[ Page 573 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Officials Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Act (Bill 47). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 573

Oral questions

B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. Mr. McClelland — 573

Columbia River Study. Mr. McGeer — 573

ICBC tenders. Mr. Bennett — 574

ICBC publicity re service. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 574

Grace period for vehicles without valid decals. Mr. Wallace — 574

Driver permit due date. Mr. Fraser — 575

Current number of ICBC applications. Mr. Curtis — 575

Greyhound bus franchises. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 575

Estimated ICBC applications. Mr. Curtis — 575

Possible agreement with B.C. body shops. Mr. Morrison — 576

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Dent — 577

Mr. McClelland — 580

Hon. R.A. Williams — 584

Mr. L.A. Williams — 584

Hon. Ms. Young — 586

Mr. Smith — 587

Mr. Lewis — 588

Mr. Gardom — 591

Hon. Mr. Lea — 594

Mr. McGeer — 595

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 596

Mr. McGeer — 603

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 603

Mr. McClelland — 603

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 604

Mr. Gibson — 605

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 606

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 607

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 608

Hon. Mr. King — 609

Statement

Agreement between Automotive Retailers Association and ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 610

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there are a group of students from Kitsilano High School visiting us today and they are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Appen. I'd like the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, one of the very innovative programmes the Department of Education and the Mission School Board are introducing is called Education For Life. There are six young fellows with their two leaders here in the galleries and I would like you to welcome them.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today from the fair city of Revelstoke two ladies, Mrs. Dorothy Wasylik, and Mrs. Dorothy Gullickson. They are accompanied by my wife. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, are there any other matters — like matters of privilege or any points of order? (Laughter.)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Well, the invitation was put so kindly I couldn't pass it up, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

I would like to ask leave of the House, in order that we don't inhibit debate, Mr. Speaker, on any important issues, to withdraw a notice of motion, No. 17, on the order paper in my name.

MR. SPEAKER: That's on the Votes and Proceedings today? What page?

MR. McCLELLAND: Page 5 on Votes and Proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: A notice of motion is treated precisely the same as a motion and both of them have to be withdrawn with leave, according to Speaker Irwin. That's at page 5, and it's to do with egg marketing.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AND DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 47, Public Officials Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Act, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

B.C. BROILER MARKETING BOARD

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if at any time did he tell the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board that in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy the Minister or his department were acting on orders from Premier Barrett. Did you ever say: "It's out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be."

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I certainly recall discussing in my office with the broiler board when we were talking about the plans for the industry. I certainly recall saying then that it was party policy that there would be this movement from the valley into the Interior of the province.

I don't recall saying that the Premier had ordered anything specific be done other than that he expected me as Minister of Agriculture to follow government policy and party policy as outlined during the election campaign.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Did you ever say to the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board: "On the matter of Interior representation on the marketing board I agree with the board on representation, but this is the word from the Premier"?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I believe I did say at one stage that I did agree with the board about their philosophy toward board representation. And with that agreement in mind, agreed that there would be no pressure on my part to put an Interior man on the board. And that has not happened. The memorandum that went to the broiler board did not insist that there be provisions for an Interior man on that board. Now, I could not have said that anybody ordered it be done; it hasn't happened.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that perhaps since the Minister's estimates are up today, it might be wise to be asking questions in his estimates rather than during question period which consumes a lot of time.

COLUMBIA RIVER STUDY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources:

[ Page 574 ]

Did he commission a study to be conducted on the Columbia River and its ramifications by a Mr. Ian McDougall of Dalhousie University? And if he did commission a study, has he received that study?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Yes, Mr. Speaker, through British Columbia Hydro, and the study has been received.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question: When does the Minister intend to make that study public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't, Mr. Speaker.

ICBC TENDERS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Regarding ICBC, is there some method of giving preference to British Columbia companies in the tender form or when the bids are close after a tender has been called?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's not formally set out as I recollect it, but it's certainly my hope — I know it has been discussed, I don't think there's any decision been made — that preference do be given to British Columbia companies — and I would say no figures have been set.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental. In so much as the tenders were called for carpeting in the ICBC offices throughout B.C., and in a tender quotation of $129,000, the only B.C. company bidding was high by only $611, why was this contract not let for B.C. carpet rather than carpet from Montreal?

ICBC PUBLICITY RE SERVICE

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to take that as notice; I can't give you the answer now.

In the meantime while I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, the other day the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked me a question regarding publicity for service after 12:01 on March 28. I was pretty sure there had been information already released. And last Friday there was a press release made which set out all of the phone numbers for every part of the province, and ads are going in the dailies tomorrow. The weekly — I think that is going in today.

BOOKSTORE STOCKING OF
THE JOY OF SEX

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A question to the Attorney-General – if I may catch his attention. Would the Attorney-General indicate whether he or his department have yet determined about the availability in this province of The Joy of Sex?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, certainly it is not for me to act as any kind of a censor of the subject matter in that respect. In regard to the book itself, which has been referred to in the newspapers, I checked — kind of anticipating that there might be a question on that subject matter. And it appears to have been lost in the mails, much to the distress of some of my staff. (Laughter.)

If something like that is sent into the department, it's the criminal code, but administration by the province. It will be considered by the law officers of the Crown in the usual way. But speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to do anything which might be interpreted as bringing an indictment against the Creator himself in respect to his works or instincts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General: I appreciate the humour which is attached to his remarks, but I must also assume that the Attorney-General does not treat lightly the removal of books from bookstores of this province. And just because some book has been lost in the mail, is your department not looking into the matter?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think this was part of the Hon. Member's question originally. It was suggested in one of the newspapers that prior to any prosecution, or something of that kind, there's been a suggestion that a store should not do something or other, and I don't think that would be a proper thing if it happened. But I don't know whether it happened or not. I'm waiting for something that will presumably be arriving in the department. I don't think it would be proper, if that was the suggestion made, and I don't know that it was made.

GRACE PERIOD FOR VEHICLES
WITHOUT VALID DECALS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, may I also ask the Attorney-General if he or his department have had any discussions with lower mainland police officials regarding a 15-day period of grace for parked vehicles lacking valid decals after March 1?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't personally, but I'll take the question as notice and see

[ Page 575 ]

if any discussions have been had by anybody in my department in that respect. I would rather doubt it because Motor Vehicles is not in my department.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, this involves a breach of the law which possibly the police officials are planning to overlook. Now, what kind of system do we have in the province where possibly police officials themselves decide to overlook breaches of the law? I'd like to ask, in the event of the Minister's answer, will the full array of penalties be imposed against anyone and everyone who is found to be driving without insurance after February 28?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll take it as notice and see if any discussions have been held in my department.

DRIVER PERMIT DUE DATE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Is it correct that the driver permits that are coming out will be due and payable on the same day that income tax is due, April 30?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. FRASER: When?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It will be announced in due time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. Look, the forms haven't been sent out yet. I told you the other day the forms will be sent out next week. I told you there'd be lots of time. Now that's as far as it's gone so far.

CURRENT NUMBER OF
ICBC APPLICATIONS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications: Would the Minister inform the House as to the latest number of processed or completed applications for driver's insurance in British Columbia under Autoplan? What figure has he received as recently as yesterday or today from ICBC headquarters?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The indication I had from ICBC yesterday was that somewhere between 850,000 and 900,000 vehicles is their estimate of the number who have already purchased their automobile insurance and with it the decals that are required before you can operate a vehicle on the roads in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out, Hon. Members, what we really need is a graph on the wall that could be kept up to date. That question has been asked so many times. (Laughter.)

GREYHOUND BUS FRANCHISES

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have another question which was asked the other day and I took it as notice. Somebody asked me a question about the Greyhound buses. I forgot just who it was; someone over there asked me if the Greyhound buses were having their franchise cancelled. I'm informed, after I checked with the Motor Carrier Commission, that Greyhound buses do not have a franchise. What they have are a number of licences to operate in different parts of the province on the mainland. So far as we know, none of the licences have been changed in any way, and no applications for changes have been made.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same?

ESTIMATED ICBC APPLICATIONS

MR. CURTIS: I had a supplementary before the Minister's statement, with your permission.

The Minister, then, I take it disagrees with the estimate made by the president of the B.C. Automobile Association that some 400,000 motorists have yet to pick up their insurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If that's what the man said, then certainly.... But that's his estimate, and we have our own estimates.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What would be the Minister's estimate as to the number of unlicensed vehicles as of today?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I can't give it to you as of today. I indicated that as of yesterday the information that I had was that there was 850,000. Now I would suggest that perhaps....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not 850,000 yet to come?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, you said unlicensed. No, 850,000 licensed. I would expect that the estimate from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia would be much closer than that of the president of B.C. Automobile Association.

[ Page 576 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on the same subject. In view of the fact that the driver insurance is being made retroactive until March 1, is there any provision for automobile insurance not purchased prior to that date being made retroactive?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, there's no suggestion that automobile insurance can be made retroactive. You get it, it's valid as of the time you purchase it — as of March 1 and after.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how can the Minister justify having the insurance which the driver must purchase made retroactive when the actual insurance on the automobile is not going to be made retroactive?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that is argumentative, surely.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am merely asking him for an explanation, Mr. Speaker.

POSSIBLE AGREEMENT WITH
B.C. BODY SHOPS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question also to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could he advise the House what the current situation is with the body shops in the Province of British Columbia at this moment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. I had a discussion one night last week over the telephone with a Mr. Kinnaird — I don't know whether he's executive secretary or.... There was a discussion yesterday. There was a discussion this morning, and I'm optimistic that an agreement will be reached.

MR. MORRISON: This is to do with the same question. I don't consider that that was an answer. I wanted to know what the current situation was. Are you saying that nothing yet has been settled? Is that the point that I interpret from your answer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With a very substantial number it is settled, yes. With a very substantial number. And discussions are taking place with the others.

MR. MORRISON: Can you tell us the number?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm trying to think of the figures; if I took the time I could probably dig them out of here. But the estimate is that about between 50 and 60 per cent have already agreed to accept the first offer. The negotiations and the talks are still going forward with the others. Now, that's as much as I can tell you.

MR. CURTIS: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, but to the Minister of Labour. Will non-union auto body shops be subject to provisions of the Public Works Fair Employment Act after March 1 when they will be receiving public funds for auto body work undertaken?

MR. SPEAKER: I would say....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't ask propositions of law to Ministers. That's handled by the police and magistrates, surely.

MR. CURTIS: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of interpretation of the Public Works Fair Employment Act. It's simple: it's a Crown corporation and there will be public funds expended.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm quite agreeable to your argument, but I point out it says: "You must not ask the solution of a legal proposition such as interpretation of a statute, the Minister's own powers," et cetera. That's an item on page 147, Beauchesne.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I don't accept anyone's legal advice. Maybe that's why I have problems sometimes in the chair.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Minister was prepared to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: That may well be, but I don't say that he has the right to answer simply because you want him to. I think there should be one more question because I took up time arguing this point.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Transport and Communications: Does he have any figures from ICBC as to the number of overpaid premiums that they've received, and will interest be allowed on those overpaid premiums?

MR. SPEAKER: I thought that had been asked before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and I answered it, as I recollect it. I answered it twice, as a matter of fact. I answered it once, "no interest" — no, I told you I

[ Page 577 ]

would take it as notice, and then I told you it was being considered. It is still being considered.

As to the estimate of the number, you will have to wait and see how many come in. I've made a public estimate — how long ago? Oh, I guess six weeks ago or longer — that we expected somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent.

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. DENT (Skeena): As the MLA for Skeena I would like to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, and on behalf of the problems which he faces.

We have one egg producer in the whole of the northwest of British Columbia, serving a very large population including Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Terrace, Hazelton, Stewart and all other points in the area — one egg producer with a quota assigned to him by the Egg Marketing Board of 200 cases per week of eggs. This is in an area where the consumption is in excess of 2,000 cases of eggs per week.

The owner of this poultry operation was a Mr. Nick Samsom. The present owner, because it was sold, is a Mr. Stan Kincaid. There was an implication made...

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you state your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: I wonder if the Member for Skeena is reading from last night's Blues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order. Continue your speech.

MR. DENT: A statement was made by at least three of the Members of the Liberal Party which concerned me about this man, or first about Mr. Samsom and then his successor, Mr. Kincaid — but mainly Mr. Samsom, who was the owner of the farm at that time.

Now the statement was made, and I'm only quoting from Hansard for the particular comments of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). He was referring to Mr. Kovachich and, because Mr. Kovachich was a member of the New Democratic Party, implying that the government was acting in a manner...which was being nice to a political friend or somebody who is associated with the government.

But this is an injustice, in my view, to my constituent, or former constituent, Mr. Samsom. Mr. Samsom at no time has ever been associated with the New Democratic Party or been a member of the New Democratic Party. He has had a case, a legitimate case, which he has carried over the years and taken up with the Egg Marketing Board and with others. He's simply an ordinary citizen, and I don't know what his political affiliation is. He's never told me; he's never told anyone, to my knowledge. He may be a Liberal, for all I know. He may be a Conservative or a Social Credit.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I was in no way implying that the Hon. Member's constituent was a member of the New Democratic Party. I was referring to the other gentleman, Mr. Kovachich.

MR. DENT: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that these two men were treated equally. That is, their cases were considered in the same manner. Therefore, what was said about one would apply to the other, in my judgment, and therefore it casts some doubt as to the integrity of Mr. Samsom, and I think that is not good at all.

I would like to put in the record that Mr. Samsom at no time has ever used any kind of political influence. He's never been associated with our party. He is simply a citizen who had a problem and, as I said, he may be a Liberal or a Tory, or whatever. I just never asked him. That is the first thing that I would like to set straight.

Now the second point is that these men in the north, particularly Mr. Samsom, and more recently Mr. Kincaid, the present owner of Samsom's Poultry, have had a desire to expand their own production above the 200-case limit in the absence of other new producers in the area. The Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) said that nobody else wanted to set up a business there. However, they have also prevented the existing operator from increasing beyond the 200-case limit.

I just want to quote a statement that was made about this situation by Mr. Brunsdon, the former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board, in which he's describing the board's position vis-à-vis the egg producers in the north — and it also would apply to Samsom's Poultry.

"The present situation in the egg board's case began almost three years ago when Interior producers, particularly at Prince George and west to Terrace, began demanding larger egg production quotas. 'The board refused until

[ Page 578 ]

some of the producers paid their board levies, said Bill Brunsdon, former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board.'"

And Mr. Brunsdon continues:

"The argument was that they should be allowed to supply more eggs to local markets, and that eggs from the lower mainland coming into the area should be cut back."

That's in terms of quota. Mr. Brunsdon continues:

"We agreed to quota increases, but only over a period."

I assume he means a long period, and these are Mr. Brunsdon's words:

"You can't switch markets around overnight. We could have issued quota increases, but that didn't assure them that their eggs would have been bought. The board can't direct chain stores and wholesalers where to buy."

These are the words of Mr. Brunsdon. And I just want to repeat them so that we understand exactly what he is saying. He says, "but that didn't assure them" — that is, the local producers in Terrace and in the north — "that their eggs would have been bought. The board can't direct chain stores and wholesalers where to buy."

Now the implication, as clearly as I can understand it, in those words is that what the former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board has said is that nobody would buy those northern eggs if their quota was increased. Or at least there was no assurance that they could sell any increased production of eggs in Terrace or in Prince George.

Now I'll just repeat it again so that we will understand that that's what was said: "...but that did not assure them that their eggs would have been bought"...if the quota had been increased. "The board can't direct chain stores and wholesalers where to buy."

Now is everyone clear that that's what Mr. Brunsdon has said? He is of the opinion that if there was an increase in quota granted suddenly, there's a good possibility that they wouldn't be able to sell their increased production locally, because maybe the chains wouldn't buy these eggs.

I would like to read now into the record two letters. One is from Burns Foods Limited, addressed to Samsom's Poultry. One is from Kelly Douglas and Company, also concerning Samsom's Poultry.

From Burns Foods Limited, November 7, 1973:

"Dear Sirs,

"In the past we have had some of your eggs, and the demand for Terrace eggs in the area is very great. All our accounts in Prince Rupert would like your eggs every week, due to their superior quality and freshness. We would like to distribute your eggs in this area. Our weekly requirements would be" — how much — "about 400 cases per week. Please advise if this is possible and, if so, when we can expect to get eggs from you on a weekly basis."

What could be clearer than that in terms of a request for locally produced fresh eggs from the Terrace area.

And from Kelly Douglas. What is Kelly Douglas? Is that a small operator in Terrace? That's a chain.

"We would like it to be possible for us to purchase 300 cases of grade A large cartons of eggs per week." There is nothing, in my judgment, clearer than that. It was signed R. McKay, Produce Manager. This is from the Prince Rupert branch of Kelly Douglas.

Now I want to repeat again that the area served consists not just of Terrace; it consists of Prince Rupert, of Kitimat, of Terrace, of Smithers, of Hazelton, of Stewart, and all other smaller points. It's a very large population area. One producer, 200 cases of quota per week that he's allowed — and the consumption is in excess of 2,000 cases per week. And there's a demand for his eggs.

Now anybody with any free enterprise common sense would see that if the man can produce a good product locally for the needs of the people there, then the way the system should work is that he should be able to grow to meet that demand. In fact, from what was read into the record by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), the egg producers were of the view that they were going to be able to grow with the market to some extent.

I recognize the fact that the Egg Marketing Board has a federally applied quota of 12 per cent production for national quota, and that fixes the amount of production allowed in B.C. under the agreement. I appreciate the fact that they are already up to this amount mostly, and therefore it is not possible for them to increase quota in the territory without going above the nationally applied figures. However, there are other means.

Now I am confident, very confident, that the Minister, who has been applying himself to this problem diligently on our behalf in the north, will try to discover some kind of solution to this problem, or that the Egg Marketing Board will find some kind of solution.

However, I frankly do not have confidence in the Egg Marketing Board resolving this problem on our behalf. And I don't blame them. You know they have a very good title; they're called the B.C. Egg Marketing Board. But the north half of B.C. obviously does not come into their calculations.

Now I don't blame them. They mostly live in the Fraser Valley, and majority rules. If they have a meeting of egg producers, why, of course, if they pass anything by majority, the Fraser Valley always wins. That's the way it works — the majority rules. So we're just shafted for the rest of our days until such time as we.... I can't see any hope that the majority

[ Page 579 ]

of the Fraser Valley producers would have any compassion about us. Why should they? They've got the Fraser Valley to worry about.

But I think they're misnamed; I think they should be called the Fraser Valley Egg Marketing Board, and not the B.C. Egg Marketing Board. I lack confidence in their ability to relate to our particular problems.

One final point. There is a practice carried on which I think is worth noting. Viewed from the consumers' point of view on the short term it's great news; it's called "dumping." I think we all know what dumping is. Dumping is when somebody has sold all they can sell in the prime market area, they then take what they can't sell and they find a nice place where they can sell it really cheap and recover some of their costs and get rid of it. This practice is carried on by many businesses.

I sold Christmas trees once and we did the same thing. I sold all the good trees I could up until the last minute, and then we sold all the rest for 50 cents apiece to whoever would come and get them — because it would recover some of our costs. It's a good practice. But I wish to heck they wouldn't use us for a dumping ground, because it really upsets our whole system up there.

I received a telegram from my fellow MLA from Fort George because he was concerned about it. It says this...and we work together a little bit on these problems:

DUMPING REPORTED IN PRINCE GEORGE AGAIN TODAY. WOODWARDS DUMPING 59.9 CENTS PER DOZEN EGGS IN THE PRINCE GEORGE AREA.

Now that's a good price for the consumer, a very good price. I'm sure that the consumers on that day were very happy to buy the eggs at such a nice price. I'm sure they would be happy in Vancouver to get such a good price. But it was bad news for our producers in the north, bad news for our producers.

If they're supplying certain stores and they have to try to guarantee supply week by week and maintain a certain production and tramp through the snow drifts and the 20 or 30 below zero weather, and keep the chickens alive and all the problems that they have to worry about that they don't have to worry about in the Fraser Valley, and then they suddenly find that their eggs are being undersold by 30 or 40 cents a dozen, it is really bad news. The egg producers that were left in the Peace River were wiped out by that practice.

Now I ask you: what has the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) or the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) done to defend their egg producers in the days when they had egg producers?

AN HON. MEMBER: You said there weren't any in the Peace River.

MR. DENT: They've been wiped out. They have been wiped out. They used to be there.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They have not been wiped out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You'll have your chance to speak. Let the Member continue his speech.

MR. DENT: If the Hon. Member for South Peace River can name one registered egg producer in the Peace River area, I would be glad to get his name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: My point of order is that one gentleman by the name of John Watkins, who was the NDP candidate in the 1972 August election, is a very large egg producer in....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. You can make your speech later on.

MR. PHILLIPS: He asked me to name one, Mr. Chairman, after all. Be fair to the poor Member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are a lot of things asked for across this floor. Continue your speech and he can make his when his turn comes.

MR. DENT: According to the names that were provided me by the Egg Producing Board in a letter which I received from them, there were no producers in the Peace River. Now maybe this man is operating on the side outside the marketing system.

I want to conclude by making this statement. I think the issue is very clear in this whole matter. From our point of view in the north, this is a battle between the Fraser Valley producers and the rest of the province outside of the lower mainland.

The fact is that in my view the Fraser Valley producers will not be happy until they've wiped out every producer in the rest of the province and have the entire market to themselves, and can happily shove Fraser Valley eggs down our throats whether they're fresh, rotten or whatever they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are good eggs.

MR. DENT: I'm sure they are good eggs in the Fraser Valley. But the fact is that that letter from Burns clearly indicated that the desire of the people in my area is for fresh, locally-produced eggs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Member who has just taken his seat suggested that certain members of the Liberal Party had accused a

[ Page 580 ]

constituent of his who is an egg producer, and another constituent of the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler), of improper action. I'd like to set the record straight and say that at no time did we accuse these people of improper actions. We accused the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and that Member of improper actions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you'll have a chance to say it again if you wish.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The previous speaker made only one bit of sense in his whole speech, and that was when he said the issue was very clear. But he didn't understand the issue; he didn't get it. The issue has nothing to do with the expansion of markets into other parts of the province.

I believe in the expansion of markets, agricultural markets, in other parts of the province. The real issue, Mr. Chairman, has nothing to do with that expansion. The real issue is the political interference by the Premier of this province in marketing boards which have been duly set up by the provincial government.

The Premier's action has gone much farther than just a simple meeting arranged by the Premier to attempt to reconcile some differences. Far more important than that is the Premier's direct interference.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The Minister of Agriculture wants to resign. He's said it twice.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), Mr. Chairman, had been progressing very favourably with the people from the marketing boards to attempt to establish an increased market area for British Columbia. The actions of the Minister of Agriculture had progressed to the point where we are now in the process of developing a processing plant in the Interior of British Columbia, probably in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis) constituency. If that isn't some kind of political interference, I don't know what it is.

Those negotiations had been going on very well. The marketing board, particularly the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, was in agreement with the expansion because of the processing plant which then made it economically possible to do that expansion. But the whole affair was messed up because the Premier got his fingers into it and started to meddle with the results that had already been achieved.

At the present time, Mr. Chairman, a significant number of very credible people have different understandings of the facts and the sequence of events in this whole matter of interference with the marketing board. They are sufficiently concerned about the sequence of events in relation to these matters to have gone on record with signed, sworn affidavits, pointing out what they believe has been the sequence of events, and what they believe to be the interference by the Premier — the measure of interference by the Premier.

Not only has it been those people who are at the heads of their various marketing agencies, but they are also developing growing support from their own peers within the industry. The evidence of that has been showing up in the news reports.

I must repeat that there is nobody in opposition to the expansion of the broiler industry throughout the Province of British Columbia where it is economically feasible. And if you had left your Minister of Agriculture to deal with the people involved, that would have happened in an orderly manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was doing a good job.

MR. McCLELLAND: He was doing a good job, but he was interfered with. The Premier made his job that much more difficult. It's now to the situation where people have had to go out and swear affidavits to get their position cleared up.

There has been a series of questions asked of the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of British Columbia laid down in the latest affidavit made by the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, Mr. D. Bruce McAninch.

I think it's only fair that those questions be asked for the record in this House. Beginning with what is listed as No. 4 in the affidavit: "That on the 12th day of December, 1973, at or about the hour of 2 o'clock in the afternoon...."

I might say that we're not asking anyone to stretch their memory back 18 months or 16 months or 12 months or 8 months; only a couple of months. All of these meetings have taken place in the very recent future, so it shouldn't be stretching your memory cells too much to recall what went on in these meetings.

"THAT on the 12th day of December, 1973, at or about the hour of 2 o'clock in the afternoon, I attended at the office of the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture for the Province of British Columbia, at Victoria, British Columbia, and then and there personally presented to the said Minister the broiler permit policy...."

It's attached, as well, to the series of affidavits which I would be prepared to table before the House if the House so desires.

The question to the Minister, then, is did he attend at this meeting and was he presented with the broiler permit policy which was established by the British Columbia broiler growers' board, the Boiler Marketing Board?

[ Page 581 ]

The affidavit continues:

"THAT I was informed by the said Minister that the said broiler permit policy was acceptable to him and that the Minister said to me: 'This is fine with me,' or similar words to the same effect."

In other words, according to the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, the Minister of Agriculture agreed with the stated policy with regard to a broiler permit policy and the whole question of expansion into the Okanagan-Kamloops area.

The affidavit continues:

"THAT on the 22nd day of December, 1973, I received from the said Minister of Agriculture a telegram, which telegram requested that the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board rescind the new broiler board order No. 1M-76, which order is contained in schedule 'AA' to this my affidavit, pending further discussion with the Interior broiler production industry and Department of Agriculture. The said telegram is annexed hereto as schedule 'B' to this my affidavit."

The Minister said yesterday that he did recall sending such a telegram and that it did deal with those regulations which had to do with the transfer of quota from the Fraser Valley and other quota regulations in the Fraser Valley. The Minister said he sent that telegram.

The affidavit continues:

"THAT upon receipt of the telegram annexed hereto as schedule 'B' I, as chairman of the said marketing board, requested a meeting with the said Minister on the 27th or the 28th day of December, 1973, for the purpose of discussing the new broiler permit policy contained in schedule 'AA' hereto and board order No. 1M-76 contained in schedule 'AA' hereto."

The question to the Minister is, first of all, did he get that request for a meeting and, secondly, did he cancel order No. IM-76, and is that in fact an application of pressure from the Agriculture department on the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board? The affidavit continues:

"THAT the 28th day of December, 1973, I received a telegram from the said Minister informing me as chairman of the said marketing board that there would be no advantage to meeting on the 28th day of December, 1973, and that further that the order No. IM-76 was totally unacceptable. A copy of the said telegram is annexed hereto as schedule 'C' to this my affidavit."

The question to the Minister with regard to that has to do with a statement the Minister made in the House yesterday that there was no way that that Minister can order any marketing board in British Columbia to take any kind of action. The Minister said that was beyond his jurisdiction. Yet we see in a telegram from the Minister to the Broiler Marketing Board the words that the order No. IM-76 was totally unacceptable. Now, how do you reconcile that with the Minister's statement that he has no jurisdiction to interfere with the operation of the board or to order it to do anything?

The affidavit continues:

"THAT on the 5th day of February, 1974, at or about the hour of 9 o'clock in the forenoon I attended at the office of Maurice King, Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture, at Victoria, B.C.

"THAT present then and there in the office of Mr. King were Maurice King, S.B. Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, William Wood, B.C. Department of Agriculture poultry commissioner, and Richard Arthur Stafford, manager, B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, and Harry Liedtke and Les Harbidge, both members of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board.

"THAT I was then and there informed by the said Mr. Peterson that the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia, had ordered that instead of the broiler permit policy contained in schedule 'A', that two of the 11 Kamloops-Okanagan broiler producers be allotted 20,000 birds per cycle and that the remaining nine broiler producers be allocated 5,000 birds per cycle."

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, we asked that question yesterday: how do you pick the two? I suggested there was a committee made up of three people. The Minister has answered that one of those persons, I believe, has accepted; we're waiting for acceptance of invitations from two others.

But it's interesting, nonetheless, that none of those people are members of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board and that no members of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board were invited to be on this committee. I don't recall any criteria set down by which those two people would be accepted and I don't recall any criteria by which the other nine would be rejected from having that kind of an increased quota. Those are questions the Minister needs to answer.

Also, is it true that Mr. Peterson, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, told the members of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board that the Premier had ordered that that would take place?

The affidavit continues:

"THAT I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that

[ Page 582 ]

a committee of three be appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett."

The affidavit continues:

"THAT at or about the hour of 9:45 o'clock in the forenoon on the 5th day of February, 1974, the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture, attended at Mr. King's office.

"That Mr. Stupich informed me that the Department of Agriculture in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Stupich informed me: 'It's out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be'...."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SCHROEDER: That's different than what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read that again.

MR. McCLELLAND: "...Mr. Stupich informed me: 'It's out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be'...."

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a social worker, isn't he?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if this kind of a statement was just contained in some kind of corridor comment or if it was contained in a press clipping in an interview with some chicken producer somewhere, it wouldn't matter; it wouldn't make very much difference. You could probably slough it off. But it's contained in a signed, sworn affidavit by the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board; it's backed up by the secretary-manager of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board; and it's backed up by the members of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, all of whom have indicated in very nearly the same words exactly what happened at that meeting in Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Members on the opposite side are on very shallow ground when they talk about vested interest. After some of the comments we have heard in this House and some of the speeches we've heard in this House from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), they're very shallow to be talking about vested interests in this matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Continue your speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: I shall.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell the Attorney-General to quit threatening the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the affidavit continues:

"THAT I as chairman of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board informed the government representatives at the said meeting that to allow 2 of the 11 Kamloops-Okanagan broiler producers to be allocated 20,000 per cycle and 9 broiler producers to be allocated 5,000 per cycle was not acceptable to the board."

There is another important question contained in all of this, Mr. Chairman. We have asked the Minister of Agriculture in this House yesterday afternoon, during question period, during the Minister's estimates and again last evening during the Minister's estimates over and over again about his order to have two producers in the Okanagan-Kamloops area to have a quota allocated of 20,000 birds per cycle. We have yet to have any kind of an answer from the Minister with regard to that question: whether or not that order was given by anyone, up to and including the Premier of British Columbia.

The affidavit continues:

"THAT the matter of broiler production permits for the Kamloops-Okanagan was left unresolved as far as the Broiler Marketing Board was concerned."

The Minister told us in the House yesterday that the matter had been resolved and that the Broiler Marketing Board had agreed to the new figures he mentioned, and those figures are contained in the next section of the affidavit which says:

"17) THAT on the 11th day of February, 1973, at or about the hour of 8 o'clock in the forenoon, I attended upon the Hon. Mr. Stupich at his office...."

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: "...at or about the hour of 8 o'clock in the forenoon." I don't know whether that's standard or daylight time, Mr. Chairman.

"...I attended upon the Hon. Mr. Stupich at his office. At that time and place, the Minister informed me that he wanted broiler production permits for the Kamloops-Okanagan area to be set at 8,000 birds per cycle for 11 producers, plus an additional 5,000 birds per cycle secondary permits when the Interior

[ Page 583 ]

poultry plant becomes operational."

Now, Mr. Chairman, some questions again need to be answered with this matter. The Minister, with respect, hasn't cleared this whole matter up. I ask the Minister whether or not he agreed to a proposal made by the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board that the quota for the 11 producers in the Kamloops-Okanagan area would be set at 5,000 birds per cycle — to a total yearly production of 25,000 birds, as I understand it.

Now the Broiler Marketing Board has outlined that in their broiler quota policy — those figures. And the Broiler Marketing Board has said that the Minister agreed with those figures. The words again are: "This is fine with me." Yet on another occasion, on February 11, a few weeks later, the Minister is talking about 8,000 birds per cycle, with an additional 5,000 birds secondary permit. The Minister said in the House yesterday that the broiler board had agreed to this new quota of 8,000 birds per cycle.

I wonder whether the Minister cares to alter that opinion at this time, in the light of your previous answers to my questions and in the light of the statement made by the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board where they say: "The matter is left unresolved" — as far as the Broiler Marketing Board was concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the affidavit continues:

"18) THAT further at the said meeting the Minister wanted an Interior broiler grower placed on the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board.

"19) THAT I informed the Minister that members of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board are elected at large and that the placing of an Interior representative on the said board was contrary to the constitution of the board.

"20) THAT I further informed the Minister that in the absence of the full marketing board membership, I could not accept...those permit terms."

He is referring again to the 8,000 birds:

"...I could not accept the permit terms set forth in paragraph 17 of this, my affidavit.

"21) THAT the Minister informed me that he agreed with the marketing board position on at-large representation."

The Minister agreed. The Minister has indicated again today that he agrees with that position. The affidavit says:

"...using the following words: 'I agree with the board on representation, but this is the word from the Premier.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you say it again?

MR. McCLELLAND: "I agree with the board on representation, but this is the word from the Premier."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: The affidavit continues:

"22) THAT I then and there proposed to the Minister that consideration be given to two Interior broiler producers becoming directors of the British Columbia Broiler Growers Association.

"23) THAT the Minister informed me that he would discuss this proposal with Premier Barrett and that the Minister would shortly contact the board.

"24) THAT on the 22nd of February, 1974, I received from the Minister of Agriculture a copy of a memorandum dated February 12, 1974, and directed to the Hon. David Barrett, Premier, which memorandum is...also attached to this affidavit.

All the way through this whole affidavit, all the way through this whole question of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board, the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, we see the involvement of the Premier of British Columbia, in a much more active role than the Premier has indicated, as a sort of coordinator to sort out the problems of a couple of spoiled children. It's far more than that.

It's progressed far more than that, until the question now is: how much direct involvement by the Premier of British Columbia was there in the operation of the marketing boards? I suggest, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister and to this House, that this whole area had better be opened up to some serious discussion and to some serious answers to questions because those questions aren't being answered. None of them are being answered at this time.

I want first just to summarize, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I want answers to the questions about the statements attributed to the Minister, that "it's out of my hands." The Premier has said, "this is the way it will be." We need answers to the questions about the Minister's quotes of: "I agree with the board, but this is the word from the Premier."

I want answers to the question: isn't it true that the matter of broiler production permits from the Kamloops-Okanagan area is still not resolved, regardless of what the Minister has said? I want answers to the question in which the Minister has said that the broiler growers had agreed to those new quotas of 8,000 birds per cycle — and whether or not he'd like to alter that opinion.

I want answers to the question about whether or not the negotiations being carried on between the Minister's office and the marketing boards in British Columbia have been substantially threatened because of that interference by outside sources. I think that's the real issue, Mr. Member for Skeena. It has nothing to do with anything else.

[ Page 584 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The Hon. Member for Langley, Mr. Chairman, asks the questions, but there are some fundamental questions that need asking in this House — fundamental questions about the concentration of this industry in the central Fraser Valley, in the riding of Langley, in the riding of Chilliwack. That's where the great concentration of this industry is.

We could legitimately have producers throughout the province. It's a nice vest-pocket arrangement in the central heartland of Social Credit in the central Fraser Valley. That's why we're hearing from the Member the way we are. It's an interest that's interested in perpetuating itself.

You get the impression from the Member for Langley that this is some kind of broad provincial organization that represents the people from Terrace, from Skeena, from the north, from the Okanagan, from Shuswap. Is that the kind of organization it is?

It's an organization elected by the producers in your vest-pocket area in the central Fraser Valley. You know that. That's the real issue. The whole question of increasing quotas in that basic, narrow area — your heartland — is the question.

What about the farmers and producers that can be established in Skeena, in the North Okanagan? What about developing secondary industry in relation to agriculture in these other regions? It was never done in the days of Social Credit. Clearly we intend to see secondary industrial development related to agriculture in the other regions of the province, and not just have the old pattern of nest-feathering, which was the pattern under Social Credit in your riding, and your riding primarily — that central Social Credit heartland.

The people of British Columbia, the consumers of British Columbia, continue to pay to this day for your kind of quota system, your kind of special privilege system that resides in the lower mainland, an area where we don't have to have the new growth. We can do something in the other parts of the province and get growth, get production and a different kind of system that is not related just to the few that you're standing here protecting today, Mr. Member.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I think that it's important, when we are considering the salary of the Minister of Agriculture, that we have just the kind of contribution to this debate that we have enjoyed from the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We always do enjoy his contributions because they make so clear the problem that truly faces the people of British Columbia at this particular time.

He talks about the producers and secondary industry and so on, but, Mr. Chairman, I happen to have a great deal of concern for the consumers of agricultural products in this province. We are paying every day increasing prices for eggs and milk and beef and all other agricultural products.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Right on!

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you haven't got the message, Mr. Member, to your cabinet, because if one of the problems in this province is marketing — and I suspect that it is — and if one of the problems in this province is how these agricultural products are produced, then we're not making much advance to the solution of this difficulty. We certainly aren't making any advance by the kind of political interference which is being clearly portrayed on the part of the Premier in the conduct of a Minister and his department; and that's the whole issue.

For the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to stand up and say that we want to keep the thing in the Fraser Valley — that's nonsense! But we have orderly marketing systems in the Province of British Columbia and, Mr. Chairman, I remind all the Members that they exist not only in the case of eggs, not only in the case of broilers, but in the case of milk, turkeys, fruit — you name it.

We've got an orderly marketing scheme in the Province of British Columbia, and if it is not working to the benefit of the producer and the consumer in British Columbia, then it needs to be changed. But it needs to be changed, Mr. Chairman, by the Minister of Agriculture and competent officials in his department working with the existing organizations to bring about those changes, not by political interference by the Premier of this province, a renowned social worker who wants to practise his experience as a marriage counsellor among farmers.

That's what these affidavits prove, and that is why we are so concerned when we are discussing the salary of this Minister of whom, I suspect, most of the Members on the opposition side have the greatest respect.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that the Members on all sides who sit on the agriculture committee have respect for this Minister. We know what he is doing, but we do not like to see the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) meddling in his responsibilities. If we can get nothing else across to this committee than that during the course of this debate, then we will have made a major step forward to solving some of the problems that face agriculture in British Columbia today.

Let the Minister of Agriculture deal with agriculture.

[ Page 585 ]

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Keep the Premier's hands off your chickens!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. The reason we are asking the Minister of Agriculture to stand in this House and give us the answers is so that it will be clear to all the Members on all sides of this House the extent to which the Premier's interference is fouling up the proper development of programmes by the Department of Agriculture.

We've heard a lot from a lot of the backbenchers, and I must say I was very concerned, when I happened to see a copy of the affidavit to which the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) just referred, to find that the Minister's memorandum to the Hon. Premier of February 12, 1974 — and that's not very long ago — was also sent to G. Anderson, MLA, chairman of the NDP caucus and agriculture committee and Don Lewis — I assume that's the MLA for Shuswap.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Why, Mr. Chairman, are these matters, passing between two Ministers of the Crown, namely the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier, being made available to private Members of this House on a limited, restricted basis?

I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the reason was given during question period today by the Minister of Agriculture when he responded to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) with regard to matters of policy. He said that what was being done was party policy, and then he attempted to correct himself to say it was government policy. Well, I think we're entitled to know, when we're considering in this committee whether the Minister is entitled to his salary — the Minister who has charge of these particular responsibilities — whether he is being guided by government policy established by the executive council, or whether he is being governed by party policy, which is set by someone outside this House and outside this government.

Those are the kinds of answers that we have to have from the Minister at this particular time.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I must say that I can understand why the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) would think that his party policy and the government policy are the same, because certainly the president of his party believes that it should be, although he seems to have some difficulty in convincing the Hon. Premier that that is, in fact, the case. What does the Premier say about it?

MR. FRASER: Where is he?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we might as well add all of the material that is available to this particular debate. The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has referred to an affidavit sworn by Mr. McAninch, chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board.

I understand there is another affidavit, Mr. Chairman, a copy of which I have. It is an affidavit of Richard Arthur Stafford. He's the manager of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, and he confirms in the affidavit many of the matters which were dealt with by Mr. McAninch in his.

I would just like to refer to two paragraphs of this affidavit, which was sworn on February 23 — not very long ago.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Paragraph 15.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, this isn't paragraph 15, it's only paragraph 9, but I'm glad you asked me because I'm going to read paragraph 8. It says:

"that about the hour of 9:45 o'clock in the forenoon on the 5th of February, the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture, attended at Mr. King's office. Mr. Stupich informed me" — that's Mr. Stafford who is informed — "that the Department of Agriculture, in the matter o f the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy, was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett. And Mr. Stupich informed me: 'It is out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be...."

MR. McCLELLAND: Sounds familiar, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: "...or similar words to that effect." So here we have not one but two sworn affidavits, sworn statements of people who, from their personal knowledge, having dealings with the Minister of Agriculture and members of his department, testify....

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): What was the date of the affidavit?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The 23rd of this month.

MR. CUMMINGS: When was the incident?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The incident was on the 5th — 18 days before.

Interjection.

[ Page 586 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The 5th of February, 1974. The affidavit was the 23rd of February, 1974 — 18 days!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, even you could remember something 18 days, Mr. Member!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: At any rate, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is interfering with this Minister's responsibility, and I want to hear the Minister indicate whether he agrees that in the management of his Ministerial responsibilities, he is obliged to act to the dictates of the Premier of this province in matters of policy affecting agriculture. If that is to be the case, then maybe we should consider whether or not we should pass this particular vote until we have had an opportunity to consider the Premier's estimates.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter this debate on the behalf of the consumers of this province — all of the consumers, north and south.

MR. CHABOT: How about east?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I have received many, many letters from the time that I first spoke about consumer affairs in this House, to the time I was appointed Minister Without Portfolio, to the time that I was appointed Minister of Consumer Services. I have received numerous letters dealing with marketing boards — fruit marketing boards, milk marketing boards, egg marketing boards — and a great many of them, a large percentage of them wanted to know why and how these boards have such a stranglehold control on the marketing of produce and the products of this province. They don't understand marketing boards.

The average consumer — 99.9 per cent of consumers — couldn't care less about all the affidavits filed anywhere about who said what to whom on what day. They couldn't care less. What they are concerned about is the price of eggs in the local supermarket, which is 91 cents a dozen right now. That's what they are concerned about. They don't care. They want to know how in the world the price of eggs in B.C. is the highest in Canada. That's what they're concerned about. They don't know how the Egg Marketing Board arrives at these figures.

And then we get into the Milk Board, too. That's another one they're unhappy about. We get letters about the Milk Board.

Now, the concept of marketing boards is good.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against the farmer?

HON. MS. YOUNG: You wouldn't know, Hon. Member, because you're not a farmer.

The concept of marketing boards is good. It is meant to stabilize the market to provide the supply to meet the demand. That is the basis for marketing boards. It has always been this, and I can agree with that. We've had marketing boards for a long time. That's what they were brought in for in the beginning. But now, over these years, they seem more interested in curtailing supply in order to raise the prices — at least, that's the way it looks to the consumer.

The present marketing board, in my view and in the view of many consumers, is ossified, ancient, parochial and rigid.

MR. PHILLIPS: What an attack!

HON. MS. YOUNG: They are a little closed shop.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, boy!

HON. MS. YOUNG: They are a tiny little empire that has it all their own way and they're all in the Lower Fraser Valley, in the lower mainland. They are jealously-held private empires.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MS. YOUNG: We know that the population of this province is growing by leaps and bounds. If fact, it's one of the fastest growing areas in the entire world.

We cannot stop immigration as much as we would like to. But we can attempt to encourage disbursement of population; we can encourage secondary industry; we can encourage towns; we can encourage families to move to other parts of the province to develop the province. The way we can do this is by providing the agricultural needs of those areas.

Right now, the Council for Northern Development is very much concerned about having a price study done between the northern part of the province and the southern part of the province. They want to know why the price of eggs is so high in the north, why the price of vegetables and the price of all their foodstuffs is so high. What is causing the extremely high cost of living in the north? They want answers.

Then they get answers like, "Well, we don't want any egg producers in Skeena. We don't want any in Omineca. We don't want any in Shuswap." The lower mainland egg producers, that tiny little monopoly, that private little empire, are keeping it all out. That's where it's really at: who's in charge? It's that bunch of people right down there in the Fraser Valley.

[ Page 587 ]

I'm telling you right now, Mr. Chairman, the consumers are fed up to the teeth with the workings of the existing marketing boards; they want some answers and they want some representation on those boards. They want some voice; they want some influence on the boards so that they can express the point of view of Mr. and Mrs. Homemaker, the people who have to go out and purchase the goods to keep them running.

I'd like to ask a question of the Minister and, in fact, the representatives who are speaking so highly of the marketing boards over there: are the marketing boards willing to put consumer representation on those marketing boards?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I've sat with interest and listened to the debate since the Minister's estimates first came before the floor of this House. I think the first comment I have to make is with respect to the hon. lady cabinet Minister (Hon. Ms. Young) who has just taken her place after speaking in the debate. If I was Minister of Agriculture, I would wonder how in the world I would reconcile the differences between the obvious lack of knowledge of the farming industry that this lady Minister shows when she speaks in this House and the position you have, Mr. Minister, as a Minister responsible for representing the agricultural industry in the Province of British Columbia. How far apart the two poles are.

It's unfortunate because, as I sat and listened to the debate both yesterday and this afternoon, I have to come to the unfortunate conclusion that the Minister of Agriculture, in trying to do the best job he can for agriculture in the province, is not only interfered with by the Premier, who knows nothing about agriculture as he himself says, but by the other Members and colleagues in his cabinet who also are ignorant of what really goes on in the farming industry and how you build a viable economy in the Province of British Columbia.

In that respect, Mr. Minister, you have my sympathy because I happen to come from a riding that does depend to a great extent on the agricultural industry. It's a part which is very vital to our economy in the Peace River country.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): How many eggs do you produce? Do you grow any eggs?

MR. SMITH: Yes. I'm going to get to that point in just a moment.

We have a problem in the Province of British Columbia in the marketing of eggs and distribution of eggs. It is a problem that the Egg Marketing Board was created to try and solve. That's why it originally came into being. There would be no marketing boards at all in the Province of British Columbia if concerned farmers had not, at one time or another over a period of the last 20 years, come before the government and said, "We have a problem that we ourselves cannot solve. We would like to get into some orderly marketing system."

As a result of those petitions to government, marketing boards of one form or another have been created throughout the province. To a great extent they have performed well to the benefit of the consuming public in the province.

They've had their problems, certainly. There's a problem with respect to surplus production of eggs at certain periods of time in the lower mainland area and the Fraser Valley. There's a problem with respect to underproduction because of a growing population in the north in the Prince George area and from there west to Prince Rupert, with the expanding population trends that have taken place in that area in the last 10 years. No question about it: there's underproduction in those areas; the eggs produced do not keep up with the demand. So there is reason to believe that more quotas should be issued and new quotas established in that area.

In the Peace River area we also face a problem of underproduction. But as the Minister well knows, the competition in the Peace River block in British Columbia is not from the other egg producers in the Province of British Columbia; it's from egg producers in the Province of Alberta who ship their surplus into our marketing area. It's a problem that Mr. Pope looked at when he was the commissioner, to his credit, and came up with some worthwhile recommendations towards solutions.

One of the solutions, incidentally, Mr. Minister, as you well know, was to go to the people who market the eggs — that is, the large retail chains — and say, "Look, co-operate with the farmers who support you in other areas besides farm products and buy locally." Because of that programme, the people who ordinarily purchased the eggs for distribution in the retail market place did change their pattern of buying to a certain extent because they knew there was a problem.

But the point that we take most violent exception to, Mr. Minister, is not that you have failed to do your job because of something you personally initiated but because of the untenable position you have been placed in by the Premier of this province and other members of the cabinet. They have not allowed you to act properly as Minister of Agriculture and do the job the way it should be done.

There are too many, not only stories, but sworn affidavits concerning political interference. Let's take a look at what's going on. The Member for Prince George (Mr. Nunweiler) talks passionately about the need to increase quotas in the Prince George area. It seems the name most commonly heard when we talk about egg production in Prince George is the name of

[ Page 588 ]

one Mr. Kovachich, an acknowledged member of the NDP, who for a long time has indicated that he was not happy with the quota he was operating under and wanted to increase that quota. So he has been issued an increased quota of up to 200 cases.

It's interesting to note that at the same time his quota was increased, which would allow him to market more eggs, a debt he owed the marketing board was written down from some $23,000 to $7,000. That might have been justifiable; I don't know all the ramifications and the reason behind that write-down. He feels he was being unduly set upon by the Egg Marketing Board in the province.

But it's also interesting to note, Mr. Minister, that less than a week ago there was a comment in one of the daily papers of this province that Mr. Kovachich had made a public announcement to the effect that "I quit. I'm going to sell out. I'm tired of fighting with the government." Fighting with the government? He had just received an increased quota to 200 cases. Then he suddenly and mysteriously decides the egg business is no longer for him; he's going to sell out. Is that profiteering?

We've already heard from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) about the value of the quota, and how you go about obtaining that value — by the sale of chickens that are turned out, as far as production is concerned, at about $3 a bird. It's nice clear profit, isn't it, for a man who was in such desperate straights a few months ago and who has now found a sale for the increased quota that has been issued to him?

The question that we must ask is: is that a windfall profit? Is that a windfall profit? If not, who are the other producers in the Prince George area who would like to get into the marketing of eggs — and in the Skeena area, and in the Prince Rupert area? It's also interesting to note that one of the main producers in the Peace River lives at Chetwynd; he's often argued about the problems of quota.

It's an interesting sidelight that the same man who has argued about quota was the NDP candidate in the last provincial election. What deals are being made for him, Mr. Minister? How is he being looked after? — Mr. Watkins.

You should know his name. He was your candidate in the last provincial election, Mr. Minister; he ran for the NDP. I'll inform you that he was, as a matter of fact, your candidate running for the NDP in the last provincial election.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Would I sign an affidavit? It's a matter of record, but if you want an affidavit, fine. I would hope, as one Hon. Member to another, you would take my word for that.

However, the Minister treats the matter of an affidavit pretty lightly, pretty casually, in a pretty blasé way.

I would say that no person, unless they are aggravated to the extreme and have an extreme case that they feel must be made and brought to the public, would go to the trouble of filing three- or four-page affidavits and swearing to that affidavit that the affidavit was the truth as they knew it.

These people are a hodge-podge of people from all over the province. They're representatives of the farming industry and the poultry industry. It's an amazing thing that the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and some of his cabinet colleagues seem to think that people who are on marketing boards and are pushed to this extreme have some ulterior motive in mind. Obviously this is the way their minds work, and the settling of the problem of the farm economy is the last one which the Minister of Health and some of his colleagues wish to deal with.

The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) has talked about the establishment of secondary industry in the agricultural sector. Fine, we agree that we want to see more secondary agricultural industry in the province. Why then, Mr. Minister, after approving the Act, the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, which would help get expansion in secondary agriculture in this province — it would help to attain that goal — why, then, are there no funds available, and none approved or voted, if this was a serious commitment on the part of the Minister?

We have the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act and we have no money at this particular point in time to fund it, as I understand. There's been nothing approved. So that, we must conclude, is also a matter which the Minister must take before cabinet.

Perhaps he's run into a lot of diversified opinion, particularly from the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) and people who think differently about agriculture than the Minister himself does.

It's unfortunate, Mr. Minister, that you have had to become the scapegoat for people in your cabinet who are uninformed about agriculture in this province. But from the affidavits that we have before us, and the evidence that we have from the farming community, we can come to no other conclusion than that people who are known supporters of the NDP and those with vested interests have been looked after first, or will be looked after first, if the marketing board can be persuaded to follow the dictates of the cabinet and the NDP policy. And that is something that we will not accept as Members of the opposition.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): It is indeed an honour and a pleasure for me to take part in this debate again, because it's touched on points that are really of deep interest to me — things that I've been concerned about for years. I say it is regrettable that

[ Page 589 ]

this forum has gone to area against area, which I don't think is necessary.

The whole thing is based upon greed. I'm not blaming the people involved, but the structure of marketing boards, and the structure of quotas gave marketing boards the power to write money. It's just as plain as that.

I reported in the House yesterday where an egg producer in the Fraser Valley just in the last couple of months transferred 600-and-some-odd cases of quota at $300 a case. I understand that man never bought one case of that quota; he got it gratis. Possibly the Members at the far end should check and see if he's a Socred member.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): That's not even funny.

MR. LEWIS: What do you mean, "it's not even funny"? We had charges made by your friend there in regard to the Peace River....

MRS. JORDAN: We're not blaming the government; you are.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll tell you that you were administering the government when some of these policies were made. You've made charges that there's favouritism; there are charges of interference. Let me set the record straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. LEWIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it will be a pleasure.

For several years prior to being elected to this House I fought against the policies of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board in regard to regional control. The structure of the board was three members from the lower mainland, one member from Vancouver Island and one member from the Interior. As anybody here can see, that's a totally unworkable situation when it comes to fair treatment in any part of the province.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Democratic, okay. There were three members elected from the lower mainland; they were elected by producers from the lower mainland. They were answerable to producers from the lower mainland.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, yes, the ratio is there, but what happens to the outlying areas? What happens to the minority?

I referred yesterday to the fact that when qualifications were being made for quota in the province, the lower mainland went hog-wild. They realized there was going to be a market to this quota and it was a quick way to get rich. Many, many farmers built new buildings, filled them with birds — never had a market for those eggs.

Those eggs were dumped into markets like Edmonton. Those eggs were put into breaking plants. And when quotas were set, all those eggs were used as qualification for future production.

Now if my memory serves me right, the board has been in production for six years and they're still a long way from being able to get rid of their total production. Just through the greed that was allowed — through the greed that took place by people that had the foresight to know what it meant....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How big is your quota?

MR. LEWIS: My quota is 140 cases and it's worth $42,000. I didn't buy it. I fought against this during the times we were fighting. The Interior of the province fought against values on quota. They made representations to the committee that was set up by the Minister of Agriculture at that time stating that they wanted values taken off of quota.

I still feel the same way. Why should I have a $42,000 windfall for the right to farm? All I want is a right to produce food, a right to make a living in the agricultural field. This is what other farmers in the Interior of the province want. And I'll lay any amount of money that many farmers in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island want the same thing.

It's not happening; it's in a monopoly, a real monopoly. You know, they talk about investigating monopolies. Well, that's a monopoly. A young person who wants to get into agriculture in the province at the present time must buy the right to farm.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has been very outspoken in regard to the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). He said, "Oh, he's got ulterior motives."

Well, I'd like to tell that Member for Langley that I have nothing whatsoever to gain, other than the farmers in the Interior of the province having a right to farm. His riding probably has 75 per cent of egg production for the whole of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're not gaining anything with the processing plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a shortage of it.

MR. LEWIS: The lower mainland or the Fraser Valley area has 80 per cent of the total province, Vancouver Island has 10 per cent and the Interior has 10 per cent — and 75 per cent is in the Member for

[ Page 590 ]

Langley's riding.

Broiler production probably runs more like 90 per cent in his riding. I'd like to ask that Member for Langley if the broiler board runs any ads in his paper. That's a good question, eh? You'd better check that one over and see if you've got any ulterior motives.

MR. McCLELLAND: The answer is no.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: No, I don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair and confine his remarks and questions to the Minister?

MR. LEWIS: Yesterday I referred to the fact that during the qualifying period 60-odd farmers came to Victoria and wanted the qualifying period to be extended. They approached the then Minister — the Hon. Frank Richter — and he made a ruling that the 30 days in November would be used as a qualifying period. So those people that saw the value of quota and used every means they could to get their productions to a maximum were able to qualify in the month of November.

I would like to read to you a little piece out of the hearings that were held by Mr. Garrish throughout the province with two lawyers in attendance — two qualified lawyers, I must say, and I think that they were very knowledgeable and very fair. I think Mr. Garrish is a man that nobody would question. The past Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Shelford) named him to head this commission. The present Minister of Agriculture has named him to the Land Commission, so apparently they both respected this man's ability. It says:

"The original basis for issuing quotas was to take the marketing records for any 12-month period between June 30, 1964, and June 30, 1967, for each registered producer and relate the total of these to the estimate of market requirements. The pre-scheme marketings, as they were called, were to determine very largely the amount of quota to be issued.

"However, a number of producers had established egg production facilities or added to existing facilities during the period the egg marketing scheme was being developed. The pre-scheme marketing did not provide them with quotas to cover these facilities.

"As a result of the representation to the then Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Frank Richter, he directed the board," — now listen to that — "to make provisions for quota for these producers."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: Now, the Members from the corner of the House who were in that government at that time were part of a government that was interfering.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Old Frank?

MR. LEWIS: Yes, he interfered.

It says: "He directed the board...." Now, that's amazing. That's really astounding.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, good heavens!

MR. LEWIS: I wouldn't even be surprised if he consulted with the Premier. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You can't prove that, but we can prove it with this Premier.

MR. LEWIS: This is the finding of a survey that was taken by Mr. Garrish and by two lawyers who were set up by the past government to investigate the egg marketing. If that's not evidence I don't know what is.

AN HON. MEMBER: But we can prove that your Premier did.

MR. LEWIS:

"A formula was devised, based on the marketings during November, '67, and this formula was used as needed to modify the quota of producers as determined by their pre-scheme marketing.

"While it is true that some producers in all three areas of the province benefited from this provision, it is indisputable that the greatest proportion of this additional quota accrued to the producers in the Fraser Valley."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's it.

MR. LEWIS: Now this is the point I'm making. I'm not taking regional differences. But I'm saying that a few people saw the advantages that were there, they took advantage of it, and through greed — which is only normal enough for human beings, as everybody knows — the control was in the Fraser Valley, and the Interior and Vancouver Island never had one chance in regard to any fair treatment in the future.

I don't know how many Members of this assembly realize that I was a member of the Egg Marketing Board during much of this ruckus.

[ Page 591 ]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): 1970-72.

MR. LEWIS: I would also like to remind you that I walked off of that board because I saw what was happening. I was in a position where there was no way that I could make an imprint on decisions that were being made. The decisions that were being made were headed towards doing away with egg producers in the Interior of this province.

They started a programme of dumping eggs into the Kootenays — dumping them in there at 25 cents a dozen when the market price was probably about 45 or 50 cents at that time. They went into the Peace River country and dumped them in there at 25 cents a dozen.

Now I wrote a letter to the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) at that time, and he never once brought that up in the House! I was fighting for his area — for the Peace River of this province.

During the time that I was fighting what was going on, I never once attacked the government as such. I dealt with the marketing board and fought the system. But I never attacked the past Minister of Agriculture. I made representation to him many times but I never stooped to the type of thing that's being going on in this paper the last few days.

I would like to know how many decisions our friend Mr. Trudeau makes in regard to his cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll have to ask him.

MR. LEWIS: I'd like to move on to the Broiler Marketing Board, and I'm sure glad that the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) brought this one up.

He said I don't know the facts. But I would say the problem is that I do know some of the facts.

I know that quota in this province for broilers is selling at $3.75 a bird. I know that Panco Poultry owns somewhere around 190,000 birds. At $3.75 apiece, figure that out and see who is getting rich.

I also know that there are a number of producers with over 40,000 birds. At $3.75 a bird this is a windfall of $150,000 apiece to each one of them.

Sure, I've made representations to the Minister. I said yesterday I'd made representations to the Minister. As an elected representative of this province I feel I have the right and the responsibility to see that agriculture has the right to grow throughout the province.

After I had been working for some time to try to see that there would be some production in the Interior, the broiler board made the announcement that they were going to be real nice fellows and allow 11 growers in the Interior of the province to go into production at 5,000 birds apiece. In my view this is a total farce. They knew that there was no way that this could succeed. It was too small an amount to make a plant operational. So they said: "Oh, that's okay, we can fix that. We'll move some farmers from the Fraser Valley up there and they can farm and supply the product." I say the farmers in my riding are capable of farming and they should have the right the same as anywhere else in this province to produce farm products.

Now, to rub salt into the wound, on that same day they also passed an order...

MR. PHILLIPS: You're a hard-boiled egg.

MR. BARNES: There's a lot of rotten ones down at that end.

MR. CHABOT: Scrambled!

MR. LEWIS: ...increasing permits in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island by 600,000 birds — an increase 10 times the amount they were willing to put into the Interior to even let that plant start. Now, if that isn't criminal there's something wrong.

At that point I sent a telegram to the Minister expressing my concern about it and suggesting that the broiler marketing board should be put under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture until this was straightened out.

I still feel very strongly in regard to this. If the Minister isn't prepared to move in this way, I for one, as a farmer in this province, would sooner see no marketing boards than to continue under the present restrictions that are placed on farmers throughout this province.

Now, that's a strong statement. But if they're going to deny farmers in the Interior of this province the right to farm, then I say abolish the system and put everybody on the same footing. I'm in favour of orderly marketing, but everybody must have a chance in this province — all areas of the province must have a chance.

This Broiler Marketing Board, just before Christmas, also passed the order converting 10,000 permits for most farmers in the lower mainland into quotas. What happened when they did this was that it created a value of $3.75 a bird on that 10,000 permit. That was a real nice Christmas present — $37,500 to each one of those growers.

I think there's something wrong with our system when this type of thing is going on — it's got to be stopped. If the opposition and the lucrative growers feel the only way they can defend and hold up this type of thing that's happening in the Member for Langley's (Mr. McClelland's) area is by smearing the present Minister of Agriculture and the present Premier, I think they've gone pretty low.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr.

[ Page 592 ]

Chairman, I have a question to the Hon. Minister, again dealing with this very unfortunate and very patent situation that has developed. Is the Minister still here? Oh, here he comes back again.

What is involved here, Mr. Minister, is not just minute or miniscule powers of recollection; what is involved here is Ministerial and governmental integrity. The Hon. Minister said last night: "Why shouldn't there be political interference?" There certainly was political interference, and that's tantamount to an admission from the Minister that that actually occasioned.

Once again, I'd ask the Minister: did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon, as Mr. Brunsdon states in his affidavit under clause 13,"I was further informed by Mr. Barrett in the following words: 'If you don't toe the line I will make a law to cover it,' or similar words to the same effect"? Did the Premier use those words, or did he use similar words to that effect, Mr. Minister? I'd ask you to answer that question, yes or no, or tell us what you recall that the Premier actually said.

Here we have the executive, according to the affidavit of this gentleman, acting ad hoc and running roughshod over the administrative side, running roughshod over the marketing boards, forgetting that they are elected representatives, and forgetting that these marketing boards, irrespective of the criticisms there may be against them, are instruments of the democratic process.

You know, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister, there are laws enacted by this Legislature and powers granted by it to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to make laws. But laws are to be followed. And if they're not followed, they should be changed. But they're not supposed to be changed as a result of political interference — to use the Minister's words — on the part of himself, or on the part of the strongest man in this province, the Premier of this province.

If it's going to be the custom in British Columbia that whether our laws are to be followed or not is to be decided upon the discretion or the whim of the executive, that is exactly the same reason why Mr. Nixon has found himself in hot water in the United States today. I say that there is no question of a doubt that there is egg all over the chin of this Minister, and over the chin of the Premier. Quite frankly, the very hard-boiled attitude that has been adopted by each of them is not producing solutions, but indeed is compounding a very awkward situation.

How is this very serious charge, Mr. Chairman, of political interference and political pressure going to be resolved? It's got to be resolved. It's not just enough to talk about it. There has to be resolution, and I'm very happy to see that the Hon. Minister is nodding his head in obvious consent when I make that statement.

This charge, which is a very serious charge to this point, has generally and certainly by innuendo been treated by the Premier essentially as a denial of sworn facts. That's essentially the position taken by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. He essentially has denied the sworn facts in these affidavits.

Now we find from an article in the Vancouver Daily Province, dated today: "Premier Barrett and Agricultural Minister Stupich were censured by lower mainland egg producers Tuesday night 'for holding a hatchet over the head' of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board." That's what they say. They are saying you are holding a hatchet over their head. Is that true, or is that not true?

Then apparently at the meeting this statement was made, referring to the two gentlemen who filed their affidavits concerning the egg incident: "'We owe those two directors who signed the affidavits everything,' a producer said. 'It is up to us now to support them 100 per cent when Barrett takes them to court."' When Barrett takes them to court.

What action is the Minister contemplating or is the Hon. Premier contemplating, to the knowledge of the Minister, or is the government contemplating against these two men who have made sworn statements of which the Hon. Minister has full knowledge?

One of the members at this meeting expressed concern that Premier Barrett might take over the marketing board as the result of the protest. Is that going to be contemplated as government policy? Okay, that's what they are saying there. But I tell you that the government has a very solemn responsibility to take affirmative action. I would suggest that the action that should be taken would be one that is outside of the political arena, which this government so heavily controls and apparently so heavily handed controls. Let's have some affirmative action wherein political interference cannot form a part, the Minister supporting his attitude of political interference.

I put this question to the Hon. Minister: is it not, indeed, in the interests of the good government of this province that an inquiry be held under the Public Inquiries Act of the Province of British Columbia? It is chapter 315, for his information.

There are some very interesting statements in section 3 of the Public Inquiries Act, Mr. Chairman. It says, and I'm going to paraphrase, that whenever the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems it expedient to cause an inquiry to be made concerning any matter and so forth connected with the good government of the province or the conduct of any part of public business thereof, including all matters dealing with...obtaining influence and support for franchises, charters, or any other rights or privileges from the Legislature or the government of the province.... Is it not in the interest of these individuals, in the interest of the marketing boards, in the interest of the producers, in the interest of the

[ Page 593 ]

consumers and very much in the interest of all the Members of this Legislative Assembly and the people of British Columbia that a public inquiry be order under the Public Inquiries Act?

I would ask that the government do just that, and appoint a totally independent and completely impartial commission or commissioner to see whether the executive, namely the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, and namely the Hon. Premier, have transgressed their responsibilities and duties in bulldozing and politically interfering with the marketing boards, as has been indicated in sworn testimony which is before us.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Wouldn't you like to think so?

MR. GARDOM: Wouldn't I like to think so? The Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who is now going to the door and now returning...and now leaving.... (Laughter.) He's a fast stepper.

The Hon. Minister of Health interrupted the remarks of the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and was suggesting — at least that's the inference I received — that these four people who have entered into sworn affidavits were Social Credit political hacks. That's what he said.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes he did, Mr. Attorney-General. I heard it very, very clearly.

Is that true? Does he intend to make that charge? I don't think he should enter into those kinds of asides to the House if he doesn't intend to stand up and make that charge.

Let's look at the affidavit of Mr. McAninch, sworn three days ago. It indicates that on February 5, which is 22 days ago — and I'm going to refer to paragraph 14 — "That Mr. Stupich informed me that the Department of Agriculture in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett." Is that true, Mr. Minister? The affidavit continues: "Mr. Stupich informed me: 'It's out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be,' or similar words to the same effect." Was the board acting from orders from the Premier? Was it out of your hands, Mr. Minister? Was it the way that Mr. McAninch said?

The Attorney-General appears very anxious to get into this debate, and we look forward to hearing from him when he rises from his feet. I think he's got quite a solemn responsibility to bear as the chief law officer of the province, when you find the two Ministers of the Crown essentially are accused of political interference, which surely to goodness is against the good order of this province, and the good order of this government, and that's why we have a Public Inquiries Act.

Mr. Attorney-General I would suggest to you that if the government or your two Ministers don't see fit to appoint the necessary commissioner, it is your solemn responsibility to do so or go down the track.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're the democratically elected government.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, and who interfered with that but the Premier of this province?

Look at this: section 19. The gentleman continues:

"That I informed the Minister" — referring to the Minister of Agriculture — "that members of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board are elected at large and that the placing of an Interior representative on the said board was contrary to the constitution of the board.

"20. That I further informed the Minister that in the absence of the full marketing board membership I could not accept the permit terms set forth in paragraph 17 of this my affidavit."

In paragraph 21 he says this:

"That the Minister informed me that he agreed with the marketing board position on at-large representation, using the following words: 'I agree with the board in representation but this is the word from the Premier,' or similar words to the same effect."

Was that the word from the Premier, Mr. Minister? Did the Premier direct that a committee of three be appointed to determine the allocation of broiler permits? Yes or no. Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that Mr. Brunsdon, Mr. McAninch and the other two gentlemen are not telling the truth? Are you accusing these four people of distorting facts? Are you saying they lied?

If you're not going to take a position on sworn evidence, surely it's a crystal-clear admission of ad hoc political interference and political pressure by the individual with the greatest power the democratic process can give anyone in B.C., the Premier.

Has he abused his power? We all remember the quotation of Lord Acton. Has he abused his power? Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Has the Premier acted absolutely? I'd say the only way this very apparent sore, so far unanswered, upon the abuse of power on the part of the executive can be cleansed is by an independent tribunal where witnesses can be called and where the Minister of Agriculture, who was present and who has not denied his presence at these particular meetings, and the Premier who was present, certainly in the egg situation, will have the right to say under oath what these four other people have already put under oath.

[ Page 594 ]

I say, Mr. Chairman, that these marketing board officials deserve this and all the members of these boards deserve that. The very procedure we should be sanctifying in here very much deserves that. It certainly is in the interests of good government and all the people of B.C. that we do have such an independent, impartial inquiry.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister if he happened to receive a memorandum dated January 31, 1974, this year, from the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, concerning six egg producers in B.C., and which memorandum was directed to all of the Members of this Legislative Assembly. He nodded he did? The Minister has indicated he received that.

Has the Minister, since January 31 of this year, asked the B.C. Egg Marketing Board not to release that memorandum to all Members of this Legislature? Well, the Minister is writing that question down. We'd like the answer to that question as to whether or not this memorandum, which allegedly is directed to all Members of the B.C. Legislative Assembly, was, at the direction of the Minister to the egg board, not to be released to all Members.

In the memorandum attached to the affidavit of Mr. McAninch of February 12 under schedule "D", we see the memorandum from the Minister to the Hon. Premier. It's interesting to note that it appears to be signed by the Minister and it also appears to be signed by the Premier, by Gerry Anderson and D.E. Lewis. It starts off:

"Since the meeting in your office, there have been several meetings among members of my staff, with the caucus agricultural committee, and with the broiler board. The following is a summary of the situation to date. In that you have taken a personal interest in these questions, I would appreciate your consideration of the following points."

Then a number of points are listed. I'd ask the Hon. Minister to what extent did the Premier take a personal interest in the many questions you have mentioned therein?

Referring to the very last page, the Minister says this:

"I would recommend that we do not interfere with the board itself at this time other than to recommend to the Interior directors that they ask for an invitation to attend broiler board meetings regularly to acquaint themselves with the operation of the board and the work of the organization totally."

By that statement is the Minister indicating there had been prior interference or there will be future interference?

What we have to do is find out also, Mr. Chairman to the Hon. Minister, what is the government's real motivation behind all of this? Is it to discredit all of the marketing boards in the Province of British Columbia and then have the government take the whole shebang over? Is it your intention to incorporate egg pooling, whereby producer-vendors would totally disappear and just have a number of centrally-located or regionally-located egg pools in the province where only wholesalers could go to those areas for the purchase, thereby eliminating any degree or vestige of competitive free enterprise which seems to be grossly restricted even today in that enterprise? I'd like to know what the policy direction of the Minister in this regard will be.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I don't really want to talk about marketing boards; I don't know anything about them. But I would like to get a position straight from the Liberal Party because I'm finding it all a little confusing.

I had the pleasure over the weekend to serve on a panel at the University of Victoria with the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the leader of the Liberal Party. When he was asked by somebody from the audience what he would do with the civil service if he were Premier, he said that if the Liberal Party formed the government of this province it would be his duty as Premier to politicize the civil service to carry out the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister only to direct his remarks to the Minister and to have them relevant to Vote 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, let's not have that fobbing off from you either. The fact is, that's a stupid remark from the Minister. There was a lengthy and informal discussion...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...and you were not there, you idiot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? I appreciate that he feels he has been injured by comments of the Hon. Minister of Highways, but I would ask the Hon. Member to nevertheless follow the rules of the House in making his comments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: (Mike not on.) ...to raise this red herring at this time. I discussed that with the Minister in a seminar at UVic. I discussed similar topics at a seminar a day later at Albert Head

[ Page 595 ]

Penitentiary (and a far more intelligent discussion took place the second day than the first.)

But I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this type of attempt to misquote statements made during discussion in seminars simply doesn't advance the work of this House one little bit. I can speak on my behalf in this House; he can speak on his behalf. This reference to meetings that took place outside this House is the type of nonsense this government is getting too good at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well-taken. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways to keep his remarks confined to the vote before us and address his comments to the Minister.

HON. MR. LEA: Right, Mr. Chairman. It was either that or words to that effect.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister of Highways for his usual brilliant contribution to the debate. At the same time, I'd like to help that Minister and the Minister of Agriculture by making it once more clear what the issue is before the Legislature at this time. The issue is one of integrity in government; it's one of truthfulness on the part of Ministers of the Crown.

If, when these affidavits were filed, the Premier had come forward and said, "Yes, I did order the board," and the Minister had come forward and said, "Yes, I was forced to instruct the board on the orders of the Premier and the executive council," while we might not have agreed with their course of action — undoubtedly we would have maintained that the marketing board, the Egg Marketing Board, the Broiler Marketing Board, were independent agencies that should reach their decisions without the benefit of political muscle — we at least would have known that the cabinet had the courage of its convictions. If they pushed the marketing board around, either with or without the help of such people as the Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), they would have had the guts to admit it.

But, Mr. Chairman, we haven't had that. The Minister's had a case of amnesia. He couldn't remember what took place two months ago — one month ago, or 17 months ago. Well, the Minister particularly had difficulty with 17 months ago. The Premier, Mr. Chairman, according to the affidavit that was laid, said that he was going to kick the "censored" out of the marketing board if they didn't do his bidding.

While he has denied saying that, and while you have forgotten, that denial and your amnesia must be seen in the light of the statements in that affidavit, where the Premier, not two months after he had taken office and had promised publicly that there was to be a new deal in British Columbia and we were to have open government, said in the privacy of his office, according to the affidavit: "...and if you say a word of this outside my office, I'll deny it."

That's one promise the Premier kept. He's been assisted in keeping that promise by the memory of the Minister of Agriculture. He remembered what the Premier said that day.

I don't think that the issue of integrity in government is any less in British Columbia now than at any other time, or in any other jurisdiction. If this is the style of government, we have to know it, Mr. Chairman, and the people have to know it.

I personally agree with much of what backbenchers on the government side have said — that it's important to spread our agricultural industry around British Columbia, that it's important to have egg producers in the Interior and in the north, that these people should have their share and more, that if there is an undue monopoly of this industry by producers in the Fraser Valley, that's something that has to be corrected.

But, Mr. Chairman, to do that you don't destroy the effectiveness of a board that you've set up. You don't destroy the integrity of government. You don't deny and twist and try to get civil servants and quasi-independent people to take the blame for that. You stand up like the men you're supposed to be as cabinet Ministers and take the responsibility for your decisions and accept the consequences of it.

No speeches for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or obfuscation by the Minister of Highways, or pleas by the Members for Skeena or Shuswap or Fort George are going to change any of that, because what this little dispute over egg marketing has done is to reveal something about the character of the New Democratic Party government. It's revealed something about the character of the Premier and, I'm sorry to say, the Minister of Agriculture.

I sympathize with his position, because he had the crunch put on him and he as much as said so. But, Mr. Chairman, having the crunch put on doesn't excuse you for developing a convenient case of amnesia. That's failing to take the responsibility for your part in this sorry affair.

I regret, Mr. Chairman, having to get up and hammer again and again and again at some fairly simple questions. Though the matter may seem small and the questions simple, they help to get at the character of a problem in government.

The problem showed up in a small way over egg marketing when you consider the number of responsibilities that the cabinet had in British Columbia. But if we don't solve it now and get straight exactly what the duties of cabinet are, it's going to crop up in a far more serious way during the term of office of this cabinet when many more people may be injured.

[ Page 596 ]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to that day we discussed in the Legislature last night. Just before we adjourned the Minister recalled that he had a meeting, and he agreed that the people mentioned in the affidavit by Mr. Brunsdon had indeed been at that meeting. He explained that there were two sides to this problem and both sides wanted to reach a settlement. He acknowledged, as I recall, that an office in his department had been used. It was at that point that we adjourned.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister this specific question. While these people were drafting the agreement that day, was he as the Minister, or was any member of his department, on that day after the meeting with the Premier and before Mr. Pope went to the Strathcona Hotel that evening in touch with the producer in Prince George asking the amount that he was prepared to pay in settlement?

Were there any discussions on that day between the Minister and the producer against whom the levies were to be laid? I just want an answer to that one question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): If we're going to start with the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), I'll start picking it up with his questions much earlier on this afternoon.

The first question you raised was the location of the poultry processing plant that has been announced for the Interior of the province, and you suggested that there were political implications. The exact location has not yet been decided upon. The directors of Pan-Ready Ltd. recommended a certain property in Enderby. It is being looked at by the Land Commission to see whether or nor they feel it would be appropriate to use for that purpose. Whether or not that will be the site, I don't know.

As far as I am concerned, I am very anxious that we acquire a site very soon, as it takes something like nine months to get the plant ready, and there are some difficulties in getting not only building materials but the equipment for the place itself. However, the choice of the location will be determined not by politics, because one of the communities looked at was Vernon.

We are looking for acreage, and this is at the recommendation of one director in particular, who, I thought, seemed to be particularly knowledgeable on this, who had previously been the president of the Broiler Marketing Board. He is not now, but he is still a member of the Broiler Marketing Board, and is a director of Pan-Ready Ltd. As a matter of fact, I think he is president of the organization. It was his recommendation that there be at least five acres, with the advisability of having a slightly larger acreage, if possible, but, even more important, that it be serviced by sewer and water. It's not that easy to find that large a piece of land in the Okanagan communities in that area of the province.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll find it for you.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In Vernon? Well, if you can find a location it would still be an open question. It hasn't been decided yet, because there are some problems with the particular site that is being looked at right now. We've had difficulty locating land for other reasons in the Vernon area, and perhaps you can help with this particular question.

The broiler permit policy was presented in my office on December 12, and I think this is really your first accusation. The other, I think, was a political accusation, but I take it as an honest question you were asking: was there a political reason for going there? I say that the location that's being pursued most seriously at the moment is entirely on the basis of having the acreage, sewerage and the water available. And if you can find another location, we would be quite happy to look at it, although there is some urgency.

The broiler permit policy — I think in this case it was an accusation. I believe you were reading out of perhaps an affidavit that was quoted in this morning's newspapers. I didn't get around to reading that. I was quite sure I wouldn't have to, that someone would read it to me this afternoon, so I took notes as you spoke.

You said that at a meeting on December 12, I agreed to the policy announced by the broiler board. I don't know that the meeting took place on December 12. I am willing to say it was the 12th. Certainly it was in mid-December or somewhere around that period. And certainly I did agree that day to what the broiler board told me they were going to do. They told me that they agreed with the policy of having broiler production in the Interior. They made a case for there being 11 producers, in that they operate on an 11-week cycle, so 11 was the magic number that fitted everything. On the basis of our own survey of market needs, the total they came up with seemed reasonable.

More important than all of that, they said that in view of the market situation in the province, it was not reasonable to allow for any more permits to be let out at this time over that figure of 55,000, that the industry really couldn't stand it. This was the impression I was left with. I'm not going to say they used similar words to that same effect, but they left me with the impression that to do any more than issuing 55,000 in the way of additional permits at this time would be rather disastrous for the planned production within the broiler industry in the province.

They told me what they were going to do. They told me there were going to be increases in the valley for certain people — fixed increases. They told me that permits that had previously been issued were

[ Page 597 ]

going to be converted to quota in the valley — permits that had been issued some three years previously. All of this I accepted, and also the policy that there would be the 55,000 — not quota, but permits — issued in the Interior. A firm permit.

And then the order came out. I don't know what date the order came out, but it's true. They left my office, and we were in agreement. Then the order came out. And the thing that they had neglected to tell me — perhaps it slipped their minds, I don't know — was that in addition to everything we discussed, they were also making available to all of the broiler producers in the Fraser Valley who didn't have the optimum figure of 45,000 — and there must have been about 200 of them — secondary permits to the extent of 5,000 birds per producer, for a total of one million birds per cycle.

HON. MR. COCKE: Shame!

HON. MR. STUPICH: They didn't bother to tell me that. They convinced me that it was not practical to issue any more than 55,000 in the Interior because of the supply conditions in the industry, but they didn't bother to tell me that they were also issuing 5,000 secondary permits to all of those who didn't have the total of 45,000.

When that order came out, and when I saw those figures on it, only two interpretations were possible — either they forgot or there was some bad faith. And I didn't know which. But my instructions to them, by telegram — you said by telegram, your affidavit says by telegram, I don't recall if it was by telegram but I know I was anxious to convey that to them very promptly — were that I was not satisfied with what they had done for the Interior, in view of what they were doing for the valley.

I made that pretty plain to them immediately. I told them that their order, as far as I was concerned, was totally unacceptable. Their plan for production in the Interior contrasted to what they were doing in the valley. And that is when I conveyed that information to them, when I found out what they had neglected to tell me in the original meeting.

The order was, indeed, totally acceptable to me as Minister of Agriculture, who was trying to arrange for a reasonable distribution of broiler production in the province.

Then you talk about authority. I didn't have any authority to tell them to hold back on that order. But I made it pretty plain that I didn't like that order, and that I wanted them to do something about that order before they came in to talk to me any more about their plans for the broiler industry or the broiler processing in this province.

HON. MEMBER: Some oversight.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Then you referred to a meeting in Mr. King's office on February 5. Again, I know they were over for a meeting. I don't know the date. I do recall in that case that the meeting was in Mr. King's office, because I was tied up with something else. You quoted, I think, the Deputy Minister as saying in that meeting that the Premier had ordered that two of the producers in the Interior were to have quotas of 20,000 each, and that nine of them were to have quotas of 5,000 each.

I suggest to you that that may be the way they heard it. The Deputy may even have used words close enough that there was some reason they heard it that way. But I also suggest to you that if the Premier ordered it, and if you think his order carries that much weight, why was that not put into effect?

So I am suggesting to you that there was no such order, and that there was no such order conveyed to the marketing board. These figures were discussed with the marketing board on different occasions, yes, but there was no order that they put into effect and they have not, indeed, been put into effect. Neither have they been, in the final communication, recommended to the Broiler Marketing Board. Quite different figures have been. So there was no order....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not just a suggestion from you, but a statement from you.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There is no order that two producers have 20,000 each and that nine have 5,000.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Broiler Producers Selection Committee. I was asked about the broiler producers committee. Why go the committee route? I think there was another reference to the fact that the Premier ordered that there be a selection committee, as opposed to the broiler board doing this.

As a matter of fact, that's one of the things that did come up at the meeting that was held in the Premier's office when I was there, when some members of the staff were there, and when some MLAs were there making a case for doing something about the Interior, especially in view of the fact that by the time of that meeting everyone knew that the broiler board had gone much beyond the information they had given me in the meeting that you reported to have taken place on December 12. They had gone much beyond that. Everyone knew it by that time.

So there was some concern about the lack of faith or the forgetfulness of the people on the broiler board in not telling me about that information when they came over for the meeting on December 12.

It was my suggestion — it wasn't the Premier's order — that in view of the lack of good faith, or forgetfulness, evidenced by the broiler board, there

[ Page 598 ]

would be some real concern in the Interior about the fairness applied by these people. It was my suggestion that I pick three people to do the selecting and that they not be personally responsible; I would be the one responsible for deciding, through that committee, who would get these permits.

You say none of the members of the broiler board are on it, but, in practice, the broiler board would be at the meetings when the prospective broiler producers are being interviewed; we would use the applications on file with the broiler board right now (they have 87 of them); the broiler board would bring that information to the meetings; the broiler board would have every opportunity at that meeting to discuss with the applicants the sort of questions they do on every occasion when they're interviewing applicants who want to get into the broiler industry. When the actual selection was to be made, it would be made by this three-man committee I am naming. Then the onus is on them and, through them, to me rather than on the broiler board to determine who those people will be.

I told you yesterday that the chairman of that committee I am naming has agreed to act. I can tell you today that a second member of the committee has agreed to act: one Alec Rowles from Kelowna, an experienced poultryman from that area. I haven't the foggiest idea what his politics are; it never occurred to me to ask. I just don't know. He's the second one who has agreed to act on the committee.

The third one we don't yet have.... Well, I was going to say an affirmative, but we don't have any reply one way or the other. The person I'm asking is from the Interior area. As a matter of interest, the one I have in mind at the moment isn't even a poultryman.

That, I hope, disposes of the suggestion — or perhaps more than that. I'm not sure whether you were quoting from the affidavit when you said the Premier ordered it. It was at my suggestion. It came up in discussion in the Premier's office but I was the one who advanced the idea.

Did anyone order that two people would get 20,000 and nine would get 5,000? Those figures were discussed in the Premier's office; those figures were discussed with the broiler board by myself. It was not an order; it was not the figures that were finally arrived at. I don't recall whether I've given the figures finally arrived at in the House; I think they've been issued publicly. In any case, we're staying with the magic number of 11: an 11-week cycle; 8,000 each. Beyond the 8,000-firm-production permit, a further 5,000-secondary permit will be available if they choose to take it at the time the plant becomes operational.

The meeting in my office on February 11. Again, there was a meeting in my office early in February, telling the board what I wanted. Yes, indeed, there was a meeting in my office when we discussed these figures again. It was at that time that we arrived at agreement as to what the figures would be.

At that time, I think for the first time, I put to the board the idea that to keep this 5,000-secondary permit the same throughout the broiler-producing area of the province.... And for those who don't understand, it's not firm to the extent that you have the right to produce it right away; you have an obligation to provide the facilities to produce it if you're called upon to produce it as the market requires. But in providing this facility, the producers recognize they might have an opportunity to produce at the rate of 10 per cent even in the first year. In three years, the likelihood is that it would be firm production figures; in the first year, maybe none. So that's the status of the secondary quota.

I suggested, in order to keep the thing even throughout the province and in order to let the Interior people as well as the coast people have an opportunity to grow, this policy of issuing the secondary quota which was extended to every broiler producer in the province as long as they didn't exceed the maximum would be extended to include these in the Interior. From then on, we go ahead on the same policy throughout.

It was at that meeting that I suggested, when it comes to the question of bringing new producers into the industry, we have one chronological list for the whole province. It was at that meeting that the broiler board said to me that, if you do that, it would be a long time before we get any new producers into the Interior. They recommended to me that, instead of doing that, let's have three lists: one for the Interior, one for Vancouver Island — and this is the way they work — and the Valley. Three separate lists. Producers should be brought in, not according to the whole list but according to the list for that particular area. I thought that was a good step forward; it was one that encouraged me to believe they really were intending to see the industry develop in the Interior. I thought that was an excellent step forward.

You say the matter is unresolved still. I'm surprised to hear that. I thought that when they left my office we had agreed on all of these figures. I thought we had agreed when they left my office because I told them — and I doubt I told anyone else — who the three people were whom I would be asking to take part in the selection committee. I gave them the three names. Two of the names have been made public. I think no one in the House, unless they got it from that board, knows who the third member is. Certainly the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) hasn't heard who the third person is. He's asked me several times. I haven't recalled the name and I just never thought to look it up at the time that he asked me. I suggested he phone the office and get it. I don't think he has phoned yet for that third name. In any case, I

[ Page 599 ]

don't know whether the third name will act.

But the men on that committee were to be named by myself and have been contacted by my staff to see if they would represent me in selecting those producers. So it's not the Premier's orders. It was my suggestion; it was my doing. And my understanding, when the board left my office that day somewhere around February 11, was that everybody had agreed this was the route we were going and that the selection would start just as soon as we could get going on it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, no, I suggest McAninch differs with me. Not so much differs; my impression when he left was that we had agreed. Apparently his impression was that we hadn't agreed. I'm surprised. He may be surprised when he finds out that I thought we had agreed to it, that everything was settled that day. That's fine; there was a mistake there. I certainly thought it was all settled at that point. I don't know which point he's questioning at the moment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I agreed with the board on representation, yes. I asked, "When is your next meeting?"

He said, "May." It is their annual meeting.

I agreed there could be no change in the board's structure until their annual meeting in May. I suggested to them that possibly, with the industry growing the way it is and growing geographically as well, they consider at their May meeting when they come to convention enlarging the board. There was no agreement or disagreement at that time; it was discussion. But I agreed they have three members on the board. There'll be no change in the board as far as I'm concerned, at least until their May meeting when they have an opportunity to elect their officers for the coming year.

MR. GARDOM: You think that he agreed there would be three-man representation, then?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There are three men today and there was no question in my mind but that it would continue that way until May. There may be some question as to whether there will be some change proposed at that meeting. That's something else.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question of quotes. Well, is that what he says in the affidavit, I thought it had. Okay. Well, that's something I'll just have to take up with the broiler board because I was so sure that it had been resolved.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) is absent. Is the Minister guided by government policy or is he guided by party policy? As a Member of this government, I make no apology for living up to our election-programme promises. As a matter of fact, I went so far as to prepare a sheet for distribution within the party to show to what extent in the course of one year in office as Minister of Agriculture I had followed our party election programme with respect to agriculture. I was rather proud of the fact that we had gone a long way towards achieving what we had promised we would do. I don't apologize for that; I think it's something to be proud of.

The comments from the Hon. Minister for Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) on the fact that boards have a stranglehold on marketing, that they have too much authority to set prices. I think there is some real concern in the community about the operations of the boards. I'm afraid there is even more concern as a result of the discussion we've had in the House yesterday and the discussion we're having today. I'm very concerned about that because, frankly, I believe in the concept of marketing boards. I don't want to see anything happen that will raise questions in the minds of the consumers to the extent they have been raised in these two days and raised in the minds of the producers themselves. I know we're going to have to deal with those questions now that they've been raised. But one of my efforts is going to be to re-establish confidence in the minds of the consumers and in the minds of the growers with respect to this concept of marketing boards.

I don't say everything they have done has been right. But I think, more than anything else, they've fallen into the same position I fell into in introducing Bill 42: they haven't done a good enough job telling the people of the community, both their own members and the consuming public, what they've been doing and what they've been trying to do and the effect of what they have been doing. So I think they have a job to do to tell the rest of us how well they have been doing.

The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) offers sympathy. Well. At this point, I could do without it. Placed in an untenable position by the Premier and Members of the cabinet? Quite the contrary, Mr. Chairman. The support I've had from the Premier since I've been Minister of Agriculture has enabled me to do more for the agricultural industry in this province in the course of a year and a half than was accomplished in the history of this province from the beginning of time.

It may upset some of my cabinet colleagues because they haven't fared as well, but I have never gone to the Premier for anything on behalf of the

[ Page 600 ]

agricultural industry that he has not supported me on.

Someday, he may not be able to go as far as I want him to go. But to this point in time, in everything I have tried to do, I have had the full, unqualified support of the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Treasury in all his three capacities.

I have had nothing from him not to indicate that in any way at all his unqualified support of me as Minister of Agriculture and what I'm trying to do for the agricultural industry is not still there, and he is still backing me all the way.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: Why does he deny political pressure and you accept it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think it's a matter of semantics. You say I accept political pressure, he denies it. I don't think he would deny that the MLAs are fighting for the agricultural industry in their respective ridings. I don't think he would deny that they have an open door to his office to discuss problems like that if they feel the problems are not being resolved quickly enough. That's not the thing to be denied.

You'll just have to ask him the other questions when you have an opportunity to ask him — not under my estimates, under his estimates.

Now the suggestion that one Mr. Kovachich, because he is an NDPer, got a 200-case quota up to the maximum: in the first place, Mr. Chairman, he still doesn't have 200 cases as maximum; he has up to 180. In the second place, until some of this broke... perhaps at the time I heard that he was an NDP member. I don't know, that's not something that stayed in my mind. I've never known him to be active in the party on a provincial level, which is where my activity has been prior to now.

You link that with Watson from your area and ask me if he's getting special treatment also — you say, as a member of the NDP. I don't know whether he is this year or not. He was in 1972.

I don't think you said Mr. Watson has had special treatment in the matter of quota, because he's a very small egg man. He has made application for financial assistance to do something in the way of egg-candling and grading, et cetera. We've looked at his proposal and found it wanting, frankly, financially speaking. Until he can come up with a better proposal, regardless of his party politics, financial assistance will not be forthcoming.

I may say that the egg board wanted him to get that financial assistance, because they thought, quite apart from the finances of it, that it would help to have that particular facility available in the Chetwynd area. But in looking at it, we just felt that it wasn't economically sensible enough despite the fact that it might help dispose of a few more surplus eggs from the Fraser Valley. It didn't measure up.

No money for the credit Act: I think you were out the other day.... In estimates there is $2.5 million. The bill that was passed in the fall session contained in that legislation $5 million. I did say yesterday, I think, on a couple of occasions at least, that the main thrust of this programme will be guaranteed loans rather than direct lending. But in any case, there is $7.5 million available for direct lending in cash.

The Farm Products Industry Improvement Act: the budget, you will recall, said that there would be a $10 million fund. In this area as well there is provision for guarantees, and in some of the areas where we had moved ahead in using this legislation, we have gone the guarantee route already. So it's not just in there.

The Hon. Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) quoted me as saying, "Why shouldn't there be any political interference?" Yes, I stand by that. We are politicians, we believe in politics, we believe in government and I think we believe, as politicians, that something should be done in this province to assist in this particular case in the development of the agricultural industry. We not only have a right, we have a responsibility to plead our case, politically speaking.

If that means in some instances trying to enlist the support of the Minister of Agriculture — in some instances trying to enlist the support of the Premier as well — I think we would be delinquent in our responsibility to our constituents if we did not take every step that we possibly could to try to achieve what we felt was in the interest of our constituencies.

It's up to the Premier and up to the Minister of Agriculture to determine how this fits in with the total programme. But that doesn't deny the right and the responsibility of the MLA to plead his case in every way that he possibly can.

You said, "Did the Premier say a law will be introduced?" I honestly don't recall him saying that at that meeting, but I'll tell you this: there will be a law introduced and the Members opposite will have an opportunity in this session to indicate how they feel about the operation of marketing boards — to indicate whether they think marketing boards should have this right to do everything in the way that they want to, sometimes apparently without regard to the consumers, sometimes apparently without regard to many of their own members.

The Members in the House will have an opportunity to debate this and to vote on the question as to whether they feel there should be more government participation in decisions made by marketing boards.

MR. GARDOM: Will you include the right of

[ Page 601 ]

appeal to cabinet?

HON. MR. STUPICH: You asked what action is the....

MR. GARDOM: ...the right of appeal to cabinet.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I suggest you wait until you see the legislation. At that time you'll have plenty of opportunity. What action is the Premier, the Minister or the government contemplating against those who signed affidavits? Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'm contemplating no action against any of those people that signed affidavits.

As I read those affidavits and I read those words, "or similar words to that same effect," I believe that the people saying that are recalling those conversations to the best of their recollection. So what? So I should take them to court for recalling something like that?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it's my estimates that are up, not his. I'm not going to try to send anybody to jail for anything like this. You ask me: am I going to take any legal action? I say no. I'm just simply answering that question. I have no intention of raising this issue again; no doubt I'll be called upon in the House to comment on it again. But as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue, it's a dead issue. But I know....

MR. GARDOM: You're not disputing the allegations.

HON. MR. STUPICH: None of it. I'm denying that this is their best recollection of what happened. I'm not denying that they're likely to recall something that happened a year-and-a-half ago word-for-word better than I would.

I suggest to you, for example, that to the chairman of the egg board, a relatively small producer in the Duncan area.... The most important day in that man's whole life likely was the few hours that he spent in the Premier's office. It's something that would stick in his mind. He'd think about it and no doubt in thinking about what happened, it might grow and grow and grow, and it could very well have been quite different. As a lawyer you've had experience at that. It could very well have been quite different from what was actually said.

I didn't say it was different. I said that possibility exists.

For me it was not the most important day of my whole life. I think it's possible that even the Premier would remember more of that conversation than I would since, as far as he was concerned, it was one day he became involved in a particular controversy. But from my point of view it was only a matter of hours out of many days and weeks that I spent trying to resolve this problem.

That particular point in time was a relatively insignificant time in the scheme of the whole thing for me personally. For the chairman of the egg board it was an extremely important few hours. For the Premier it was one occasion when he became personally involved in a problem. For me it was a matter of hours out of many, many, many hours and was not terribly significant in my mind. I just don't remember it, and I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it.

Should there be an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act? I suggest you ask that question of the Provincial Secretary or the Attorney-General. I'm not interested in inquiring into anything.

You did say that you felt this would be something worthwhile for the Members in the House, for the consumers and for the farmers. Since being the Minister of Agriculture I've tried to look at it from all points of view, all those things.

Up to this point, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), in particular, has made a singularly unimpressive case in trying to convince me that it would be good for anyone to have such an inquiry. I don't think there would be one iota of gain for any one of the people you've mentioned if we were to pursue such an inquiry and find out anything one way or the other.

I think there would be no gain, I think there might be loss because I think there might be more questions raised about the operations of marketing boards. Frankly, I don't want marketing boards challenged any further than they have been already.

MR. GARDOM: We're challenging the methods of governing, Mr. Minister. The method of governing by threat: that's the challengeable point.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Did I receive a memorandum dated January 31? When you described it, I couldn't tell from the date, but I recall the memorandum you're talking about. Did I direct that it not go out to all MLAs?

The memorandum was presented at a meeting of Interior MLAs. They weren't all government Members; the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) was included in the meeting. But there were people who were concerned about this particular problem. It was an egg board document. It was addressed to all MLAs.

I had occasion after that meeting to be talking on the telephone with the manager of the Egg Marketing Board — at least, he was manager when he put out

[ Page 602 ]

this memorandum. He wasn't the day I talked to him, or he was manager on leave; he was in Ottawa. He phoned me to ask me about the progress of an order-in-council that was putting the finishing touches — and this was the question asked by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — on moving into the national egg marketing scheme. He phoned me to ask me whether or not we could proceed quickly with that order-in-council.

I told him it was ready and would be introduced at the next cabinet meeting. It was indeed introduced and accepted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I asked him at that time about this memorandum that was addressed to all MLAs and I asked him whether it had gone out to all MLAs or whether it was simply handed around at the meeting.

He told me that it was handed out only to the MLAs at that meeting. He had no intention of going beyond that unless I wanted him to. He asked me, did I have any wishes on the matter, and I said, "Well, really it's your memorandum; it's up to you. I don't think it would do any particular good at this point until I have further studies. But it's your memorandum; it's your choice."

He then told me that he was going to phone his office and ask them not to mail it out more broadly than it had already been distributed, recognizing that it was in the hands of at least one Member on the opposition side of the House in any case. But he was going to phone his office and suggest that it not be mailed out any further.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Since it was in the hands of the opposition I didn't really care.

MR. GARDOM: You're saying that was his position, then?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes. He asked my advice and I told him I didn't think it would add anything to the particular discussion at this time nor in the interest of working out the problems. As you may recall, the poultry commissioner was going up north to interview the poultry producers who were expressing some concern individually and through their MLAs. I didn't think it would add anything until we had the poultry commissioner's report. He agreed with me that it wouldn't add anything and that there was no point in going any further with it. We both recognized that it was in the hands of the Members from the other side of the House so there would be no point in trying to withdraw it.

Is the prime motivation to discredit marketing boards in the province? It is certainly not my prime motivation. I can't help but wonder sometimes if it is the prime motivation of some of the Members opposite. I can't think of any other reason for the sort of discussion we have had for half of yesterday and all of today other than to discredit marketing boards.

Now, whether it's me personally you're after rather than marketing boards, I don't know. But certainly, whether the direct attack is on marketing boards or not, I think the discussion this afternoon on both sides of the House has been to show there is some discrediting of marketing boards happening. Whether it's what you had intended or not I don't know. My intention is not to discredit....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not my colleague (Hon. Ms. Young) who is leading the attack on this.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's not my intention to discredit marketing boards; it's not my colleague who is keeping this issue alive, Mr. Member.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said why not 'fess up, why not say there was Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council pressure. But the question was never discussed in executive chambers whenever I was at a meeting. I think it would be pointless to discuss the meetings when I was absent; I can't admit something that just didn't happen. There never was, to the best of my knowledge, any discussion in the executive chamber about this whole question.

Any discussion on a particular day between myself and Mr. Kovachich was another specific question that you asked. I believe you said the day in question was when he had gone back to the Prince George area, when he'd gone back home. That was the day you were asking; a day when he was back there.

MR. McGEER: (Mike not on) ...answering the questions of the Second Member. I don't think we need the assistance of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) right here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Minister should complete his reply.

HON MR. STUPICH: To the best of my knowledge, the only occasion when I discussed it in any way at all with Mr. Kovachich was when he was down here by appointment to see me in my office and, of course, at the time he was in the Premier's office. Beyond that, wherever possible, I tried to discuss it only with his legal representative and with the board and their legal representative. I tried to keep away from personal discussions with Mr. Kovachich. Certainly I don't think I've ever talked

[ Page 603 ]

with him on the telephone, which is the only way I could have talked to him when he was back in Prince George.

MR. McGEER: I'd like to follow up on this point, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Last night the Minister told us there was this matter of reducing the Egg Marketing Board assessments from $21,000 to $7,500. This is the $13,500 concession made in that 24-hour period. The Minister, in recalling that meeting, said there had been negotiations. But when the Egg Marketing Board representatives, on this great day in their lives, left the Premier's office, they knew $21,000 was not acceptable to the Premier and to yourself. They then went to your office and suggested $15,000. That was not acceptable to yourself. You got up last night and said there were negotiations because you wanted something agreeable to both sides.

Now, discussions must have taken place, Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Kovachich or his legal representative, either that day or on some day prior to the meeting of the Premier and yourself with the Egg Marketing Board. Otherwise you wouldn't have said last night, in recalling what took place, that there had been negotiations.

My question is this: with whom did you or your officials have discussions, and did those discussions take place on the same afternoon that these men were working in your office?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The discussions took place over a period of time. The matter was not resolved at the time they came down here; the figures were not finally agreed on.

As far as the discussions I referred to yesterday, I was thinking of discussions between the poultry producer and the poultry board and between their respective lawyers. Those are the discussions I was referring to. Now certainly, staff were involved in some of those discussions in trying to bring the two parties together.

MR. McGEER: I'd like to pursue this if I may.

First, Mr. Chairman, something must have happened between the time these people left, knowing the Premier was going to force you to force them to reduce their assessments. But the settlement was dictated.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Pope went to their room at the Strathcona Hotel and, if he wasn't instructed by you, I wish you would clear him in this matter by saying that he had not been instructed by you.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You said "dictated." He didn't dictate any settlement.

MR. McGEER: He said $15,000 was not acceptable to the department. Did he go there with instructions as to what was acceptable? Had you briefed him on what he was to say? He went to that meeting — maybe you should check with your assistant Deputy Minister — and he said that $15,000 wouldn't do. And they said: what would do? Now, how had that figure been put into his head?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll tell you how. We're talking about October, 1972, aren't we? I had been in office a month. I'll tell you how we arrived at those figures. I was instructed — or I was advised — I was advised by the poultry commissioner that, in view of all the circumstances, what would be a reasonable figure. So then he asked for my authority to go and negotiate to try to bring the two sides together on these figures.

Yes, it was my instructions that he try to arrive at an acceptable figure to both parties. I'm responsible for the figure but I sought advice. I got good advice because both parties accepted the figure and we settled the problem eventually.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wish to make one point and that has to do with the Minister's insistence on a number of occasions in this House yesterday and today that he didn't have the authority to tell the marketing board to do anything, including withdrawing the order he mentioned today. He said again last night, "My department has no authority to approve or disapprove."

Mr. Speaker, I suggest there was much stronger action on the part of that Minister than just a "suggestion," as he's indicated; and that if he didn't have the authority to order the withdrawal then he certainly took that authority upon himself.

I suggested there was a telegram sent. The Minister wasn't sure if there was a telegram sent or not. But, in fact, there were two telegrams sent. One of them is dated December 22. The Minister says in the telegram to the chairman of the British Columbia Marketing Board:

THE CONTENTS OF BROILER BOARD ORDER 1M-76 OF DECEMBER 13 APPEAR NOT TO BE IN KEEPING WITH GOVERNMENT DESIRE TO ENCOURAGE MEANINGFUL INTERIOR BROILER INDUSTRY. IT ALSO APPEARS TO CONVEY SPECIAL QUOTA INCREASES TO EXISTING PRODUCERS WITHOUT MAKING ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR NEW BROILER GROWERS. I THEREFORE ASK THE BOARD TO RESCIND THIS ORDER AND TO REFRAIN FROM IMPLEMENTING ANY SUCH ORDER UNTIL IT HAS HAD FULL DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT FIRST WITH INTERIOR BROILER ASSOCIATION

[ Page 604 ]

AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

And then another telegram, Mr. Chairman. On the 28th:

RE YOUR TELEGRAM. SEE NO ADVANTAGE MEETING TODAY. ORDER 1M-76 TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM AND MUST BE WITHHELD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AN INTERIOR PRODUCTION PROGRAMME IS SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED IN KEEPING WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY OF INDUSTRY EXPANSION. FAILURE TO WITHHOLD WILL BRING PROMPT GOVERNMENT ORDER SUSPENDING 1M-76 PENDING SUITABLE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ISSUE. GOVERNMENT CONTEMPLATING SUCH ACTION WITH SOME RELUCTANCE BUT CANNOT ACCEPT ALTERNATIVES. LETTER FOLLOWS.

The Minister says he doesn't have the authority to make such an order; yet he has certainly taken that authority upon himself and made such an order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that interference?

MR. McCLELLAND: If that isn't interference, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Woody Woodpecker!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be fairly evident to those who listened to the second telegram that was read out that by that time, and I hope...

AN HON. MEMBER: You refused to meet with them. You made an order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: ...the broiler board got the message, I was damn mad. I was mad because they had come into my office, told me what they were going to do, but told me only half of the story.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your story.

HON. MR. STUPICH: They justified what they weren't doing for the Interior on the basis....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I made it clear that I wasn't prepared to meet and discuss this with them until they did withdraw their order. So although the wording there says "will bring prompt government action," I didn't have the legal right. After coming into my office and telling me half a story I let them know I wasn't satisfied with their half a story.

I wasn't going to meet with them and discuss it until they moved the timetable back to the position that existed before that order was issued, so that we would be talking about it not having done what they neglected to tell me they were going to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I wasn't trying to hurt the industry in the Fraser Valley, but I was trying to work in good faith with the Broiler Marketing Board to maintain the industry in the valley but also to build an industry in the Interior.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As I said earlier, either they forgot or they deliberately neglected to tell me about the issuing of approximately up to 200 secondary permits of 5,000 each. Now, I don't know whether they forgot or whether they deliberately left it out, but I was suspicious....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Isn't it beautiful? How sweet it is.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: During the Minister's remarks....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Will you take your seats? A Member asked for a point of order and I recognized him.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A Member has asked for a point of order and he has the right....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I raised it at the appropriate time and wasn't recognized, so I'll do it again. During the Minister's remarks, when he related that some of the information that should have been given was omitted, the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) said "That's your story." I wish that he would withdraw that remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: You're building straw houses!

[ Page 605 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, during his remarks earlier on, the Minister expressed concern that the opposition was raising destructive questions about marketing boards and how they should be proceeded with. I'd like to point out to him that the Member earlier on who said that marketing boards were ossified, ancient, parochial, rigid, little empires was one of his Ministers, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young).

I would like to point out to him that it was one of his own backbenchers who pointed out that quotas cost too much money, and asked why quotas should cost anything. He has himself a 140-case quota worth $42,000 and he thinks that is very wrong.

Those remarks about marketing boards, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are coming from your own Members.

There has been an attempt to describe as the fundamental question in this debate questions which are important but not fundamental. One of the important ones was raised by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and that is the question of distribution of production around the province. There's no question that there is a balance to be redressed here, away from the valley and into the other areas. But, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that's not the fundamental question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: Rather, there are two fundamental questions, They were put very well today by both of the Members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer and Mr. Gardom).

The first fundamental question is one of political influence with boards set up by the government. The second fundamental question is: how did the government cover up some actions that they are ashamed of, an abuse of government power? Those are the fundamental questions to me.

First of all, as to political interference, we have the Minister's words last night — and I see he confirmed them again this afternoon — speaking of the boards, and saying: "Why shouldn't there be political interference? What's wrong with politics?"

HON. MR. COCKE: You're the guy who just came back from Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: I'd like the Minister, if he would later on, to express his philosophy about the proper degree of political interference into boards which are set up to remove many of these questions from politics. I have here a short list of some of the boards and I wonder if the Minister's philosophy would extend into political interference with them: Civil Service Commission; Liquor Control Board; Law Reform Commission; Board of Parole; Medical Services Commission; Superannuation Commission; B.C. Securities Commission; Human Rights Commission; Purchasing Commission; British Columbia Housing Management Commission; Labour Relations Board; Assessment Appeals Board; Land Commission; British Columbia Energy Commission.

And then, of course, there are all of the marketing boards: Broiler Marketing Board; Coast Vegetable Marketing Board; Cranberry Marketing Board; Autoplan; Egg Marketing Board; Fruit Board; and so on.

I wonder if the Minister might later on indicate how his philosophy about the legitimacy of political interference into boards would extend in all of those areas, and to what extent it might reflect the philosophy of the government, because if it reflects the philosophy of the government, then certainly this House is entitled to hear it clarified.

The Minister then made another statement again yesterday, saying: "My department had no authority to approve or disapprove" — again talking to the board, making orders to the board.

I find that very confusing — the two different sides. What is the policy of the government in terms of instructing marketing boards? Is that policy and the practice at variance with their legal rights in instructing the marketing boards? They have the power, of course, to dissolve these things. They may have the power but not the right, because these things don't necessarily run together.

Finally, if the government does exercise these enormous powers in these arbitrary ways over these boards which, one way or another, have influence over the life of every citizen in British Columbia, what's the protection of the ordinary citizen?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Democracy.

MR. GIBSON: I was very surprised to see rejected too quickly the positive suggestion of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) for a public inquiry. I suggest the Minister rejected it too quickly because there are a great many questions left unresolved in these affidavits. We've gradually got at some of them as this debate has progressed, but there are still a great many questions with respect not only to the Minister, but to the Premier and beyond that.

Names of many public servants have been involved here who attended these meetings. I wonder what they would have to say about the questions which were raised. A public inquiry of some kind would seem to be the best way of getting at that. I want to give the civil service a chance to defend itself, Mr. Member.

The question of a cover-up arises because there is a distinct difference — and I'd like to draw to the

[ Page 606 ]

attention of the House some of the explicit differences — between the affidavits which we have had read into the record here, and statements made, particularly by the Premier, during the question period.

I ask the Minister about this because the Minister is an expert. He's a witness at these particular meetings that are referred to.

I refer first of all to the Premier on February 25, speaking at this time of eggs. He said: "Mr. Speaker, they were not asked, or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything." Speaking again of eggs, "I told no one to draft an agreement." Then on February 26, again on eggs: "But I do recall distinctly on this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I made no order or did not order any solution."

In the face of that, we have the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon, which is not a sole affidavit but substantially corroborated by that of Mr. Unger, with the words that at the meeting of October 26, 1972, he 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." There's a direct contradiction, Mr. Minister. You were there on both occasions.

"6) That I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that: 'The charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and if those charges are not reduced you will break him,' or similar words to the same effect."

"9) 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 the following words: 'It has to be done today. Is there an office they can use?' or similar words to the same effect."

And later on, the Premier said, point 15: "If anything is said outside of this office I will deny every word I said," or similar words to the same effect.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister if that, in his capacity as a person at those meetings, gibes with the words of the Premier that: "I told no one to draft an agreement. They were not asked or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything." The Minister was at both meetings.

That's concerning the eggs. The same question arises with respect to the broilers, where the Hon. Premier said, again on February 26....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: There are not only consumers in my riding; there are voters in my riding who are interested in the integrity of government in British Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Go freeze a glass of milk.

MR. GIBSON: On February 26, with respect to broilers, the Hon. Premier said: "Mr. Speaker, I did not order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers."

Later on the same day, Mr. Chairman: "I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas."

The affidavit of Mr. McAninch, substantially corroborated by the affidavit of Mr. Stafford, then reads as follows:

"11) That I was then and there informed by the said Mr. Peterson" — the Deputy for Agriculture — "that the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia, had ordered that instead of the broiler permit policy contained in Schedule "A", that two of the 11 Kamloops-Okanagan broiler producers be allotted 20,000 birds per cycle and that the remaining nine broiler producers be allocated 5,000 birds per cycle."

"Had ordered," Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barrett said on February 26: "I did not order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers."

Mr. McAninch, in a sworn statement says:

"12) I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three be appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett."

Again, on February 26, the Hon. Premier said: "Mr. Speaker, I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas."

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that either the affidavit is incorrect, or the Deputy Minister was incorrect, or there is some other explanation that only the Minister, or some other person that was in those meetings, could inform the House about.

Lacking that, it seems to me that the suggestion of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that there should be a public inquiry in this regard is one that should much commend itself not only to the House but to the government, which should be anxious to remove some of the cloud that hangs over them. The most serious concern that any citizen can have is the concern that the enormous powers of government are being abused. There's much reason for concern in what we've seen here in the last two days, Mr. Chairman, over the Egg Marketing Board case and the broiler case.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the cloud that hangs over this government is a cloud of smear of the opposition. That is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman.

There have been very few issues dealt with in this House, very few issues of any sort. The issues that should have been dealt with in this House have been

[ Page 607 ]

totally neglected by that opposition, because they would prefer to take human beings and tear them apart if they possibly can. That kind of politics is your bag. And we're not surprised.

I'm somewhat surprised at the new Member, Mr. Chairman, quickly falling into this trap. I suggest to you that if there were such a case in all of these allegations that are now being made, all of these iffy affidavits that are now being presented — why weren't they presented a year-and-a-half ago when all of this took place? What's going on around here? Suddenly, suddenly, suddenly they emerge in the Vancouver Province, that great paper, with the farm editor. Mr. Chairman, if there was ever an opposition that was weak and lacking insides, negative, impossible, because they prefer to do this than homework, that's the way it goes.

Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that we deal with personalities instead of issues. This hard-working Minister of Agriculture has served this province like no other Minister in history.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right; he's served them well and they know it out there. And that's why they're not dealing with the issues. That's why you've been carrying this agricultural vote for the last couple of days, messing around over there, Mr. Chairman. I just hope the people out there understand that smear tactic, coming out of Ottawa. What rubbish!

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, if we want to talk about political influence, just look in terms of what's gone on in the past.

MR. GARDOM: Put it in an affidavit!

HON. MR. COCKE: I would like you to take a look now at where and who holds these quotas. Where are they? They're in that Socred riding of Langley, Mr. Chairman. Hundreds of them! Where are they in the rest of the province? What about all the rest of the farmers?

You talk about political influence. You talk about smear tactics over there. It doesn't mean a thing. That's where it belongs. If this criticism isn't directed at that opposition party, where it should have been directed for the last couple of years, as we did, clearly fighting the issues, not fighting personalities, it's too bad.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, I would ask the Hon. Members to kindly not use unparliamentary words such as "smear," "idiot," or words of that nature.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just making an appeal for restraining oneself from using unparliamentary terms.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the time at which you chose to correct the House about the word "smear." It constantly came up in the Minister of Health's statement. He seems to think that in a quest for the truth, sworn statement is smear.

HON. MR. COCKE: Get serious!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am serious, Mr. Minister of Health, and there's a motion on the order paper about your statements in this House and whether or not they are....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You should know, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea); we had a committee hearing on your statements in this House not so long ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member confine his remarks to vote 3?

HON. MR. COCKE: Go do some homework about the issue!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture about something which came up quite recently. "Bruce McAninch, our chairman of the board, said Tuesday that the board does not agree to anything." He's referring to the three-man committee. You've constantly talked today as though this three-man committee had been accepted and was going to be the instrument to hand out these quotas. Is it or is it not true" Has the board accepted it? Are you sure they have?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you're not sure now. Anyway, I read on. I'm quoting the Chairman of the Board where he says:

"I was told today by Maurice King, Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture, and he wanted to know what steps had been taken because the Minister wanted to make a statement in the Legislature that production would start in the Interior soon. I told him the board would be meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) and the production permit amount, who will select the growers, and the

[ Page 608 ]

question of an Interior man on the board would be discussed."

Is it today that it was discussed? Has it been decided? Or were you basing this on some statement previously? I just don't know and I'd like to know. The fact is that I'd also like to know whether or not you were aware of that phone call — that discussion between an official of your department and the chairman of the board. This is a subject which has been discussed in this House and outside, and I'd like to know at which point you were aware of that phone call. I think it's important.

The second aspect I'd like to go into at this time is the statements of the meeting in the office, once again, of Mr. King. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit that's been put in by the chairman of the board says this:

"That present then there in the office of Mr. King were Maurice King, S.B. Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, William Wood, B.C. Department of Agriculture Poultry Commissioner, and Richard Arthur Stafford, Manager, B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, and Harry Liedtke and Les Harbidge, both members of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board."

There's a statement dealing with a fairly recent meeting in the office of one of your officials. You have made a number of statements this afternoon, Mr. Minister, about that meeting. I would like to know who you've consulted with in finding out what happened, and I'd like to know whether you were quoting them when you gave us your rendition of the facts this afternoon. I want to know this, because there's some very definite conflict of testimony. I don't suggest that you're in this instance....

MR. CUMMINGS: No testimony.

MR. DENT: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's an affidavit; it's testimony. The affidavit here is the testimony of this man. He has made it on oath; he's made a very serious statement; he feels it's important; it's the type of statement that would be accepted in any court of law. It's a serious thing. Yet there's conflicts, and we'd like to know how these conflicts have developed.

I'd like to ask you under section 12 of that affidavit, where it says:

"That I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three be appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett,"

whether you have consulted with that civil servant and asked him whether that statement is substantially true or otherwise, because it's only in this way that we're going to get to the bottom of this matter.

Section 11 — "I was there and then informed by the said Mr. Peterson, that the Hon. David Barrett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia," et cetera, et cetera. I would like to know whether you have asked your official whether or not he made such a statement. I'd like to know exactly who said what at that meeting.

The clear and obvious way for you to proceed, Mr. Minister, is to consult your officials in your department. One of these officials sits three feet from you. I'd like to know whether they have been consulted and whether or not you are quoting them when you deny the accuracy of the sworn statement of the chairman of the Broiler Marketing Board.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question was asked as to whether or not it's government policy to interfere politically with other commissions. Some of these commissions — the Purchasing Commission, for example — are set up by the Legislature itself, and political interference I'm sure would not be tolerated by anyone, in that respect.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, are you going to let me answer the Member's questions? I thought he asked them in good faith.

My view of political interference and my description I thought of what I meant by political interference was that MLAs have a responsibility to bring their problems and their constituents' problems to the Minister and to the Premier, on occasion, when they choose to, but not to deal directly with the marketing boards or with any other commissions that have been set up. That's my responsibility.

They have no right to interfere. They have a right to do everything they can to persuade me that I should do certain things or not do things and to discuss these with the Premier and to discuss them in caucus, which happens on occasions as well. But when it comes to dealing with the boards, as long as I'm Minister that's my responsibility and I take full responsibility for any dealings that I've had with the boards. That's perhaps a different way of looking at political interference than you took out of my remarks.

MR. GIBSON: I was wondering to what extent the government should interfere with the boards.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That, as I said earlier, is a question that the Members in the whole House are going to have an opportunity to discuss, hopefully in this session. This legislation did not arise out of affidavits that have been written recently, or anything like that. The legislation was actually worked on for

[ Page 609 ]

the 1973 fall session. We didn't get it completed and it was a rather heavy session, as it was. So we didn't complete it in the fall session. It is still being worked on and I hope to be able to introduce it soon. That will give us all an opportunity to decide just what we think the government should be doing in the interest of the industry and of the consumers in the way of input into the operation of marketing boards.

Was I aware of the phone call to Mr. McAninch about the poultry selection committee? Of course I was aware of it. It was made at my instructions. I had hoped, again, not with the view to settling any arguments here in the House but simply to give the House information, that the policy announced in the fall session, announced publicly since and discussed to some extent in this session, had arrived at the point where I was going to be able to say that on a certain day — next week or the week after — the business of actually selecting the producers would actually start, but simply with a view to getting that information.

I honestly did think that when two members of a three-man board met with me in my office, talked about these figures, talked about the whole 8,000 for 11 producers each, talked about the three-man committee, talked about the 5,000 secondary permit.... When two members of the three man board were in my office and when we agreed as to how all this would happen, and when they were going to go back and recommend this to their board — only one man missing — I think maybe I can be excused for thinking that it was in effect agreement, if not final agreement. I did believe at that point in time that we had arrived at agreement between myself and the Broiler Marketing Board.

If those two members have since changed their minds, I have no knowledge if they have or not, but if they feel that they may have some difficulty in convincing the third member and out-voting him, that's rather hard for me to contemplate. I still think, unless they've reversed their position or changed their position since, that we have, indeed, reached agreement as to how broiler production will start in the Interior of the province.

As to the meeting in Mr. King's office, perhaps to add a little more information to the affidavit — it may be in there and you didn't read it out: there were two other people who were at that meeting who are not mentioned. One of them was the market commissioner, Mr. Gilchrist, and the second was myself, who was not there for the full time but did take a small part in the meeting.

I've had all the report from various members of my staff that I intend to get about that meeting. I've discussed it with the Deputy who was there, with the Associate Deputy, with others who were at the meeting. I feel I have a complete enough report of that meeting, and I would remind you that that meeting was perhaps a beginning one, if you like, to arrive at a certain point in discussions before the matter came into my office to be finally resolved.

It was not until we did finally meet in my office that the figures were finally discussed, that have been announced publicly, and agreed upon between two members of the three-man board and myself.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The discussion all afternoon and most of yesterday is centered around whether or not the answers that the Premier of the province gave in response to questions put to him in the House were in fact correct and truthful.

I find it rather regrettable, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition is attempting to use the Minister of Agriculture's estimates to impeach the commitment that the Premier of this province gave to the House. He denied that he had in any way issued a dictum to the Egg Marketing Board. He denied that in response to the Member of the Social Credit opposition, and also in response to a Member of the Liberal Party, indeed the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

I was always under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that when an Hon. Member of a Legislature in this country gave a commitment in this House, that word was accepted unless some definite proof could be put forward that indeed he was telling a lie. The leader of the Liberal party takes a strange position on this. That is something that happened extraneous to the House altogether. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) rose today and attempted to inject something that the leader of the Liberal party said. He responded like an angry bear, Mr. Chairman, and called someone over here an idiot — a remark, Mr. Chairman, that I thought didn't show any particularly high degree of intellect in itself.

This is an unfortunate and regrettable debate. I think it's a sad day when the opposition uses the Premier's absence to try to impeach a statement he made in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come off it!

HON. MR. KING: I challenge the opposition: if you have evidence, produce it. The affidavits which you refer to contain nothing of a criminal nature. There have been suggestions by Members of the Liberal party in here this afternoon of jail sentences, of judicial inquiries, and if that isn't smear and innuendo, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what is.

I would expect that the legal beagles in the Liberal benches over there would have a little more integrity than that on their own part. They're calling for integrity in government and I don't think that's integrity on their own part.

They are calling for integrity of government, and I

[ Page 610 ]

don't think that's the kind of attack that is any demonstration of the integrity the people of this province would want if they had the misfortune to ever have a Liberal government formed in this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I want the House to have a restful evening and I'm sure, in view of the worry expressed earlier today about the body shops, the House will be glad to know that the Automotive Retailers Association and the ICBC have reached an agreement, so the public will be fully serviced.

I want the House to know also that the basic rate agreed on is the $14 that we offered in the first place. There was a slight increase in the paint allowance and the materials allowance.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It will all be in the paper tomorrow. (Laughter.)

Order. I must say I was indulgent, I've got to admit, in allowing a statement to be made without leave.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. King files the annual report of the Workmen's Compensation Board for the year ended December 31, 1973, as well as the financial statement for the same time period.

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents the Health Security for British Columbians Report (Foulkes Report).

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents the annual report of the Medical Services Commission of British Columbia.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.