harry Pope at that time, since retired? Certainly I discussed it with him. I discussed it with him several times. Some of these could very well have been progress reports on negotiations between the two parties and all the other people involved. Eventually it was settled.

I didn't say what the terms of the settlement would be. I was in no position to say what Kovachich and Sampsom could or would pay, or what the board would settle for. But eventually the two groups did get together and arrive at a figure. I was pleased that when they did arrive at the same figure, that naturally was the settlement figure.

Was there pressure on both to settle? Certainly there was persuasion. Everybody wanted a settlement. They wanted it themselves. We wanted it; as politicians, we wanted it. As Minister of Agriculture, as I've already said earlier in this debate, I wanted it settled because I wanted to go to Ottawa in a position of some strength to negotiate our best way into CEMA. That was what I wanted to do.

You can call that pressure if you like, and they might have called it pressure. But I suggest again, as I answered earlier to you, at no time could we say to them, "Look, fellows, this has to be it," because they could have thumbed their noses at us and gone their own way, if they chose.

Certainly there was persuasion and you, in their position at the time, might have considered it pressure.

Did I ask that it be kept hush-hush? As I recall it, it was the board's wish that the details of this not be spread throughout the poultry industry until they had an opportunity to talk to the poultry producers in the largest production area, the Fraser Valley. I was asked, if they wanted me to come to that meeting — would I come? I was subsequently asked to come and I did go to the meeting.

Now there is no reason why I would want it kept hush-hush that I can think of at the moment. I can't recall from that discussion at that time any reason why I'd want it kept hush-hush. But they did because they felt that they had to do a selling job on their own organization.

Did anyone say to them that if they didn't abide by the terms of the settlement, then there would be trouble? I do recall somebody asking at one stage, whether it was at the meeting in the Premier's office or somewhere else, I don't know — but I do recall somebody saying: "Supposing the other side doesn't live up to this agreement?"

It must have been in the Premier's office, now that I think of it, because I recall the Premier saying at the time that if agreement is reached, if the two parties did agree, and if their lawyers drew up an agreement that both parties agreed to, that he didn't want either party to come back in there and try to raise this thing again and to say that the other party wasn't living up to it. He expected them to settle it from here on in out of his office. He'd had enough of it. It must have been in the same meeting because I can only recall the one meeting in the Premier's office.

My version of the meeting? Well, I think I've done that in answering your questions. Now you may not

[ Page 568 ]

and you may want to come back. There were a couple of other things.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, I dealt with that. I did answer the question of the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): First of all, I want to pay a bit of a tribute to the Agriculture Minister for coming in some part to the defence of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board, because someone needed to do that in this House. His mention of the manager of the Egg Marketing Board going to CEMA, the national agency....

HON. MR. STUPICH: That was the other thing I wanted to talk about — boards in general. I wonder if we could just deal with that part of it because I think you're going on to broilers, aren't you? Or are you staying with eggs?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'd like to just talk about this because it was raised in connection with eggs — this whole question of marketing boards.

Now, I don't take the criticisms of the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) with respect to marketing boards. As a matter of fact, the marketing boards do a good job for consumers and for producers alike.

I was a poultry producer at a time. Perhaps you've bought eggs recently and you know you're paying very nearly $1 a dozen for them. Only very recently did you pay that much. But I can recall producing eggs in 1951 and selling them at 83 cents a dozen, and nine months later selling them at 57 cents a dozen. I can recall grain then costing somewhere in the neighbourhood of $34 a ton.

Marketing boards even that out. There wasn't this fluctuation in the return to the producers. But they also evened it out for the consumer. The producer could plan ahead with marketing boards, could try to get a price relative to his cost of production. But this benefit was passed on to the consumer as well.

Every time producers go in and out of production industry, whether it's poultry, whether it's broilers, or anything else like that, there is a cost involved. There is the cost of building facilities; and if buildings are not used, they deteriorate.

That cost has to be passed on to the consumer. Too much of it in the past has been borne by the producer, but a good deal of it is passed on to the consumer. By having orderly control of marketing, by orderly production, both the consumer and the producer have benefited.

I don't deny that on some occasions boards might take advantage of their position. I know the winery association felt that the Grape Marketing Board was taking undue advantage of its bargaining position when it was selling grapes to the wineries. I'm not saying that did happen, but I do say that people feel that way sometimes.

But I still say we haven't found any better way of regulating production. Until we do, then I am going to be a strong and fervent supporter of marketing boards.

I recognize the points made by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that maybe we do need something further. I said that there will be further discussion of that during this session.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wanted to mention the manager of the Egg Marketing Board briefly, because he has been chosen and requested by the national board to come down and start the scheme off on the right track, and that's one of the people that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) said had no expertise in the whole area.

The Member for Shuswap, Mr. Chairman, has made a career out of attacking British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, quite often with no facts at his command and certainly nothing to back up his attacks.

If I could echo the Minister's statement, Mr. Chairman, before this British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board was established in 1961 — by a pretty healthy majority, incidentally, as 89 per cent of the producers voted to establish that marketing board in 1961 — the industry before that time was riddled with both bankruptcies and foreclosures for debts, so it's been an important avenue of stability and has brought that kind of stability to this important farm industry in the province. I commend the Minister again for making those statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: "But...."

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no buts. I appreciate that very much. I don't think the House should lose sight, though, of what the real issue is here. The issue that the Premier of this province has been accused, and there's strong indication that the Premier of this province has been meddling with operations of those boards, has been exerting his influence on the Minister of Agriculture, and has been interfering with a board which is supposed to be outside of the area of political interference. That's the issue. The Premier of British Columbia has been laying on the muscle on the Minister of Agriculture and on these boards. That's the issue.

Interjection.

[ Page 569 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps, since no one else wants to answer some of these questions, maybe I could take a stab at answering a couple of them, anyway, myself.

HON. MR. COCKE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Premier isn't here at the present time.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's not my fault.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Premier this afternoon denied that, and that Member stands there, and all these other Members stand here tonight, making these accusations that are phenomenally bad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: At least a couple of these questions can, I think, be answered quite easily. It seems that what happened is that some time ago — in December, I believe — the Minister of Agriculture apparently had some meetings with the people in the British Columbia broiler industry. The board at that time acceded to the request by the Minister to begin to establish a broiler marketing industry in the Okanagan-Kamloops area, even though all surveys taken since 1968 pointed out that it was not economically feasible to do so. But the government got into the act by financing a co-operative processing facility which changed the outcome of those surveys, because once the government took a piece of the action in that processing plant, then that changed the economic indexes.

So the board then established a quota policy of 5,000 broiler permits each for 11 new producers in that area to be raised five times per year to a total of 25,000 broilers per year for a grower.

On December 12, 1973, the Minister of Agriculture gave full approval on that quota policy. Following that approval, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), and perhaps some other Members of the NDP caucus, met with the Premier of this province and complained that those quotas were far too low. Out of that meeting, the Premier of British Columbia then laid on the muscle and said: "Those quotas are too low." Two of those 11 growers will have quotas of 20,000 birds to be raised to a total of 100,000 birds each for two of those people, as a direct result of the Premier's instructions.

It was further decided that some kind of a committee would decide which two of those broiler growers would get the increased quota, and the funny thing about that was that the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board wasn't even included. No member of that board was even included on this committee which was to decide which two of the 11 growers would get the 20,000 quota.

What was going to happen to those other nine?

Why wouldn't they be allowed to have that same kind of increased quota? There are about 100 growers today who don't get anywhere near that quota. There are 90 new growers in the Fraser Valley who still only have 4,000 quota.

I suggest that those are the things that happened. The Premier made the order for the 20,000 quota. There's no appeal to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask that the Hon. Member, rather than making statements about what the Premier said, phrase them in terms of questions on vote 3 to the Minister responsible, inasmuch as we are....

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about the Minister responsible. I'm answering some questions for him so he doesn't have to answer them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the Hon. Member is impugning the motives of another Member of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not impugning motives. I'm just saying what happened, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I would ask the Hon. Member to phrase his comments in terms of questions addressed to the Minister whose vote we are on.

MR. McCLELLAND: We'd like some answers to the points that I have made from the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, because there's no appeal to those kind of rulings.

We want to know who is running the agriculture department. Why is there interference in the operation of the marketing boards? Why is there interference, in fact, in the operation of agriculture board?

It shouldn't even be part of the question about getting an industry started in the Interior. First of all, though, it must not be done at the expense of any other farmers in any other part of British Columbia.

The Premier of the province has made a political commitment to the Member for Shuswap, and it's unfortunate that the Agriculture Minister is being charged with paying off that political commitment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is making a statement impugning the motives of another Member of the House. I would ask the Hon. Member to address his comments and questions to the Minister rather than making statements.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then the question I have for the Minister is: will there continue to be political interference in the operation of these boards? Are we going to allow the boards to treat all growers in the

[ Page 570 ]

same manner? Political meddling is ruining that whole free concept of any kind of an independent marketing board for British Columbia. Those are the questions that I think need to be answered and we must not lose sight of where those questions are.

HON. MR. STUPICH: First, on this question of political interference, we've got a different Premier now. MLA's can get into the Premier's office — I'm not sure whether they could before or not.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It doesn't say that in the affidavit. But if MLAs have a problem, want to make a case, they can get an audience with the Premier. Individuals can. He even answers letters, which is something that wasn't done for 20 years.

Now you're saying that there was a previous instruction — I've forgotten how you phrased it — that there would be 11 producers of 5,000 quota each in the interior. There may very well have been a letter from myself to the board.

Then the MLAs from the area discussed this, argued that it wasn't enough to build a reasonable industry in the Interior, and surely that's their responsibility. If we were doing something in your area I would expect you to argue very forcibly on behalf of the producers in your area, and I expect no less from the backbench Members of the NDP.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Shocking!

HON. MR. STUPICH: I expect them to do a better job of representing their areas than I expect you to do. But they did make representations on behalf of the producers or the potential producers in their area, and they made them successfully, as far as I'm concerned. They persuaded me that it should be higher.

I think you said that the Premier ordered that two producers would get 20,000 each. I say that if he did order it, it couldn't have been a very successful order because it hasn't happened, because no two producers are getting 20,000.

MR. McCLELLAND: Nothing has happened.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Something has indeed happened. The broiler board in my office agreed that 11 producers would be selected from among the 87 applications they have from people in the Interior of the province wanting to produce broilers, and that from among those 87 applicants, in chronological order, will be selected 11. The selection will be by a committee that I have named. I can tell you the name of the chairman of that committee. It's the retired poultry commissioner, Harry Pope. I can find him; certainly I can find him when I have something for him to do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You declined to do that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I never said that. The other two members of the committee have been invited but have not yet agreed to act on the committee. They haven't disagreed, but they haven't yet given their agreement. As soon as that committee has been named, I hope in the first week in March, the selection of those 11 broiler producers in the Interior will take place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What are you ashamed of in politics? Why shouldn't there be political interference? What's wrong with politics? If you don't believe in politics, what are you doing here? It's your job as MLAs to represent your areas and our Members are doing that.

My job as Minister of Agriculture is to try to do something for the development of the agriculture industry in this province. We did indeed make a promise. We made a promise to the electorate in the election of August 30 that we would see that there would be expansion of agriculture throughout the province, and we're delivering on this promise.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents the 100th annual report of the Division of Vital Statistics.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:11 p.m.