[ Page 611 ]

CONTENTS

Public Schools Amendment Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 611

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 44).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 611

Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 43).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 611

Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 45).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 611

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 60).

Ms. Sanford

Introduction and first reading — 611

Oral questions

Government policy re Mincome for immigrants.

Mr. Bennett .611

Instructions to public re uninsured vehicles.

Mr. McGeer — 612

Possible reassignment for Mr. Bremer.

Mr. McGeer — 613

Per capita grants to municipalities.

Mr. Chabot — 613

Federal benefits to pensioners.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 614

Funds for reduction of pupil-teacher ratio.

Mr. Gibson — 614

Proposed University of Victoria law school.

Mr. Wallace — 614

Equalization of Kamloops water rates.

Mr. Fraser — 614

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Lockstead — 615

Mr. Lewis — 615

Mr. L.A. Williams — 618

Mr. Chabot — 619

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 621

Mr. Gibson — 621

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 623

Mr. McClelland — 624

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 624

Mr. Gibson — 624

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 624

Mr. McGeer — 624

Mr. Phillips — 625

Mr. L.A. Williams — 626

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 627

Mr. Gardom — 628

Mr. McClelland — 631

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 632

Mr. Gibson — 632

Mr. Nunweiler — 633

Mr. Curtis — 635

Mr. Bennett — 637

Mr. Wallace — 637

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 638

Mr. Phillips — 639

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 641

Mr. Phillips — 641

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 642

Mrs. Jordan — 642

Hon. Mr. Stupich 64S

Mrs. Jordan — 645

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 646

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): In the gallery this afternoon we have a group of students from the Windsor Senior Secondary School in North Vancouver–Seymour. They are accompanied today by two teachers, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Jonsson. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): In the Speaker's gallery today we have a group of 20 students from Vancouver City College with their sponsor, Mrs. Betsy MacDonald. They are students in a special employment orientation programme for mature women who are desirous to return back to the vocational field. I would like you to give them a warm welcome today.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome some guests that are here today from Japan. Mr. Takada, from Tokyo, is a representative of fish and wildlife clubs in Japan. Miss Wada, from the city of Wakayama, is here representing the city of Wakayama, which is the sister city of my municipality of Richmond. To them, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say "Yoku erushi mashta" — welcome to beautiful British Columbia.

MRS. WEBSTER: I would also like a warm welcome extended to 35 students from Churchill Secondary School who are going to be in the gallery at 3 p.m. with their teachers, Mr. Goddard and Mr. and Mrs. Sayer.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it isn't often that I have an opportunity to introduce to you and the House members of my family, but a cousin, Brian Curtis from Kamloops, is visiting the Legislature today. I am not sure that he has many constituency complaints to take up with the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) but he'll see him later.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to notice and welcome: Betty Jean Dube, the new mayor of Maple Ridge; Alderman Franklin; the administrator; and also our engineer.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 46 introduced, 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.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 44 introduced, 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.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Coroners Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 43 introduced, 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.

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 45 introduced, 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill 60, An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act introduced, 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.

GOVERNMENT POLICY
RE MINCOME FOR IMMIGRANTS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Human Resources. Would the Minister enlighten us as to what the present policy of the government is on eligibility for Mincome with respect to landed immigrants? And do they qualify

[ Page 612 ]

for Mincome on arrival?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): As of the middle of December, I instructed the staff that all applications from people who have immigrated to Canada who were applying for the Mincome programme were to be sent to Victoria. Since that time, no applications have been approved. I expect to be making a statement in the House sometime in the future on the total question.

MR. BENNETT: What number have qualified so far?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll have to take that as notice. I can't give you that.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental again. What instructions, if any, are in field offices now on how to deal with these inquiries? When we have people in B.C. who are citizens of B.C. requesting whether to advise relatives and parents to immigrate to this country, what response do the field offices give?

HON. MR. LEVI: The field offices have not been advised to give any responses to the questions of people whose relatives want to immigrate to this country. That's an immigration question, and there are certain things that have to be adhered to through those rules.

MR. BENNETT: I meant with respect to Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: All I said at the moment is that we have held up all of the applications in Victoria, so that we can look at them. Those are the only instructions that have been issued to the field.

MR. BENNETT: I have one more supplemental. I'd just like the Minister's rationale, because the Premier did say on radio some time ago that there had been 54 such people so qualified. What is his rationale or the government's rationale, when we give immigrants to the country a pension such that if they'd bought an annuity, like the rest of the taxpayers of B.C. had, it would be worth $24,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think that's argumentative.

INSTRUCTIONS TO PUBLIC
RE UNINSURED VEHICLES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the 300,000-plus unregistered motor vehicles as of today, what instructions has the Attorney-General given to the police of British Columbia with regard to automobiles that do not have their decals and their insurance tomorrow morning?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that question was asked yesterday and answered yesterday; it's just a repeat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, is there some new answer or something? New question? New answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: New Minister?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I think I took that question as notice. I said in answer to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that I did not think there'd been any special discussions. I can now say after investigation that there have been no discussions in my department at all that I know of in respect to that question. I presume this year would be like any other year. February 28, new licence plates — there's been nothing special.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A supplemental question to the Attorney-General. Never before have the RCMP issued notice that they would not prosecute cars left on the street. It's illegal to have a car on the street....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you asking a question?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking a question, but I'm trying to supplement it with some information. Just a moment now.

Prior to this year, if you had a car on the street after a licence year, it was illegal to do so because any car on the public highway had to have a current licence.

Now, this year the RCMP have issued a statement that there will be a 15-day grace before they will prosecute a car on the street without a licence. This was issued — I heard it over the radio yesterday.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member would have to get legal advice on that. Ask the question of a lawyer. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What if he did? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a serious matter because....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think if you consult the rules....

MR. PHILLIPS: Let him ask the Minister of

[ Page 613 ]

Health about it. Of course you have a specialty in this — you and your whole family.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A supplemental to the question asked by my colleague to the Attorney-General: Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, but I have had a number of inquiries and I understand that there is a period between 12:01 midnight tonight and 12:05 when no one in British Columbia is insured. I'd ask the Attorney-General to confirm whether this is in fact true. And if it is true, what instructions has he given the RCMP if there is an accident in that four-minute period? Are they to falsify their records?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, nobody should falsify records.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, is there a four-minute period when people aren't insured?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know. I really don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check with a lawyer — that's what they are there for.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member is right, that's a legal question. You are asking me to give legal advice and I can't do that. I'm not qualified. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: It's the first thing the Attorney-General's said in years that I'd vote for.

Mr. Speaker, I'm quite serious in pursuing this matter, and perhaps I might transfer the question to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications, because I understand this is a matter of serious legal concern. As I say, if I am wrong, please correct me. But I also understand that there is a four-minute period in the transitional area when no one in British Columbia will be insured. I would like to know whether or not anything has been done to take care of this matter, or whether people are to falsify the actual time of the accident if they have it. It's all very well to talk about and laugh about the qualities of the Attorney-General, but I think this is a matter of serious concern and should be answered.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't see how you can ask a question that asks for the solution of a legal proposition. According to Beauchesne you can't do that, but you are doing it anyway.

MRS. JORDAN: But is there a four-minute period, Mr. Speaker, when no one in British Columbia is insured?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's a legal problem. If the Minister wants to answer it, okay.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I take the question as notice and I'll check and see whether or not there is a four-minute period. If there is a four-minute period, I'm sure there is some legal answer to it somewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly reply by 12:05 tonight? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: It's 12:01 to 12:05 a.m.

POSSIBLE REASSIGNMENT FOR MR. BREMER

MR. McGEER: A question for the Minister of Education. Today is the last day of official employment of Mr. Bremer. I wonder if the Minister of Education has a new assignment for him that she would like to announce today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I have no announcement to make.

PER CAPITA GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs who's relaxing over there. Regarding the per capita grants to municipalities: there's been an allocation of a $2 increase this year. I am informed that the additional costs of the preparation of the voters lists of the community of Golden, the Town of Golden, is $1.06 which leaves them only 94 cents...

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, they are seceding.

MR. CHABOT: ...from your generosity. I was wondering whether there is going to be some kind of consideration, some kind of an additional grant to offset this additional cost which has been imposed on this municipality.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There is provincial participation in the preparation of the lists. Roughly, in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent of the cost will be borne by the province for the enumeration. Forms for the enumeration will be supplied by the government.

MR. CHABOT: Just a short supplementary. In other words, out of this $1.06 the Department of Municipal Affairs will pick up 53 cents. It is still quite a burden. I think in a small town there should be

[ Page 614 ]

some consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: That doesn't sound like a question. It sounded like a statement.

MR. CHABOT: No. Is there going to be additional consideration, Mr. Minister, beyond the present guidelines that are established for sharing in the cost of the preparation of the voters list?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Continual consideration is given.

FEDERAL BENEFITS TO PENSIONERS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A question to the Minister of Human Resources. Would the Minister indicate whether or not the pensioners of this province will be receiving the full benefit of the forthcoming increase from the federal government, or is the provincial government going to gobble it up as in the past?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, it will be passed on.

FUNDS FOR REDUCTION
OF PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of Education, in view of the welcome news that she gave to the House a week ago on February 20, page 351 of Hansard: "...where it is evident that provision has been made for the reduction of pupil-teacher ratios, supplementary grants will be made if this provision raises the level of local taxation beyond a reasonable level in the district."

Mr. Speaker, my question for the assistance of local school boards in their planning: would the Minister specify what would be an unreasonable level of taxation, and what percentage increase, and what would be the timing of the availability of these new funds?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm not able to answer either of those two questions for you at this time until we meet with the school boards and the survey is completed.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary: then has the Minister no figure in mind as to what level of taxation, what increase would be unreasonable?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Not at this time. As I say, we will be meeting with each individual school board.

PROPOSED UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
LAW SCHOOL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's rather an important question to the Minister of Education with regard to the new law school to be established at the University of Victoria, for which there are already 500 applications. Has the Minister had recent discussions with U. Vic authorities regarding the financing of the school? Is she aware that unless an immediate allocation of funds is made, the school cannot possibly open this fall?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Members grasp not their microphones, but the rod each time. It is very difficult on the transmission.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I have had numerous discussions with U. Vic over the law school. They did place an item in their budget for the start, the phasing in of the law school. I understand that they did have difficulty finding a dean which has put back the timing several months. So really it basically is not a matter of finance. It depends on when they are ready to start in on the first phase.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, my information differs considerably from that. The fact is that the matter of the issue of appointing the dean has, in fact, been settled or is on the point of being settled — information I was given yesterday. The information I was asked to convey to the Minister related intimately and totally to the fact that they can't afford to open the law school as the budget exists at this point in time unless there are additional allocations of money. It is not the question of staff, but the question of money. And I am only repeating information I received from a very....

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a question?

MR. WALLACE: I would ask the Minister if she would reconsider her answer to the first question in the light of what I have asked her a second time.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if I could take that under consideration. I'm intending to have further discussions with U. Vic.

EQUALIZATION OF
KAMLOOPS WATER RATES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Could the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs give the House any assurance that government grants will be available for the City of Kamloops to equalize the water rates for the residents of Barnhart Vale, who will be paying

[ Page 615 ]

$15 a month when the rest of the residents of the greater City of Kamloops will be paying $6?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't give any assurances what the levels of the water rates will be in the City of Kamloops. That will be decided by the City of Kamloops. I can advise you that notification was sent to the mayor of Kamloops that the cost of the purchase of the Sunrise Water District is being refunded by the province to the City of Kamloops. I think it was in the neighbourhood of $195,000, and with this, presumably, the city will be in a position to bring in the same rate in Barnhart Vale as they do in the rest of Kamloops. Whether they do this or not, I don't know.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)

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

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I would like to ask the Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) a question regarding tax assessments on agricultural land frozen under the agricultural land reserve.

I'd like to know if the Hon. Minister is having these discussions perhaps with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) regarding this question — on land that is presently frozen under the agricultural land reserve, land that cannot be subdivided and is still, in some instances, being taxed at the full improved rate.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I think this House has gone through several days of smear by the opposition....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to use unparliamentary words, and I'd ask him to withdraw the word "smear."

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I think the tactics that have been used by the opposition have been far from credible.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "smear."

MR. LEWIS: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw the word "smear."

Some of the statements made by the opposition have been incredible, Mr. Chairman, and to my amazement the press yesterday failed to touch on the fact that I brought before this House a report from the independent egg survey committee, and pointed out that the past Minister of Agriculture that sits in the House at this time...

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: ...did much the same type of thing as they're accusing us of doing. Yet the press never covered that in the paper, and I often wonder why.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you running the press now, as well as the chickens?

MR. LEWIS: No, I'm not running the press. But I think that fair treatment is fair.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): With that I sympathize.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not one who likes to delve into the past. I think I'm an MLA that likes to look to the future. But I think it's time that I go back a few years and read some of the statements made by the opposition in regard to marketing boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: This is dated Friday, February 25, 1972. It says:

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Who was the government then?

MR. LEWIS:

"B.C.'s natural products marketing system was branded ridiculous, stupid and insane in the Legislature Thursday by Social Credit and NDP Members."

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit said that?

MR. LEWIS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They said that!

MR. LEWIS: It's amazing.

"The MLAs accused the government of coddling the egg marketing system which they said works against the northern B.C. producers..."

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Hear, hear!

[ Page 616 ]

MR. LEWIS: "...discourages younger people from entering the agricultural field, and protects the wholesaler more than the farmer and the consumer."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEWIS: Well, we'll go on a little further. It names people:

"The attack came just before the House approved the spending estimates totalling $11.2 million for the Minister of Agriculture, Cyril Shelford."

It seems funny that they were in the estimates of that Minister of Agriculture at that time and they were taking a different stand at that time. It says:

"Dudley Little, Social Credit for Skeena.... "

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What did he say?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Oh, stop attacking the dead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: It said:

"Mr. Little...noted that a Terrace farmer is facing a charge in court for overproduction of eggs, which could cost him $63,000 if found guilty. 'If he loses his case he'll be out of business, and we in the north will be dependent on the south for our eggs,' Little said."

MR. STEVES: Did Dudley say that?

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Little said that, yes.

"'The people in the north are being hurt by this ridiculous and stupid legislation and by the stupid members in that department which allow this situation to continue,' he charged."

It sounds to me like he was an outspoken Member. "The Skeena Member called for a division of the province into northern and southern districts, each with its own egg production quotas, to remove the necessity of northern producers buying production quotas from the lower mainland if they want to sell their eggs." Now we have another Social Credit Member — they seem to have quite a few outspoken ones — George Mussallem, from Dewdney.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yea, old George.

MR. LEWIS: He said that just because the Legislature was stupid in passing the Act, it needn't stay stupid. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: He said that marketing boards are given too much power by the government and are run by small cliques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: To me, it is astounding to have Members of the past government standing up and saying that; and now they're turning around and talking out of the other side of their mouths.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: We've got one more Social Credit Member here that spoke out too — Herb Bruch. You know, I'm almost starting to like Socreds.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Herb Bruch from Esquimalt. He's no longer with us. I don't know why.

MR. CHABOT: I wish he was.

MR. LEWIS: He said it is wrong to leave control of production up to the farmer alone because that doesn't take into account the housewife or the consumer...

MR. STEVES: Good for her.

MR. LEWIS: ...because the farmers have got a cosy little package of production. They are hurting the opportunity of young people who want to go into the agricultural field.

Now I'd like to also quote a Member sitting on the government side of the House. You know, from the way he spoke yesterday, I don't think he waffled. I think he said what he meant in opposition; when he becomes part of the government, he also says the same thing. It says:

"Bob Williams, NDP for Vancouver East, said the Agriculture department is just one of a number of departments under the Social Credit administration bungling around in trading in quotas. 'The same thing is happening in the forest industry, ' he said. Williams said quotas should somehow revert to the Crown..."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEWIS:

"...so that prospective farmers wouldn't

[ Page 617 ]

have to raise a large amount of capital needed to buy out another farmer."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Yes. I'd like to go back to February 24, the day before that, when Mr. Little spoke in the House. I'd like to point out again that Mr. Little was a Social Credit Member at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did big Dudley say?

MR. LEWIS: He said:

"Mr. Little repeated the charge that northern farmers are being discriminated against because the Egg Marketing Board is controlled by the farmers in the Fraser Valley. Little said that northern farmers are being told to buy quota in the Fraser Valley."

Mr. Chairman, this is what I was referring to yesterday. If the farmer in the Interior of the province wished to supply the increased demand by the consumers in that area, he was put in the position where he was told, "To do this you must buy the rights from a farmer in the Fraser Valley" — at $350 a case at that time.

"Little said, 'Northern farmers are being told to buy quotas in the Fraser Valley. Nothing could be more damn stupid.'"

That's awful language, but that's what he said.

"He said that farmers are getting fed up. 'What happens,' Little said, 'is that the stores in the north put Fraser Valley eggs on sale rather than eggs produced in the area. And when the farmer complains, they are told to buy southern quotas. The Ministry of Agriculture,' the Social Credit Member charged, 'is bogged down in a mire of manure and bureaucracy.'" I'll have to take my hat off to that Member because I think he knew what he was talking about.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): We're about to have chicken feathers right now.

MR. LEWIS: We also have a little quotation from a Liberal Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Negative, negative!

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Are they in the House?

MR. LEWIS: He was very outspoken about the Minister of Agriculture interfering. "This should never happen, " he said. "Keep your nose out of marketing board business."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. LEWIS: It was Mr. Williams. He spoke yesterday.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. LEWIS: It says, "L.A. Williams, Vancouver–Howe Sound, also lambasted the marketing boards."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: I'm starting to like you too, Allan. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: He said there was a conflict between the broiler board and the B.C. egg board. He said they are working at cross purposes.

"'The broiler board,' Williams said, 'controls not only the producer price for broilers, but also the price to the broiler producers of the day-old chicks.'"

Now that was a cosy arrangement, too. The broiler producers with the Broiler Marketing Board were able to say to the buyer of their product what they were going to pay, and they were in a position to tell the hatchery what they would pay for their chicks. That's real democracy within a marketing board.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Do you have any suggestion?

MR. LEWIS: Then Mr. Williams says, "When are you going to do something for the farmer?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sure, sure.

MR. LEWIS:

"Williams also took Shelford to task for the fact that the provinces annually import up to 1.5 million turkey eggs rather than encourage the development of the provincial turkey industry. The Liberal MLA said the marketing boards are to blame for the failure, and urged the Minister to take actions to correct the situation."

[ Page 618 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, terrible.

MR. LEWIS: That wasn't good, Allan. That was two years ago.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh! That's different.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS:

"Williams said he agreed that national policies were needed to improve the plight of the farmers, but he said this did not relieve the province of its responsibility to take independent action."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, interference.

MR. LEWIS: Yes, interference. It really amazes me that anybody could stand up in this House and ask a Minister of the Crown to interfere with one of those marketing boards. He said, "All the Minister does is complain about what Ottawa doesn't do."

You know, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the opposition at the present time is like a flock of chickens that have gone into a moult. (Laughter.) They're still eating, that's quite apparent. They've lost quite a few of their tail feathers, and the most productive thing they can do is scratch around in the dirt.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I am very pleased to follow the Hon. Member for Shuswap and I'm delighted that he went through the history of the debates that have gone on in this House, and outside this House, concerning the performance of product marketing boards in British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, if you listen very carefully to what the Hon. Member said, I think it was probably the clearest criticism of the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) that could be voiced anyplace — and from one of his own Members.

Yes, it's true that in the days of the former administration Members on both sides of the House, Social Credit, NDP and Liberal, raised serious questions about the performance of marketing boards and the way in which they administered their responsibilities on behalf of the producer segment; that's the farmers.

Well, here we are, 18 months after the election of a new government which was going to do all kinds of wonderful things, and we've still got exactly the same complaints. What's the Minister been doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Trying to change it but you won't give him a chance.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's what we've been arguing about, Mr. Chairman, over the past two days; that the Minister of Agriculture, while he may be attempting to do something positive in this respect, is being interfered with by the political actions of the Premier of the province.

I hope that eventually the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) will recognize exactly what has taken place by reason of the political interference of the Premier, of the Member for Shuswap, the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) and other northern and Interior Members of the government party.

The Member for Shuswap would seem to suggest that somehow or other it's a criticism of me and other Members who in the past have asked the government to do something about the marketing schemes. Yet that very Member was a member of the Egg Marketing Board and the Broiler Marketing Board. He knows perfectly well how these schemes are established, and he knows perfectly well the authority that the government has to change those schemes.

He knows that the schemes are established by an order-in-council. He knows that the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act gives the cabinet of this province — the cabinet, Mr. Chairman — the right to change the schemes.

That is not political interference. Is it political interference every time the cabinet exercises its lawful authority? It is political interference, Mr. Chairman, when one Member of the cabinet in a private meeting tells people what they are going to do. That's political interference. But it is not political interference when this executive council meets and decides to amend orders-in-council in order to improve the laws of this province. And that's where the problem is.

Even the Minister of Agriculture is guilty in this respect. He met with the Broiler Marketing Board — and this is not something that occurred when he was a neophyte Minister and perhaps could be excused by inexperience or lack of knowledge. These are matters which have occurred inside the last month.

He met with members of the Broiler Marketing Board and they were directed by him, requested by him, or suggested.... I'm not going to play with semantics with the Hon. Minister. I say he directed them to place on their board a member from Vancouver Island and a member from the Interior. Mr. Chairman, such an action would be unlawful because the order-in-council clearly establishes the size of the board and the way in which they shall be elected.

The board doesn't have any power to control this; but, Mr. Chairman, the executive council of this

[ Page 619 ]

province has the authority to control it. If they want to amend that scheme, let them amend the order-in-council. Let's do things lawfully, not as the result of political pressure emanating from the office of the Premier and responded to by the Minister of Agriculture.

The same thing applies, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the three-man committee which the Minister suggested should be established by the Broiler Marketing Board in order to determine which of the producers in the Kamloops area — which of the two producers in the Kamloops area — were to enjoy the benefits of a significant permit for the production of broiler fowl. And the Members know what the figures were that were suggested by the members.

Two producers were to be given the right to produce at the 11,000-unit figure. Others were to go down to 5,000. In order to select the lucky producers the Minister suggested that there should be a three-man committee. He expected that the Broiler Marketing Board would respond to that demand.

Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister should well know this — and if he doesn't, his senior staff should well know and have advised him — that this is one of the powers that the Broiler Marketing Board has under the order-in-council which specifically provides that that authority cannot be delegated to any other person or group of persons. So to have established a committee for this purpose was also contrary to the law.

Yes, we want changes in the marketing board operations, just the same as the Member for Shuswap wants changes — in the same manner as the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) wants changes. But we want changes that are done lawfully by the proper exercise of the authority of government, not by backroom political interference by individual Members of the government party, whether they be in the cabinet or not.

We are entitled to hear in this committee, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister of Agriculture, why at this stage, when the law and the opportunity for him is clear, he has insisted upon this backdoor method of attempting to resolve the problems of marketing boards on an ad hoc basis.

Ad hockery can only produce further chaos so far as marketing boards are concerned, and further chaos is not going to assist the producers in this province, or the consumers, and it's certainly not going to resolve the problems which the Member for Shuswap and other northern Interior Members have suggested exist in this province today.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hon. Minister is not going to have this vote until he satisfies us that he is running his department in accordance with the law and is prepared to take, in proper time, those steps which need to be taken to make the natural products marketing scheme in this province work.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I've heard frequently from the Member for Sorrento regarding the egg and broiler situation in the province. He talks differently here than he does on the outside. He appears to have a split personality relative to this problem and its solution, from statements made by the Minister. He happens to write a little newspaper column called the "Victoria Commentary." He says:

"While on the subject of marketing, I'm certainly not pleased with the recent snow-job handed the Interior regarding the establishment of a broiler industry here. All those I talked to from the Interior who attended the meeting in Vernon on the 23rd were utterly shocked to think that anything like this could happen in a democratic society.

"For those who are not familiar with the situation, suffice to say the broiler board and the Department of Agriculture saw fit to put together a programme that would not only give the Interior agriculture no control over its own industry, but would not even establish viable units within the Interior.

"Somewhere between the Minister and representatives from government attending that meeting, there are lies and contradictions."

That's what the Member for Shuswap is saying on the outside. Why isn't he standing on his feet in this assembly asking the Minister where those lies are? Is he trying to project a different image on the outside for political reasons? Is that what he's trying to do?

It's quite obvious that that man has a split personality when he's outside this chamber. He's certainly shown a great deal of concern for the egg producers in this province. For the egg producers of Sorrento he's concerned; there's no doubt about that. He's concerned about the fact that the egg producer in Sorrento must truck his fowl to the lower mainland, and that transportation costs absorb the value of the bird. So I don't blame that Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) standing up in this assembly and fighting for that egg producer from Sorrento. But he's fighting for himself when he's doing that. These are the type of self-interest arguments I've never seen in this assembly before.

Now he's talking about the establishment of a poultry processing plant. Why should it necessarily be in your constituency or in your backyard, Mr. Member? I think that it should be carefully researched as to the location of this plant, and it shouldn't be established on parochial, political boundary lines. That's what you intend doing; that's exactly what you intend doing. It will be right in the backyard of the Member for Shuswap.

[ Page 620 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right in his yard.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. It could be in my riding, it could be in the Cariboo, it could be in the Prince George area. Why should it be in an NDP riding?

Then they talk about the establishment of broiler quotas. There's going to be 11 broiler quotas established in the Interior of British Columbia. Are these going to be put into narrow, political, parochial boundaries such as in the Kamloops-Shuswap area? These are new quotas being established.

What is wrong with establishing broiler quotas in the east or the west Kootenays? What is wrong with establishing quotas in the Cariboo? What is wrong with establishing quotas in the Peace River or in Terrace? Are we going to establish quotas on the basis of political whim? Is that what we're going to do? It appears that way when one examines the memo which the Minister of Agriculture wrote to the Premier.

Talking about the great Minister of twist over there, that Minister has a great ability of twisting and that Minister has no respect for the truth at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that last statement that the Minister has no respect for the truth.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when I said that I was just thinking of the judgment brought down by Justice Anderson, who did state in his judgment that that particular Minister simply did not tell the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to withdraw his statement.

MR. CHABOT: ...the Minister simply does not tell the truth, but if you object, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the statement that the Minister does not tell the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River to withdraw the implication that the Minister was not telling the truth, and also the word "twist" at this time on the floor of this House. I'm making the ruling on the grounds that there is an imputation of a bad motive on the part of the Minister. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about broilers and the establishing of broiler quotas in the Interior of British Columbia. I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: Oh, sorry, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Member — I'm making this as a request from the Chair — to withdraw the implication that the Minister was not telling the truth.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've asked the Member to unqualifiedly withdraw the remarks before he makes any further remarks.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you weren't listening when I did. Mr. Chairman, you weren't listening.

AN HON. MEMBER: What more do you want?

MR. CHABOT: I'd have to make the statement again before I could withdraw it again, Mr. Chairman. You know that!

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Member has made his withdrawal then we will accept it from the Chair. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: Now, that Minister over there, as I was saying just a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, is attempting to leave the impression that this group over here is not in favour of the broadening of the quota allocation on broilers and eggs in the Interior and northern part of this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): You have a new policy, have you?

MR. CHABOT: He's a master when it comes to twisting the facts, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: No Member on this side of the House at any time has ever suggested that they're opposed to the broadening....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no question in my mind that the Hon. Member was stating that the Minister was twisting the facts and not telling the truth. I would ask him to withdraw the phrase, "twisting the facts." Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that phrase?

MR. CHABOT: Withdraw what remark, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Twisting the facts."

[ Page 621 ]

MR. CHABOT: It was quite obvious he was attempting to leave....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I just asked the Hon. Member to withdraw the phrase.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you know, he was distorting the facts. You know that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw the phrase?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you have me all twisted up. I don't know what you want me to do now. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make it simple. Just say: "I withdraw the phrase, 'twisting the facts.' "

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw the phrase, "twisting the facts."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, he attempted no doubt in my mind to misreflect (Laughter) statements made on this side of the House. Time and again, not only during this session but on many occasions in the past, Members on this side of the House, or Members of this particular political party, have stated that they are in favour of the broadening of the egg and broiler quotas to assist increased production in the Interior of British Columbia.

My question to the Minister is: in the broadening of the base, and we're talking primarily about broilers at this time, will consideration be given to other regions in British Columbia for the production of these broilers, or will it be restricted exclusively on political whim and on political boundaries?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we're being treated to a similar kind of thing that's been going on. I'd like to use an analogy to do with this "gloom and doom" bunch with all of their forecasts. The Social Credit opposition over there are talking about the boards that they set up, promulgated, centred in Chilliwack, and all of that kind of situation. Now it becomes a great point of criticism when something has actually happened.

Mr. Chairman, let's look at what's happening outside today. Has anybody been near a motor-vehicle branch today? Where are the line-ups? Where are the line-ups that were there in 1910 to 1972? — That's an analogy, Mr. Chairman, for the gloom and doom forecasting that's been going on across there. You see, there were line-ups before, but there are no line-ups now, because it's working, Mr. Chairman — just like this Minister's department will be working.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister be seated?

HON. MR. COCKE: Love to. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask the Hon. Minister to confine his remarks to vote 3.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, do you not use analogies from time to time in your work?

Anyway, I will carry on. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition has been given far too much latitude to discuss questions that are well outside of this vote. I was just trying to suggest to you that, analogous of what's going on in the Agriculture department, this gloom and doom prophecy has been shown elsewhere and it has shown to be false. If it's good, it's bad. That's their situation.

Having said that, I think that we're in good hands with the Minister of Agriculture. We're going in the direction where the farmers are going to have a future in this province, because prior to this the farmers were going right down the tube.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, last night I had occasion to pose two questions to the Minister of Agriculture. He started to answer only one of them, which was the question of what would be proper and what would be improper influence by the government on a marketing board. He assured us that there will be occasion later on in this session to debate that question more completely, which I welcome.

He didn't deal with what I consider the major question, the more important question in the history of this matter of the meetings relating to the Egg Marketing Board and to the Broiler Marketing Board; and that is a question of a government cover-up of what happened and a question of being a good deal less than frank with the House about what happened.

To me it's a simple question of the integrity of the government. I want to reiterate to the Minister what the facets of this question are.

The first point is that the Premier has said certain things to this House, which I quoted last night and will again today, about what actually transpired at those meetings.

The second fact, which is public knowledge and has been read into the record of this House, is that sworn affidavits have been made giving directly opposite stories about the Premier's role in those meetings. Here we have conflicting evidence on a question of great importance, basically on a question of the Premier's word.

[ Page 622 ]

How can we solve it? The solution seems to me to lie in the fact that there were other witnesses there — witnesses who haven't yet given testimony. Public servants were at both of these meetings.

The route suggested by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) yesterday, the route of a public inquiry, would allow these public servants to give their testimony on this important question.

But perhaps no public inquiry would be needed if the Minister could recall more clearly what happened at these meetings, because the Minister was there and he can help settle this. I hope he will do so. And I'd like to recount once again the conflicting facts:

We have, first of all, the Premier's statement to this House on February 25 saying, speaking of eggs and the meeting of October 26, 1972: "Mr. Speaker, they were not asked or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything."

The same day, in speaking of the same meeting he said: "I told no one to draft an agreement."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano to standing order 43 which states as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech...."

Now, I am just drawing this to his attention for his guidance.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to once again remind the Minister, since it seems to have escaped his attention last night since he made no comment on this particular question that I asked him in his summing up remarks, I am trying to recall to his attention the facts of the case on which I would like him to comment.

If I may continue to make these rather brief quotations from the record of the House: "That I told no one to draft an agreement, " on February 25, the words of the Premier. And on February 26: "But I do distinctly recall in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I made no order or did not order any solution."

Mr. Chairman, those are very precise, direct, apparently crystal-clear recollections. The Minister has told us that his recollections of those meetings are not crystal clear, but they seem to have been improving during the course of this debate, and perhaps he has had opportunity to consult with some of his officials who were at the meeting.

I will once again ask him, in hopes that more details have come to his mind, how this might be reconciled — the very clear words of the Premier — with the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon saying that at the meeting of October 26, 1972, he was informed by Mr. Barrett, in the following words: "'There will be no court case against Sy Kovachich,' or similar words to the same effect," which was a direct contradiction.

"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.

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

Direction contradiction, Mr. Chairman. I ask the Minister if he would please comment on that contradiction, as a man who was at that meeting.

The testimony of the Minister is obviously needed if another point of the affidavit is correct where the man who swore the affidavit, Mr. Brunsdon, swore at point 15 that the Premier said, "'If anything is said outside of this office I will deny every word I said,' or similar words to the same effect." The testimony of the Minister on this point is clearly very important. That's eggs; that's October, 1972.

Then we have a much more recent case. If the Minister has difficulty with 1972, perhaps the recent events of 1973 and early 1974 will be simpler.

Again, the words of the Premier are very specific with reference to broilers, with reference to the meeting with certain personnel of the Broiler Marketing Board and the Minister and some public servants.

The Premier says: "I told no one to draft an agreement. They were not ordered. They were not asked or ordered or suggested or ordered to do anything."

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, that was with respect to the eggs. I will have to move on to the broilers.

The Premier said on February 26: "Mr. Speaker, I didn't order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers." Later on, the same day: " I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas."

And then again, we have in the affidavit of Mr. McAninch a clear statement that he was told by the deputy Minister of 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

[ Page 623 ]

5,000 birds per cycle."

I would remind the Minister again.... And I am not certain whether the Premier was at this particular meeting relating to broilers, but certainly the Minister was.

I would ask the Minister: does he recall that having been said? And if he does not recall it being said, would he consult with his Deputy who is quoted in the affidavit, and report to the House the recollection of his Deputy as to whether or not he said those words to Mr. McAninch? If that is the case, how are they to be squared with the statement on February 26 of the Premier that he did not order anyone to be given any quotas related to broilers?

Mr. McAninch adds: "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."

As the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out earlier on today, where is the legal authority for this? Clearly, if the executive council had passed an order-in-council, this could have been done under the authority of the Natural Products Marketing Act.

Apparently the Premier and the Hon. Minister preferred to proceed in a way which did not require the government to take responsibility for this particular action. They wished to have the power without the responsibility.

Again there is the contradiction. The words of the Premier: "Mr. Speaker, I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate broiler quotas." A direct contradiction on which I most earnestly ask the Minister to comment, to answer, to give his recollection of these two incidents — one relating to the Egg Marketing Board and one relating to the Broiler Marketing Board.

If for some reason the Minister feels unable to answer, then, Mr. Chairman, we come back to the suggestion of the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that there must be a public inquiry to hear those public servants who were at those meetings and who might be expected to give clearer testimony than we have had from the Minister.

I believe that this must be cleared up.

There are many other important points of discussion in relation to marketing boards: in respect of territorial distribution of production; with respect to government control of marketing boards. But the point of supreme importance, it seems to me, is the question of whether the government is being frank with the House and with the people of British Columbia.

The direct contradictions between the sworn testimony of four citizens of British Columbia and the statements of the Premier in this House are ones that perhaps can be cleared up by the Minister. I hope he can do so because the one thing the public cannot stand is a government that is less than honest in its dealings with the Legislature and with the public.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I am tempted, but I won't take umbrage at the suggestion that the answers have not been straight up to this point.

A question was asked earlier about tax and assessments, which is not in my department, but it is something that my department is quite interested in — the effect of assessments on farms, on farming, on the agricultural industry. It is something about which I have asked a couple of members of my staff to do a little research and give me some indication as to what effect they feel the assessment procedures and the taxing procedures have on the farming industry and to give me some recommendations.

The questions asked by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — three of them, really — made some good points, except that they've all been made before.

First, he asked if I directed that there be a board member from the Interior of the province. No such direction was given to the board. There was discussion of it in my office, and agreement between myself and the two members of the board who were there that we not proceed along those lines.

Secondly, the instruction that two producers get 20,000 and that nine get 5,000 — there was discussion of this at different times, but agreement was reached again that 11 producers would have 8,000 each. So at no time did I instruct that these figures be the ones.

Thirdly, he asked if I instructed the board that a selection committee be named rather than have the board do it. Again, there was discussion on this point as well, and on this point we did agree. As I reported yesterday, in my office there were two members of a three-man board. We did reach agreement on that point rather than instruction.

In no case were there instructions. As you say, I didn't have the authority to instruct. But I certainly had the responsibility, I felt, to discuss these matters with them and to arrive at an agreement. And we did.

The question was raised by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) — he's out now but I might as well deal with it — as to location of the plant. As I answered yesterday, it will not be on the basis of politics.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) raised the question about some land in her community. We haven't heard from the mayor yet — we may have by now, but not by this morning. The selection of producers will not be on political grounds.

Will consideration be given to other regions? Yes. Consideration will be given to other regions by this

[ Page 624 ]

particular administration and by the board in co-operation with the administration. Will it be on the basis of political considerations? It hasn't been up until now. I told the House yesterday we would go by the chronological list that the broiler board has in their hands — a list of some 87 that they've had for quite some time — and that it would be on the basis of that chronological list as the records are available from the broiler board.

The questions from the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). The affidavits are a recollection of a conversation by certain people. In the record for the last two days I've given my recollections of those conversations, as near as I can recall them. I'm not going to repeat all that. I suggest to the Member that is interested in this — I'm not trying to evade his questions — simply that he read Hansard rather than have me repeat the whole thing again.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I have just one question of the Minister. If there will be no political considerations in the selection of the growers in the Okanagan-Kamloops area, why doesn't the Minister allow the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board to make the selections from those 87 names? Why the committee? What's wrong with the Broiler Marketing Board, which has no political concern? Why can't they make those selections from those 87 names instead of your committee, chosen by you?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Rightly or wrongly, there is some feeling in the minds of the people in the Interior that the Broiler Marketing Board has not been trying to encourage production in the Interior of the province. Rightly or wrongly, I say, it has been the case.

I suggested to the board, to take the heat off them so that they wouldn't be carrying the can for any of this selection, that I name a special committee and that the board be invited to partake fully in the discussions and in the interviews, but that when it comes to actually naming the people, the heat is off them and on my committee and subsequently on myself. You asked for the reason; that's the reason.

MR. McCLELLAND: Will the board ever be given back its responsibility which it deserves and which it should have by law to make those kind of selections again, once the programme is established in that area?

HON. MR. STUPICH: This particular selection is for a very special situation to get it started. Again, I reported yesterday that once this has been accomplished — and it's one of the points we discussed with the board — we would then have three separate lists at their suggestion — one list for each of the producing areas — and that the new entrance into the broiler production programme would be on the basis of the broiler board policy, or rather the association policy as administered by the board.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, concerning the Minister's reply to me, I say to him, through you, that I have carefully studied the Hansard blues for the last couple of days, and I am unable to find the answers to those questions that I just posed.

It's very simple. Having studied all these documents, would the Minister simply say whether the affidavits are wrong or whether the Premier was wrong? Or is there some other explanation? Or will he support a public inquiry to find out what did happen?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I can do no more than recall the conversation as I recall it. I can't recall it for the people who have sworn out affidavits; nor can I recall it for the Premier. You've asked me to recall it as I recall it. That's what I did and that's what's in Hansard.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, you gave a little advice to the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) about being tedious and repetitious, not challenging the fact that he was, but suggesting he should be familiar with that rule.

Our difficulty is that we're discussing the estimates of a Minister who has a self-admitted problem of memory. Our questions really are designed to assist his recall.

We have an issue here that in the final analysis transcends any issue of policy that will appear before this or any other government in British Columbia or any other jurisdiction. That simple issue is one of honesty.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House — not just this year but in previous years — have been quick to acknowledge the faults of the marketing boards. Members from all sides of the House have agreed that more justice is required for Interior and northern Members of the agricultural community. That's not what we're disputing.

We're disputing, first of all, what methods are appropriate for a government to pursue to correct these injustices.

Secondly, we are questioning the integrity of a government which offers one account of how these measures were corrected, when citizens of this province provide sworn testimony of a completely different kind.

Mr. Chairman, we ask the Minister to concentrate for just a short time not on the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson). He's had his opportunity for political input. But we're dealing with some of the consequences of political muscle

[ Page 625 ]

applied outside the laws of this province, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) ably demonstrated to the House this afternoon. We need the undistracted concentration of the Minister on the events surrounding those affidavits.

Mr. Chairman, as the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pointed out, sworn testimony gave an account of the kind of political muscle used.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Did the board give in to it?

MR. McGEER: Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we had a denial by the Premier of this province that such tactics were used. The Minister who was responsible, who perhaps was paying no better attention than he is right now, was the Minister responsible for implementing what the affidavit alleges were dictates of the Premier.

Somebody, and it may be somebody in high office, is not telling the truth, or there were some mistaken impressions or recollections of the event. We have checked with people who were present at that meeting, people who absolutely corroborate the substance of those affidavits. That's why the Minister's ability to recall becomes so vital if he is to have us accept his judgment that no public inquiry is necessary.

If the Minister can recall and settle a question, then there is no need to hear from these other witnesses about the issue of truth in government. Two Ministers of the Crown, correctly recalling events, might indeed settle the question. Instead, of course, the Minister has left the Premier relatively defenceless because of his poor memory.

He has acknowledged that the people who laid the affidavits were recalling as best they could and he didn't dispute that they were telling the truth as they understood it. That leaves the Premier pretty far out on a limb. Of course, we will be asking these same questions of the Premier.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You don't accept the Premier's word in the House?

MR. McGEER: The Premier's word? I merely say that there is an absolute discrepancy. If that is there, we are asking the Minister whose word he takes because he was at the meeting. We weren't there. But, Mr. Chairman, even the Attorney-General cannot question that there was a dispute of facts between the Premier and the man who laid the affidavit.

Therefore, the question must come forward: is someone not telling the truth? Surely the Attorney-General would be the last one to dispute that truth in government is the most important issue that ever could come before parliament. Would he dispute that? No, the Attorney-General won't dispute that — no Attorney-General would.

It is a fair question, Mr. Chairman. Who does resolve these questions when truth in government is legitimately brought into question?

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) had a very great deal to do with initiating the events we are discussing now: an Interior producer, one of those no doubt legitimately aggrieved by the division of production in British Columbia; a former member of the Egg Marketing Board, who, no doubt, had difficulty getting his point of view accepted by the board; a man who chose the political route and understood well that it was a way of accomplishing what could not be accomplished easily through these more regularized channels.

Now, that Member, as well as the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, understands the larger issue of integrity in government. Just as he brought forward to the House and to the Premier and to the Minister his grievances on behalf of those people who could not get what they believe to be justice, so must we bring forward the issue of integrity when those who served on the boards were muscled in the Premier's office. He brought forward his issue as a producer against the Egg Marketing Board, but we must bring forward the larger issue not just of political interference with that board but of the government exerting that political interference and then trying to pass it off as just a little bit of problem-solving as gentlemen between gentlemen — an agreement helping them out of a problem,

How often, Mr. Chairman, have you or the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) been helped to solve a problem by somebody threatening to kick the "censored" out of you. It's the way gentlemen solve disputes, you know. A gentlemen's agreement.

Well, we ask once more for recall on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. Does he remember the Premier saying he would kick the "censored" out of this group if they didn't reach a settlement that day? Does he remember the Premier saying that if these people said anything outside the Premier's office, the Premier would deny every word of it? We ask the Minister to think and tell us whether or not those things really happened.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not really interested in entering into this chicken-and-egg warfare, but there is one thing I would like the Minister of Agriculture to answer if he possibly can. The Premier of this province said in no way was there political interference with either the egg board or the broiler processing board, in no way was there political interference. Yet yesterday afternoon — and correct me if I am wrong — the Minister of Agriculture alluded to the fact that there had indeed been

[ Page 626 ]

political interference on this board. And he was proud of the fact; he said that is what politics are for.

I'd like to ask the Minister: if the demands or the suggestions made of the Broiler Marketing Board are not met, if they don't do what he has demanded that they do, what action does the Minister of Agriculture plan to take? Can he assure the House that there will be no action taken against this board, that there will be no reprimands made against this board? This is the overriding question. What action will the Minister then take?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for his responses to my questions, although I'm afraid that perhaps I didn't make it clear to him the precise matters that I was concerned with.

He has told us that he didn't direct the Broiler Marketing Board in various ways — which were the words I had used — but that he had discussed with them ways of resolving the problems as he saw them, and believed that he had an agreement with the Broiler Marketing Board.

Now this falls into two categories. I can only assume that the memorandum of February 12, 1974, which was sent by the Minister of Agriculture to the Premier, expresses the Minister's understanding of what agreement he had reached with two members of this board. He deals with allocation of production in the Interior, and this is what deals with the three-man selection supervisory committee. He says: "...will be named by myself as Minister of Agriculture to oversee the selection of the 11 growers in the Interior."

With regard to membership on the board, the memorandum says:

"There are three members of the Broiler Board, all three of whom are elected at the annual meeting of the Broiler Growers' Association. The board meets weekly"...and so on. "Directors may also attend broiler board meetings on giving notice."

Then the Minister goes on to say to the Premier:

"In that the directorate will be expanded almost immediately to include two directors from the Interior, and in that any changes in the board's constitution itself should be considered at the May annual meeting of the association members, 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."

Mr. Chairman, my point to the Minister is: how could he have even entered into negotiations or discussions with these two members of the board about increasing the membership of the board to five, and how could he have discussed with them and reached apparent agreement with regard to the establishment of this selection committee when he knew — must have known — that the board was powerless to implement that agreement? It was powerless because the order-in-council which establishes the marketing board specifically dictates that the number of directors shall be three, and that the power of the board, with regard to the issuance of licences or permits, could not be delegated to any other person or group of persons.

Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Attorney-General said to me across the floor that it could be changed. I agree that it could be changed — by a change in the order-in-council. This doesn't involve the board in the agreement. Are we to understand from what the Hon. Attorney-General says that the cabinet is now acting...that orders-in-council are made as a result of privately-reached agreements with groups in the community? Is this what happens?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consultation, consultation!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Consultation. The Minister calls it agreement. He says he left that meeting believing that he had an agreement. Is this the way orders-in-council are now being drafted in this government — by private agreement secretly reached at non-public meetings and then translated to orders-in-council?

Well, I'm very grateful for the Hon. Attorney-General to have opened the cabinet door a little bit and let in that little ray of sunshine. If that's the way orders-in-council are being developed by this administration, then in opening the door to let a little sunshine in, you're letting an awful lot of stink out, I'll tell you. That's the kind of behind-the-door dealing with orders-in-council government that we had learned to expect from the other government, but which we hoped would not be repeated by yours.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You people are really bankrupt, aren't you? It's your opposition; go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General certainly cannot help when he suggests that the questions raised by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) as to the basic importance of truth in government, being raised on the floor of this House, is a suggestion that the opposition is somehow or other bankrupt. The argument that we are having today will develop in future days, not only in connection with this Minister, but with other Ministers of the Crown. I trust that we never get to the situation where the first law officer of the Crown will suggest that raising truth in this House is somehow or other an indication

[ Page 627 ]

of bankruptcy of ideas.

Now having posed those two matters to the Minister, could he please indicate to me for what purpose these agreements were reached, when he knew that what was required was an order-in-council action by the cabinet before these steps could be taken? If these matters should be taken and were worthwhile to be taken, why did he not take that authority which the government of this province has, rather than sending these directors away expecting that somehow or other they were going to take some action which would be unlawful?

But I do want to go back to the matter raised by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on the question of truth in government. What we have here, Mr. Chairman, is as the Member has said and I don't wish to repeat all of the words — a direct conflict between the Premier of this province and two citizens of this province as to what transpired at a private meeting in the Premier's office. The Premier made a statement in this House and we, as Hon. Members, are obliged to accept the truth of that statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got a funny way of doing it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But, Mr. Chairman, we are also obliged to take cognizance of the sworn statements of two citizens, and that's what has created the conflict. It seems strange to me that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, who was present at those meetings and is therefore in a position — or should be in a position — to stand in this House and say whether the Premier's recollection coincides with his, or whether his recollection coincides with the sworn statements of two citizens — or, indeed, if his recollection is somehow or other different from both....

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture is the only person available to this House present at that meeting who can cast any light on this serious conflict. Yet he won't do it. He said yesterday with regard to the sworn statements, and I'm reading from the Hansard blues:

"I'm not denying that this is their best recollection."

He's talking about the two citizens.

"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 be. I suggest to you, for example, that for 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."

This is the Minister of Agriculture talking.

"He'd think about it, and no doubt in thinking about it, what had happened, it might grow and grow and grow and could very well have been quite different.

"I didn't say it was different. I said that possibly exists. I think it's possible that even the Premier would remember more of that conversation than I did 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."

It almost sounds like President Nixon talking. I go on, Mr. Chairman:

"For the chairman of the egg board, it was an extremely important few hours. For the Premier, it was one occasion when he become personally involved in a problem. For me it was a matter of hours out of many, many hours, and was not terribly significant in my mind. I just don't remember it..."

and I ask you to pay attention to these words:

"...and I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it."

The Minister of Agriculture said: "I just don't remember it, and I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it."

Mr. Chairman, here we have a conflict between sworn testimony of two citizens. I've made inquiries and I'm told that they are law-abiding, trustworthy people. The Minister, the Premier of this province, as an Hon. Member must make no statements in this House which are untrue. We have in this House as well another Minister of the Crown present at that meeting who could somehow or other cast some light upon this extreme conflict and he says, "I'm not terribly concerned to remember."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it's time that the Hon. Minister searched better his recollection than he ever has before and tell us in this House what occurred at that meeting so that we don't any longer have hanging over this chamber the suggestion either that the Premier of this province lied to this House, or alternatively that two citizens have sworn false testimony and cast the integrity of the Premier in doubt.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, I had a few matters I wanted to bring up under this vote. I was patiently waiting for the present subject to be exhausted, but it seems as though it's only beginning, so I would like to bring these matters up that I'm concerned about under this vote. It concerns the Department of Agriculture.

As most of the Members know, as there was a question on the order book with reference to it, there has been government support for an alfalfa cubing and dehydration plant at Dawson Creek in the Peace

[ Page 628 ]

River. This is very good; it's going to be well supported I understand. I don't think many Members will disagree with the idea of assisting agriculture in this area, it certainly needs it.

But also in the plan was a second plant for the Clayhurst area in north Peace River. It's absolutely impractical for any of the growers in the Clayhurst area to truck alfalfa into Dawson Creek when there's a ferry involved one way and a bridge the other. There seems to be a problem developing — I won't say buck passing — but it seems that the Department of Agriculture cannot take the responsibility for backing this plant until they know its location.

The group of farmers in that area can't decide on the location of the plant until the Department of Highways makes up its mind whether it's going to put in six miles of road or not. Although six miles of dirt road may not seem very important to people of the lower mainland area, to the farmers of the Clayhurst area this is a tremendously important thing to them.

If you were going to truck truckloads of wet, heavy alfalfa an extra 50 or 60 miles that the other producers don't have to do, it's going to turn it into an uneconomic operation for that farmer.

It's my hope, Mr. Minister, that you have some information on this that I don't. Perhaps there is a little more co-operation between the departments than I know of. But in any case, at the present time it seems to be stymied by the fact that they don't know where to put the plant because they don't know if the road will be built or not. Perhaps the two Ministers could settle this between themselves.

The other matter I'd like to bring up under this vote is: When the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture finished their studies on the multi-use of rangeland last year, we made a report to the House. One of the recommendations in our report was that the 10- and 20-year leases for cattle grazing on Crown land be phased out and be replaced by a one-year permit system with a built-in guarantee of tenure so that the ranchers could plan their operation over a lengthy period of time. We felt that this guarantee of tenure would be based on the performance of the permittee on the rangeland.

It seems as though the Cattlemen's Association is embarking at the present time on a programme to expand herds. With the need for protein in the province, they supply a very small amount of the needs of the province. To do this they must have more grazing land. And there is at present a very strong lobby going on out there to convince people that the cattlemen are being badly treated in the report of the agriculture committee, because all they are telling the cattlemen and the public, through their association, is that the committee recommended the leases be phased out and the one-year permits be phased in. That's very significant because they leave off entirely that the committee also recommended a guarantee of tenure that would depend on the use the permittee made of the land — the proper use — so that we would not have the situation that we see from Ashcroft to Cache Creek and north of Kamloops, and many other areas of the province that we observed where the range was mined instead of being properly used as a renewable resource.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I suppose it's natural when people want something that they use the words they think are best used to push their case. But I think the cattlemen are doing themselves, certainly, not any good; they're doing themselves harm by quoting only part of the recommendations of the agriculture committee, which was unanimously endorsed by all Members of all parties on that committee.

That was, once more for the record and to make it very clear: we did recommend that the leasing system be phased out and be replaced by the permit system, but with a guarantee of tenure built into the permit system that would assure the rancher a long-term use of the land, providing that he treated it properly.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, there was an extremely strong editorial in the paper this morning, and I'd like to ask the Hon. Minister some questions pertaining to some of the summations that were apparently raised by the editor, or whoever is responsible for the editorial. It is a very strong editorial and I'd like to read it to the Minister and appreciate his comments.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's irresponsible.

MR. GARDOM: "It's irresponsible, " says the Minister of Transport. Well, I disagree with the Minister of Transport's version of the editorial. It says this:

"Behind all the charges and denials and semantic arguments in B.C.'s current egg-broiler war, one fact stands out with stark clarity. The marketing board levies against one egg producer for overstepping his quota were reduced from $21,000 to $7,500 and against another from $60,000 to $1,500."

Was that reduction, Mr. Minister, according to the law of the land, yes or no?

"And those reductions were made after discussions in Premier Dave Barrett's office."

" So 'what's wrong with political interference, what's wrong with politics?' asks Agriculture Minister Dave Stupich. Plenty."

"The inference is very clear that Premier Barrett used the influence of his office in what was supposed to be an independent marketing board to make the decisions that in fact ensued.

[ Page 629 ]

Whatever the faults of the marketing board system in B.C. — and there are many — the system is designed by the legislation under which it operates to be independent of any influence, particularly government influence." Does the Minister subscribe to this kind of government influence, yes or no?

"Egg producer affidavits have charged that at a meeting in his office Mr. Barrett directed the egg board to reduce the levies or he would 'kick the crap' out of the board. Mr. Barrett says the board was not 'asked or ordered, or suggested to be ordered to do anything.' He says he suggested that they were acting like children and it would be far better if they got together with their lawyer. They did get together with their lawyer and settled the matter in a room in the Department of Agriculture, according to an affidavit."

I'd ask the Hon, Minister if he recalls those words of the Premier; if he recalls those words of the Premier stating that he would kick...or the next noun in that phrase or any other similar noun.

"Mr. Stupich admits there was 'persuasion.' " What does the Hon. Minister mean by persuasion?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a good English word.

MR. GARDOM: Well and good. Are you going to explain it for the Minister?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Everybody knows what persuasion means in this instance.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Hon. Attorney-General says, "Everybody knows what the word persuasion means in this instance." It's not that easy, Mr. Attorney-General, because we find the word "persuasion" being used with the Premier. It is used, in my view, the inference that I'm receiving out of the statements that the Minister of Agriculture has made in the House, that the Premier persuaded. Did he persuade by threatening to kick these people in the rear end, or what have you? To what extent is this persuasion and for what purpose? Is it coincidence that Mr. Kovachich is a member of the NDP party?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all.

MR. GARDOM: That's all. I certainly hope that's all, but let's find that out as well.

"Mr. Stupich admits there was 'persuasion.' The board might call it pressure but 'they could have thumbed their noses at us and gone their own way.'"

"After the persuasion the egg levies...."

"They're an independent board, " says the Premier. Well, if they were an independent board.... I have elevated you to Premier, Mr. Attorney-General. I don't know whether I am being prophetic or not. I may be being prophetic in that remark.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No way.

MR. GARDOM: No way. I see. You're staying with being Attorney-General. Okay. But it says: "After the persuasion the egg levies were reduced."

What was the persuasion on the part of the Premier? What was that persuasion; and to what extent? It's pretty strange to me that the Hon. Minister is unable to inform this House as to what extent the Premier entered into persuasion, call it what he will. Let's hear what the Hon. Minister's words are.

Carrying on with the editorial:

"The Premier has also been accused of ordering the Broiler Marketing Board to increase production quotas in the Kamloops-Okanagan area and of directing that 2 of 11 producers there should have quotas of 20,000 birds while the others were to get 5,000. He has also denied those charges."

Is it correct, Mr. Minister, that the Premier did order the Broiler Marketing Board to increase these production quotas, as the editorial states? Yes or no. Or did he politically persuade them? If he did politically persuade them, in what manner was that political persuasion exercised? Also, is it correct and is it in accordance with accepted democratic principles?

"But the smell of political influence of 'persuasion' hangs heavy over the whole affair. The meetings in the Premier's office are not denied. The fact that he told the Egg Marketing Board to stop being 'childish' is not denied. The fact that decisions favourable to two egg producers in dispute with the board were taken after meetings in the Premier's office is undeniable. The broiler quota charges fall into the contest of the whole situation.

"Political pressure from the Premier's office is clearly the worst kind of solution to a problem of this kind."

Does the Minister agree with that? Yes or no.

"If Mr. Barrett was unhappy with the board's operation he had the option of correcting it by legislation..."

Is not that correct, Mr. Minister? Yes or no.

"...legislation that could be tested in public debate. Instead he chose to use secretly a big stick in a way that leaves only the impression of a man deluded by a sense of power who believes he can push people around

[ Page 630 ]

simply because he is Premier."

Did he use a big stick?

HON. MR. LEA (Minister of Highways): Friendly persuasion.

MR. GARDOM: Friendly persuasion. Would someone define this friendly persuasion? Would the person who was there, namely the Minister of Agriculture, define that friendly persuasion, which the Minister of Highways calls it?

I am carrying on with a quotation:

"And a man, furthermore, for whom the direct conflicts between the egg producers' affidavits and his own statements seem unimportant."

Mr. Minister, did the Premier in your presence make statements to the effect that he would forget about the whole affair if he were asked to, or similar words to that effect? Can you recall any part of the discussion dealing with that?

"If this is the kind of man he is or is becoming, we may have much fear in this province. He is a man becoming corrupted by power."

That's a pretty strong editorial. I would very much like to hear the Minister's comments to it.

Now, in this British Columbia Egg Marketing Board memorandum, dated January 31, 1974, which the Minister was alluding to, the statement appears:

"The members of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board have striven to implement the main guidelines set for the board by the Hon. Dave Stupich."

It also states, on page 2:

"Mr. Kovachich is assured of increasing to the maximum 6,000 dozen through the agreements between him and the board, drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Premier Dave Barrett."

Was, Mr. Minister, the agreement drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Dave Barrett, as the Egg Marketing Board says? Was this agreement, that was entered into between the board and Mr. Kovachich drawn on the instructions of the Hon. Dave Barrett? Do you agree with the summation of the Egg Marketing Board or do you disagree with it?

It says on page 3, again talking about Mr. Kovachich's agreement:

"That latter agreement was drawn to comply with the instructions to the board by the Hon. Premier Dave Barrett. The board has fulfilled the terms insisted upon by the Hon. Premier." Were the terms that were entered into between the board and Mr. Kovachich for this production, which was a one-third reduction on the levy that was filed against him, the terms that were insisted upon by the Premier? Mr. Minister of Agriculture — yes or no. That is what the Egg Marketing Board says. What do you say?

Carrying on with the quotation:

"Comparison of the increases of quota or permits issued to those six registered producers with the quantities issued to other registered producers in all areas of the province show that they have been highly favoured."

I ask the Hon. Minister: have these six producers been highly favoured? If so, what is the reason for this degree of highly favouring? Why only them?

Secondly, is it within the competence of the board to grant this high degree of favouring just because the terms are insisted upon by the Premier? Is it within the legal competence of the board to do that, Mr. Minister? Do they have that discretion? Is that within the law of the Province of British Columbia, within the provisions of the Act and within the provisions of the regulations issued under order-in-council from the Act and that emanate from the Act? Is there a lawful agreement here, or is this an agreement which today could be attacked through the courts? Those questions have not been answered.

There appears to be only one thing that is crystal clear, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, and that is that, in the cases which we have been discussing today and yesterday, decisions have been entered into as the result of the insistence of the Premier, without regard to the law of the land and without regard to the fact that he is not supposed to use his office for political pressure. He apparently has used his office to that extent.

That appears from the summation — the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is groaning. That appears from what the Egg Marketing Board has said, Mr. Minister of Health. Are you suggesting that their arguments are fallacious?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister of Health says the statements of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board are fallacious. Well, if they are fallacious, perhaps we should get to the bottom of it, and if they are not telling the truth, that should be found out. That's a very serious charge in itself, and I do hope the Hon. Minister of Health, or some Member of his caucus, is going to back that one up — on affidavit, maybe, or similar words to that effect, even in here.

The Hon. Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, is permitted to speak with complete impunity in this Legislature. Maybe he would even back up that statement and inform the Members of the House how he considers these statements of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board are fallacious. That would be interesting to find out.

Interjection.

[ Page 631 ]

MR. GARDOM: Yes, as my Hon. colleague has mentioned, is the Hon. Minister suggesting that these affidavits are false; and that the people who swore these affidavits did not tell the truth?

HON. MR. COCKE: The affidavits mean nothing. They say "or words to that effect."

MR. GARDOM: Do you consider that false testimony?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: One says "not-testimony"; no one is prepared to say it is false testimony. So at least good credit to that — the government is not prepared to say that these people who swore those affidavits told lies, and no one thinks they did.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are just too many questions left unanswered by this Minister in this whole question, and I don't see how we can leave until we get some of those questions answered.

Certainly, if no one has come out and said it, there is certainly an impression being left with the people of British Columbia that the four very responsible and reputable citizens who signed those affidavits are telling less than the truth. Their motives have been impugned, and all they have asked for is for those questions to be answered in this House or outside of it. One way or another we need some answers. We need answers to these kind of questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Agriculture told us in the House yesterday that a policy with regard to a broiler quota in the Kamloops-Okanagan area had been approved by the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. It is now clear that that policy has not been approved by the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board.

The Minister has insisted that there has been no political interference on the one hand, yet looking through the Hansard blues on the other hand we find the Minister says: "Sure, there was political interference. What's wrong with political interference?" The Minister says there was a successful solution negotiated at the instigation of the Premier with regard to the lowering of levies against the two egg producers.

The question I ask is how could there have been a successful solution when one of the parties to that solution is extremely unhappy, unhappy to the point where they've gone and signed sworn affidavits indicating the kind of political pressure brought to bear.

The Minister has told us in this House yesterday and again today that there has been and there will be no political interference in the selection of a site for a new processing plant in the Kamloops-Okanagan region. Yet, conveniently we find the only suitable site in the whole Okanagan-Kamloops area just happens to be in Enderby.

HON. MR. COCKE: Who said that?

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister said that.

HON. MR. COCKE: He did not.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister said they couldn't find another site in the whole area. It just happens to be that the only site is in Enderby, in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis) riding.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask that Member to withdraw that statement he made, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What statement?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, let's treat both sides equally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What did he say?

MR. CHABOT: He said the Member was a disgrace. Would you have him withdraw that, please? Or do you think that's acceptable because it comes from that side of the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member withdraw that statement?

HON. MR. COCKE: I said the Member is acting in a disgraceful way. If that's not acceptable I'll withdraw the statement. But I'll say the Member is acting in a disgraceful way; he's completely misinterpreting everything that Minister said yesterday and he knows it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you continue your speech?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the only disgraceful thing happening in this House is that we are continuing to get no answers from the Minister. The motives of the people who have signed these sworn affidavits continue to be impugned by this government.

The Minister says and has continued to say in this House, first of all, that he thought he had an agreement with the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board after the meeting of February 11. I ask how he could have thought he had an agreement and still have written the kind of memorandum which he wrote to the Premier of British Columbia with

[ Page 632 ]

regard to the allocation of that quota. It makes it pretty clear there was some doubt in his mind that any quota had been agreed to prior to that memorandum which was written on February 12.

The Minister continues to say the Premier had no direct interference in any of the solutions or suggestions made. Yet, on that same memorandum of February 12, the Minister sees fit to go to the Premier, asking for his approval of the allocation of production in the Interior. In his words: "In that you have taken a personal interest in these questions, I would appreciate your consideration of the following points."

The Minister has insisted over and over again in this House that he has no legal authority to order the board to do anything. Yet he has taken that authority upon himself and has, in fact, made those kind of orders to the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board and, earlier, to the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board.

If you don't think yet that those orders were given, I want just once again to read the words in this telegram, in which he will not accede to the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board. The members of that board said simply, "We seem to have some area of disagreement. Can we meet with you and discuss it so that we can come up with some solution?" The answer they got from that request was:

SEE NO ADVANTAGE MEETING TODAY. ORDER IM-76 TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE...AND MUST BE WITHHELD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS INTERIOR PRODUCTION PROGRAMME SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED...

Then from the Minister who says he has no authority to make any orders, these are the words in that telegram:

FAILURE TO WITHHOLD WILL BRING PROMPT GOVERNMENT ORDER SUSPENDING IM-76 PENDING SUITABLE SETTLEMENT THIS ISSUE. GOVERNMENT CONTEMPLATING SUCH ACTION WITH SOME RELUCTANCE BUT CANNOT ACCEPT ALTERNATIVES.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister is certainly not giving us all of the answers we deserve to these questions in the House. I really think it's about time he did and I really think it's about time that those people who have taken the time and trouble and who have really put their necks on the block because their livelihoods depend on the actions of this government are given some answers on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we don't seem to be getting any answers on the chicken-and-egg war, so I'd like to go back....

HON. MR. STUPICH: (Mike not on.) The Hon. First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) spoke before you. Same questions exactly. The same answers are in Hansard.

With respect to you, I did note one question: what will I do if the board does not follow the plans I thought they had agreed to follow? Am I contemplating any action against the board members? No, no action is being contemplated at all. The board members are elected by the producers. That's their responsibility.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made some reference to the directorate being expanded by two. In all of the other areas of agreement, or at least where I thought we had reached agreement in the discussions in my office...I don't know the intimate details of the order-in-council establishing the broiler marketing scheme and I didn't have these in front of me when we met in my office. Two members of the three-man broiler board who were there raised objections to only one of the points on the basis that this was beyond their authority to discuss at that time. That was the question of changing the actual formation of the board itself. When they raised no objections to any of the other points on the basis of this form of the scheme established by order-in-council, it never occurred to me that they didn't have the authority to agree to the things we were discussing.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) raised a question of a second alfalfa-cubing mill in the Peace River area. This is being studied by staff right now. There is some question about the feasibility of the proposal which will be of interest to the Member for Peace River at least. One of the problems is that the farmers who would be involved in the second plant are away working on the oil drilling rigs right now and it's just not that easy to make contact with them this season.

Three possible sites in the area he was talking about are being looked at by staff. We're not satisfied with having moved on one only; we want to have more, many more, alfalfa-cubing mills in the province.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) raised nothing new. Instead of an affidavit he had an editorial on which to base his speech, but he raised nothing new.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) again raises this question of a political choice of a site. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) heard me quite differently from the way the Hon. Member for Langley did; differently to the extent that she suggested alternative sites might will be available. One might be available in her riding. She undertook on behalf of her riding to make inquiries locally and to have information conveyed to my office.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says the

[ Page 633 ]

answers to many of the questions raised, for example, by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) are to be found in Hansard. All I can say is that I find a great deal of difficulty in finding them as I look through Hansard (Blues). But perhaps I might ask him at this point about a question which is much more recent in time and much more specific. Indeed, perhaps it doesn't involve his memory at all but the memory of his officials.

I'm referring now to a meeting detailed in the affidavit of Mr. McAninch, supported by the affidavit of Mr. Stafford, a meeting on the 5th day of February, 1974, which is 23 days ago. A certain section of the affidavit reads as follows:

"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.

"10. 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; Richard Arthur Stafford, manager, B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, and Harry Liedtke, and Les Harbridge, both members of the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board.

"11. 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 2 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.

" 12. 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."

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is sworn testimony that...

MR. CUMMINGS: Affidavit.

MR. GIBSON: Sworn affidavit, sworn statement...that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said to two people, who have sworn out statements in that regard that the Premier had ordered certain things and directed certain things, a statement in direct conflict with the words of the Premier in this House. Those statements are said to have been made by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

I would ask the Minister if he would consult, either with any of his officials who are here today or with his Deputy, Mr. Peterson, and ask him if the

Deputy agrees with the statements in the affidavits of Mr. McAninch and Mr. Stafford; if he would contact his Deputy just as soon as possible as to whether the House just as soon as possible as to whether the Deputy agrees with that particular statement.

Here we are not relying on the memory of the Minister, we are relying on the memory of the Deputy, but I hope it will be better. Here we are not talking about 1972, we are talking about February 5, 1974. I wonder if the Minister would undertake to make those inquiries of his Deputy and report to this House.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Chairman. I would like to express some very serious concerns about some of the comments that came from our city-slicker friends of the Liberal Party. They have continuously attacked our little egg producers, our small farmers, our consumers, and also our government who is apparently being accused of trying to be fair and do something about the problem. Now, just for the record I would like you to show some of the concerns from the biggest and most influential part of the consumers in our city, and that is some of our restaurants. Talking about the quality and supply: I will just read out a portion of their submission to the Garrish commission. This is from the Cowbell Restaurant:

"Our customer count for the period of the past four months showed over 6,500 guests served at our restaurant per month. Our demand for farm-fresh eggs are based on the following standards: Smitty's franchise agreement states the use only of farm-fresh eggs in its kitchens throughout the country. Smitty's menus offer farm-fresh egg dishes to its citizens.

"Cowbell Restaurant supports local industry the same way local industry supports us. Delivery time is essential in our business due to varying customer demands. Freshness and grill-stable are the main features in our egg dishes.

"Cowbell Restaurants have a volume per purchaser of eggs averaging 800 dozen per month...demands from its supplier locally, Chillako Farms Ltd., a fresh and uniform product for its operation. In the past our supplier has not been able to supply our demands to the fullest and had, at instances, to supply us with imported eggs and on some occasions had to provide us with two and more deliveries instead of one on account of shortage of production. He advised us of the quotas issued by the Egg Marketing Board, and we must admit Chillako Farms, until today, tried their utmost to satisfy our demands of supply.

"Imported eggs, transported over a distance of several hundreds of miles are, in effect,

[ Page 634 ]

affected by the hauling no matter how carefully they are packed, not to mention the matter of freshness or aging by this means of supply. Regular freight carriers have scheduled runs for delivery of merchandise, but refrigerated service comes only twice a week to Prince George, and customers are not on a regular scheduled arrangement. Some days we sell more, some days we sell less. So far we need a flexible delivery service. Only local producers can assure us this.

"The grill test however is the biggest visible argument. A farm-fresh egg cooks firm and settles, while an older egg will run all over the grill. Our customers have noted the difference in the past, in particular when our supplier was not able to supply us with his own product and had to import eggs from elsewhere.

"Therefore, eggs from the lower mainland, for example, do not meet our buying specifications, and we strongly recommend to the committee to consider an increase of production quotas for the local industry so they may be able to supply the local market with their local product."

Another part of the submission from the central British Columbia branch of the Canadian Restaurant Association. This also went to the same commission:

"Members of the Prince George branch find it difficult to purchase locally produced eggs on a year-round basis and have to cope with some of the following problems:

a) Interrupted delivery due to insufficient supply.

b) Substituted grades due to low quota production.

c) Lower mainland eggs due to shortage of local production.

"The consumer in the Prince George area is mainly supplied by lower mainland eggs, and believes that the same quality and freshness is only available in local restaurants, while local restaurants are trying to offer to their customers the best in quality and freshness. Restaurants that specialize in egg dishes find, to their surprise, customers commenting on the freshness of the eggs, and ask why these eggs cannot be bought at local stores."

They go on to specify a long list of facts and figures in the economics and quota ratios. It winds up by summarizing:

"We would like to draw to your attention the increase in population in the last three years, an increase of nearly 70 per cent, while the quota of production has barely risen. We agree that the local egg industry missed a chance in 1967 to plan for the future. We also strongly feel that the time for adjustment has come."

I would also like to refer to one article in the Vancouver Province, page 5, dated Wednesday, February 27. The headline: "a Smoke Screen, Says Egg Man." And here is where the real issue is:

"'Charges of government interference with the B.C. Egg and Broiler Marketing Boards are merely a smokescreen to cover up the real issue,' a spokesman for the Northern B.C. Egg Producing Association said today. Arnold Link, owner of Chillako Farms, said the real issue in the egg dispute is whether local producers should have the right to expand production to fill the growing northern egg market. Link said lower mainland producers currently supply 80 per cent of this area's market and want to force local producers out of business."

I also want to touch on one other point: the word "interference." What is the definition of the word "interference"? There has been a great deal of problem in the region to get supplies. It is a widespread problem throughout the region, whether it is in the Cariboo, or Terrace, or Prince George or elsewhere because of the continuous complaining and the continuous frustrations from the people — not only the producers, but the consumers and the restaurant operators, the stores and what have you. Continuous frustration.

Week to week they just don't know how they are going to meet the needs of their customers at their stores or restaurants, or consumers when they are shopping. Because of these frustrations there was a request made just recently that we expedite some action to get an expanded market in the area, or expanded production to meet the expanded market. This is quoted in the Vancouver Province of Thursday, February 21 — reports that there had been at this time.... The Minister had asked one of his people to go out there and have a look around to see what is going on. It is reported here, and I'll read it. When he came back he gave a report, and this is a summary of it. This statement comes from Mr. Janzen, who I believe is the member or maybe even the chairman of the board:

"Others involved with the B.C. egg industry say the latest government interference" — interference, it says — "has been the study and recommendations made by poultry commissioner Bill Wood. They say Wood has recommended that Interior producers be allowed to bring their production up to 75 to 80 per cent of the local weekly market demand, and to do this that all present lower mainland egg quotas be reduced to 90 per cent or less." It goes on to say...Janzen says:

"It is really hard to fathom. Again they have forgotten we can't direct the retail trade where to buy." While the local people are just screaming for

[ Page 635 ]

the opportunity to buy — you don't have to force anybody to buy the local product. They are just being forced not to produce; they are being forced to buy from the lower mainland, and this is the real problem.

Good heavens, this province has got 2.5 million people. If we haven't got the real determination among all of us to get together and solve the production and marketing problems to serve the local needs of the consumers, then we're just not doing our job.

Mr. Chairman, if this is interference to send somebody to Prince George to see what the problems are and to come back here and make suggestions as to how to solve them, then the definition of interference must be much different in my dictionary than it is in everybody else's.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): And the Islands; don't forget the Islands. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change the subject to deal with some other measures.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: I hope the Minister will answer. Some of the questions which have been posed are very valid. In saying I wish to change the subject, that is not to in any way gloss over the very serious discussions which have taken place. But I think it might be helpful if we could look at one or two other aspects of agriculture.

I'm still not satisfied, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, by that Minister's reassurances on the subject of grazing land for cattle and the degree of co-operation which will exist between three cabinet Ministers, namely, Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), and Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). Even assuming the three Ministers can resolve their differences, I think a lot of us have grave doubts about the measure of co-operation that will be found among various civil servants in the three departments.

I mentioned earlier this week — it seems a long time ago — about the warnings we've all heard concerning food shortages and the fact that British Columbians consume far more than they produce. Our conservation programmes are important; I acknowledge that. We need parks and we need wilderness areas, and the forest industry, admittedly, is obviously vital to our economic well-being. But I submit that agriculture must be given a priority rating in the last years of the 20th century.

It was interesting from this side of the House the other day to notice that the Minister, facing across, could not have seen the facial expression of his colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) during the earlier part of the week. But it was clear evidence to me and to many of us in this section of the House that our agricultural land and our recreational needs are on a collision course. The same is probably true with regard to agriculture and the Forest Service. So we have a two-way battle.

This didn't develop just at the time of the last general election; it has obviously been going on for quite some time, But I'm not satisfied that the problem is being properly resolved.

This is one point of view, Mr. Chairman: The Vancouver Sun for September 12, 1973. I emphasize that it is one point of view but it's a fairly popular one. The headline is "B.C. Grassland 'Criminally Mismanaged.'"

"The Grazing Division of the B.C. Forest Service was accused Tuesday of criminal mismanagement of the provincial grasslands.

"The charge was made by B.C. Wildlife Federation executive director, Bill Otway, who recently returned from a six-day horseback ride through the Chilcotin country."

I admit in advance that I don't know nearly as much about the Chilcotin country as the sometimes vocal Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). He may have words to say about it as well. Continuing the quote:

"'Ninety per cent of the country we saw was badly overgrazed and the remaining 10 per cent was in fair to poor condition.'

"'The alpine areas, around the 7,500- to 8,000-ft. level, are a complete desert and the cattle have just got to come out of there. Hillsides by the creeks are, for the most part, bare, I consider this criminal mismanagement by the Forest Service of a public resource. These sort of conditions carry right through the province to a great degree except in the extreme north'...

"Otway said the federation directors met Sunday and decided to make a public statement about the condition of the grasslands. He said that they will shortly be making a series of recommendations to resources Minister Bob Williams, whose department includes the Forest Service."

The article goes on at some length but it certainly paints a very bleak and grim picture with respect to grazing land in the Chilcotin area.

Then, when he was appearing before the legislative committee on agriculture in Kamloops in June 22 of last year, a man whom I believe is very highly regarded in this province, Dr. Alastair McLean of Agriculture Canada, had these observations. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to quote at length because I think it's important to get this into the

[ Page 636 ]

discussion in dealing with this Minister's salary.

"In some regions — perhaps in the north — there may be further expectation of opening up lands and making these lands available, but basically within the context we're making reasonably good use. Now, there will be changes with logging, but I feel that these should be kept on a rotation basis if we're going to maintain our multiple-use principle on these lands and have other users in there. So as lands are logged and the grass production increases there will be other areas in which the canopy will be closing over again, and the ranching operations will have to shift to become accommodated to these. But we can effect some improvement on a regional basis with opening up of lands, but also a very significant improvement in production not only from better management practices...but shall we say from practices that will enhance production — such as fertilization and pasture rotations to make use of the high-protein grass at the best time. I'm sure that we can get very substantial increases for these and there certainly are the cattle available to go onto them."

Dr. McLean continues:

"There is another factor too, if I may say so, and...there is some danger that we may not even be able to retain the acreage available now. For example, there is considerable pressure on our alpine ranges to have them taken out of grazing because of the recreation interests. These alpine areas are very high protein areas during the time which they are grazed and are extremely valuable. We can do a great deal by management here. We can subdivide these alpine areas. We can learn more about them first of all and then subdivide them. For example, in the alpine tundra country the production is relatively low. There is absolutely no question in my mind that this is a highly-favoured wildlife range for bighorn. Lower in the meadows, which are wet and high producing, with proper management grazing can be carried on in there without undue loss to the wildlife interest. So there is one area that we're in danger of losing range on.

"Another is the winter range. I believe an announcement came out the other day that grazing of cattle on the winter ranges is going to be restricted by the Department of Recreation and Conservation because of the interference with the wildlife wintering areas."

I continue to quote Dr. McLean throughout this section.

"I hope this isn't a broad sweeping statement, because we (the committee) saw yesterday how carefully we have to manage some of these deer winter ranges, for example; they are a priority there, but there is still a place for supplementary grazing by cattle and there are other areas in the winter range orbit there where the wildlife interests aren't so critical and grazing could still be carried on."

On the specific question of transferring the Grazing Division, Mr. Chairman, from Lands, Forests and Water Resources to the Department of Agriculture, there was another witness who appeared before the committee at that time — Members will remember him well: Mr. Henry Blazowski of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. He expanded on the position taken in his brief that the transfer should take place. His reply was:

"The main reason is that at the moment the Grazing Division is part of the forestry department. The forestry department is mainly administered by people who have been trained and are tree-oriented. They really don't even recognize the need for grass and because of that the Grazing Division has enjoyed a very low priority within the forestry department. This of course, in part, was followed by understaffing of the division and by very little funds available to the division for range improvement.

"We have ranges today which were damaged or abused by very early settlers — maybe even by the original fur traders. Because there was never any serious work done to renovate them, they are still today very useless — both to cattle and to wildlife."

The discussion went on for some time after that point with Dr. McLean and Mr. Blazowski reviewing the question of multi-use of rangeland and again on the merits of transferring the Grazing Division from one department to another.

I think it's correct, Mr. Chairman, to summarize the observation that interdepartmental co-operation was probably the most desirable goal, with transfer taking place if all else fails.

I recall the Minister's comments of a couple of days ago on the grazing-land task force (Rangeland Management Task Force). I'm aware of it; I realize what it is supposed to be doing. But the point of discussing this during the Minister's salary vote is to ask him once again if he is confident that Agriculture will get a fair break when the three departments of government start wrestling over a single tract of land when they meet to discuss the problem. I fear that that won't be the case. There are far more conservationists than ranchers.

The wildlife and hunting lobbies are considerably more powerful than ranchers. And, as I recall the hearings, the cattle ranchers aren't demanding exclusive use of rangeland. They really want to co-operate with others in good land management. But they are fearful of losing what is for them — and

[ Page 637 ]

incidentally, Mr. Chairman — for the consumer — a very vital resource.

I hope the Minister will take as much time as is necessary to really elaborate on that, because there is now and probably will continue to be conflict between the three departments, and that can only be to the detriment of the agriculturalist — particularly the rancher.

I want to question the Minister briefly, Mr. Chairman, on the latest problem to hit the B.C. tree fruits industry in the Interior. It hit them right between the eyes. It is the severe difficulties they are experiencing in finding rail cars to move the product. It isn't a new problem, but it is particularly severe this year and I don't believe that the matter has been raised in this discussion.

For once, it seemed in 1973, the growers had almost everything going for them — for once. It was a good crop year — up considerably, in fact. Labour problems were relatively minor. They moved through the harvesting season with generally good weather and now, for actually some months, they've been tremendously frustrated in their efforts to get their products to market.

I realize that the shortage of railway rolling stock isn't restricted to boxcars for tree fruits, by no means. But this is the specific subject that we have at hand right now. So we have to ask the Minister what efforts he has made to ease the shortage in the Okanagan. That's the first question. Has he consulted with the national railway companies? Has he personally reviewed the problem with representatives of the tree fruits industry within the last few weeks or couple of months? And what sort of conclusions were reached?

I also, Mr. Chairman, want to seek the Minister's reaction — I doubt that I will get it — but I must ask for his reaction to the intemperate remarks made here yesterday by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young). They were sharp, impetuous comments made on behalf of the consumer at the expense of the egg producer, the broiler producer, the orchardist, the rancher.

In my view, Mr. Chairman, they were remarks which indicate that she has a complete lack of sympathy for individuals who are engaged in the agricultural industry. I suggest that she was playing to the consumers gallery, and I regret it very much. She has an apparent inability to understand the massive problem which is facing producers in terms of costs of feed and equipment and labour and fertilizer, and all the other items which are necessary in a farming operation.

If the Minister of Agriculture can't convince his own cabinet colleague, the Minister of Consumer Services, on a matter such as this, then how is he going to succeed in dealing with the people of British Columbia on the same problem? It's very easy to play....

MR. CUMMINGS: Twisting, twisting, twisting.

MR. CURTIS: There's our interjectionist again.

It's very easy to play to the consumer gallery and ignore the main problem facing the people who grow our product.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to question the Minister on a new tack. Something that is of concern in the Okanagan is that our agricultural region is and by nature, and irrigation and water resources and water management are very important to us.

I know that the participation in ARDA of the agricultural department probably has had some input into the Okanagan water basin study. I'd like to ask the Minister what input they're going to have for the conclusions? Are they going to replace the ARDA programme with different water management to protect agriculture? Because we have 45,000 acres under irrigation in the Okanagan, serviced by Okanagan Lake.

What are they going to do to solve the disparity between the different irrigation districts in the way of rates? Can they use this new body to be set up to implement the recommendations of the water basin study to solve the disparity of rates in these districts? What are they going to do to encourage or to solve water supply?

Are they going to encourage more agricultural acreage? At present the existing water supply and the surplus water running into the Okanagan is just sufficient for the agriculture and the use that we have there at present.

I'd like to ask also that when the Okanagan is an importer of thousands of tons of nitrogen and phosphates every year, whether the Agriculture Minister or his department is giving any input to using the surplus nitrogen and phosphates that are found in our lakes into some sort of reclamation project — or to be reused as fertilizer for the land.

What encouragement are they giving to the use of spray irrigation from the waste treatment plant for alfalfa and grass production?

All of these questions relate to the relation of agriculture to the Okanagan basin water study, and to the implementation of its recommendation.

I think the people of the Okanagan are interested in what role your department, Mr. Minister, will play in the future.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A few comments, since I've been absent for a certain amount of the debate that has occurred. I've read a great deal of it in the press.

I think that, as far as this party is concerned, it

[ Page 638 ]

should go on record as being very concerned at the confusion which obviously existed. In fact, as I said in a speech a couple of days ago, this debate has been going on for so long I can hardly remember what day that was. It seems like we've been discussing this for a very long time. There is no question that the Premier of the province interfered in trying to straighten out a situation and that in his opinion he felt this was a reasonable way to do it. I don't think it was. I think it was wrong and ill-advised, even if he felt that personal involvement was probably going to provide an answer which he couldn't see being brought about in any other way.

I think he showed a tremendous lack of awareness and insight as to the repercussions and ramifications of such an action, particularly when one of the individuals who was to benefit financially by the proposed decisions was a member of the NDP. I just am surprised, apart from being dismayed, that the Premier would put himself in this position.

Without dragging the whole debate on at great length I do think that the Premier was wrong in interfering in the manner in which he did. I don't think all the semantics in the world as to whether it's compulsion or direction or suggestion or consultation or any other word you'd like to use.... The fact is that, as I pointed out in my earlier speech, the marketing board situation is necessary.

Despite the fact that the Minister agreed that sometimes there are real problems from overproduction, the fact is that if the system is going to work at all, it certainly has to work free from political interference. There is no doubt at all that the Premier in this case did interfere.

Some of the other points that have been raised in the debate are worthy of better answers than we have had. But I think the matter has been aired. I feel that the likelihood of a formal inquiry leading us to any further definition of exactly who said what is not likely, in my view, to produce a result worthy of all the effort and time and money that would be spent seeking it.

These are my comments on this whole issue.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Very briefly I want to reassure those Members who asked specific questions about other topics that there is opportunity under other votes to ask such questions and, of course, to answer them. Not that I am avoiding answering them now, but I think there is some concern in the minds of some Members that had the vote slipped by, then there would be no opportunity to pursue the particular question.

With respect to the questions asked about co-operation among the three departments: I suggest that as long as the land is not irretrievably lost to any one of the three resource users, then there's opportunity for making one decision today as to which is the most important user — the priority user, if you like — in instances where one has to have a priority position.

In some cases perhaps there can only be one user. Even there there is opportunity to change from one user to another as long as you don't do anything to irretrievably lose the land to any particular use.

What I'm really saying is that as time goes on no doubt we'll change our emphasis. It might be that today a conclusion will be reached on a particular piece of land, but the most important thing could be growing forests, wildlife, conservation resource, or whatever. But tomorrow we might decide, because of a more desperate food situation, that more of these areas would have to be channelled more into food production. Or it could go the other way.

I think what we really want to have is the latitude so that we can move in any of those directions as the changing conditions warrant looking and relooking at the situation. All I'm hoping for is that we will have a flexible situation so that that sort of movement will be possible. When it proves desirable, then it will be possible.

I'm satisfied that we can work that out with the staff that we have — the Ministers that we now have in charge of these departments. I can't say what might happen if there is a substantial change in Ministries, but certainly under the present administration I'm satisfied that we can work that out from the long-range point of view of the agricultural industry.

With respect to the Okanagan problem — and I'm talking now about the rail cars — it's a very real problem. For a moment I thought that it had come up earlier in the debate, but it hadn't; it was in another context that it came up. I have a letter — unfortunately I read it and just sent it back to my office along with some other material — from the manager of B.C. Tree Fruits.

There is a very real problem, admittedly, but it's more a problem of worrying from day to day what the situation is going to be. They work themselves up into a real position of worrying and then through efforts they make, efforts I make, efforts MPs make — federal MPs (what other kind of MPs are there?) — in Ottawa with the railroad commissioners, with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) and with everybody else.... They are able to make these efforts. On occasion both the growers' organization and my own department have sent telegrams even to the Prime Minister urging that something be done. Often there is some sudden appearance of railcars — never enough so they feel comfortable, never as many as they would like to have.

Interjection.

[ Page 639 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Oh, they are behind, I appreciate that, and they're concerned about it. They have something like 50 days left for the apples that are not in CA. I'm not trying to minimize the problem at all. I'm just saying it's not as bad as they anticipated it might be.

When last I was in Ottawa and while I was there I received a telegram from the fruit growers urging me to pursue these requests for more rail cars, to try to do something to improve the situation. Indeed, I did while I was in Ottawa in January.

So there have been many approaches to the federal government, to different levels of the federal government, not without some success but never enough success that they can feel comfortable about tomorrow's shipments, and not nearly as many rail cars as they should have to move a bumper crop, unfortunately.

But everything that can be done, by the provincial government, by the fruit growers' organization and also by the federal government, I think, in view of the situation, is being done. It's a matter of keeping on the pressure. We're doing it, the fruit growers are doing it, and the federal government is being made continually aware of the problem.

The remarks made by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young): I don't mind commenting on them. My concern is that those remarks will be taken out of context with what has happened in the last — including today — three days of debate in the House. I think that would be very concerning to everybody if that happened.

There was a reaction to a certain line of attack that was being taken, a reaction that the Minister of Consumer Services voiced. But I wouldn't want the Members to think, because that particular reaction went by relatively unnoticed, that it represented a change in policy or rethinking of policy on the part of the Minister of Agriculture or on the part of the government.

There certainly is some exasperation in the minds of some people, and some real questions. It's with a view to answering those questions more than anything else that there will be legislation introduced as soon as we can get it ready to introduce it.

The questions raised by the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). There is this real problem: the water supply. If we're going to talk about the Okanagan water basin study, I prefer that you raise it with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) when we come to his department. Certainly the Agriculture department was involved in the study and did study the study, if you like, and also did some preliminary work. But I think with regard to the overall supply, it's a problem that would be better dealt with by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I'm given to understand that there is a possibility of some relatively modest increases of water supply for agricultural uses, but not the additional supplies that I would like to see from the point of view of maximizing agricultural production.

The different rates: initially these can be covered as we get into an income-stabilization programme for the fruit growers. If there are different rates in different areas, it's a cost of production; this would have to be taken account of in developing the formula for different areas.

I like to think that we could have one rate for the whole area, because it would make it much easier to handle everything else. I recognize, though, that there are different circumstances. The water needs and the water costs in the Creston area, for example, for fruit growing, are quite different from different areas in the Okanagan area. I think it's a bit more complicated than simply saying it would be nice if they were all the same.

The spray irrigation: I'm excited by the prospects. I'm sorry it has taken so long to get it off the ground. I know there are health concerns in the minds of some people. I don't share those concerns from the reading I've done. I would like to see the project go ahead. The project is being studied by the Land Commission, and it's my hope that we can get that thing off the ground just as soon as possible.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know there have been so many Members speak about egg quotas and broiler quotas that I feet I should mention the fact, just before I get into some other matters here, that I'd certainly like to back up the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). He suggested that if there was going to be a change made in broiler quotas, it shouldn't necessarily go to the Okanagan area — with all due respect to all the Members from the Okanagan area; it should go further away from the lower mainland. It should go to the north country or to the Kootenays.

Now in the north country...and I must say if it was going to go to the north country, it would have to go to the Peace River area. In that mighty Peace River area, we have the grain to feed them be they broilers or egg hens or whether they be producing eggs or whether they be for eating — cornish hens, et cetera. We have the feed right there in the area.

The Minister of Agriculture said that we've got to have it where there's a market. What better area do we have than the Peace River area? We've got the entire Alaska market which could be supplied from that area. We've got all of the tremendous development that's going to take place in the Yukon and up in the Northwest Territories where they're going to be building fantastic pipelines.

MR. McGEER: Don't forget mining exploration.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, unfortunately, I'm afraid for

[ Page 640 ]

the mining exploration. I'm afraid that the mining exploration might....

HON. MR. STUPICH: Would the Member allow me to interrupt a good speech by saying simply that there are 87 applications in from the Okanagan central area and no applications in for a quota from the Peace River area?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we'll deal with that when it arises. I'll deal with that a little later, Mr. Minister. What I'm saying is, and you have said it yourself, that we should utilize the assets of the particular area. You know, up in the Peace River area our power that we manufacture flows out over a transmission line. Our oil flows out in an oil pipeline. Our gas flows out in a gas pipeline, and our lumber is exported. We feel like — what's the old saying — drawers of wood and hewers of water — no, hewers of wood and drawers of water.

So in that particular area, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, you would have the opportunity to utilize the natural assets of the area, the grain that's already there. That's where the quota should be.

Look at what other assets we've got. We've got grain to feed the chickens. We've got power to run the hatchery deals. We've got gas to heat and we've got the great British Columbia Railroad that they could be shipped out on. That's the natural area and I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture, if he really wants to be credible to his position and if he's going to give instructions, and if the Premier is going to make demands, that's where they should demand. Never mind what about the applications. We just make the demands and give the instructions and away we go.

However, now that I've convinced the Hon. Minister of Agriculture that that's where the quotas for eggs and broilers should go, I'd like to continue to pursue a subject which is very dear to my heart, very dear to the hearts of all those engaged in agriculture in the Province of British Columbia.

The piece of legislation that I mentioned briefly yesterday afternoon, that piece of legislation that affects more farmers in British Columbia than any other piece of legislation that has ever been passed before in this House. I refer to Bill 44, the farm credit Act. I want to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman — and I'm going to come to vote 7 in just a moment if you'll just be patient with me, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, if you'll just be patient with me.

I pointed out in this Legislature prior to Bill 42, prior to any wild promises made by the government opposite, the need in the province by those engaged in agriculture for long-term, low-interest money. I asked for that before Bill 42 created a more urgent need for this legislation. I asked for that on behalf of the opposition. I asked for it on behalf of the backbenchers in the government who represent agricultural ridings.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the chairman of the agricultural committee (Mr. G.H. Anderson). He should be in here speaking and asking where the money is for the farm credit Act.

Then came Bill 42. Bill 42, in essence, took away the borrowing power of many of the farmers in this province. It tied the farmer to his land. No longer could he go into the bank and say, "I own x number of acres of land; I can use it as a hedge against inflation." No longer could he use it as an asset because, as I pointed out during the debate on Bill 42, the true aim of this government was not yet known.

I mentioned that there was no money in this budget for this particular bill, and I mentioned that there was not enough money in the budget for the agriculture department. The Premier pointed out that there was a great substantial increase in one year — from $11 million to $30 million — in the Department of Agriculture. But really there was only an increase of $4 million in the department's operating budget. The other $20 million is to cover legislation that that Minister passed — legislation that was needed because of a situation basically that he has created.

They think that there was such a tremendous amount of increase in the budget in the Department of Agriculture, but I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that there was an increase in the operating budget of the Department of Agriculture of roughly $4 million. That's not only to cover a staff increase of, I think, 84 persons in the department; that's to cover the cost of all services and the provisions of services.

But in the Department of Human Resources the increased cost for the increase in the civil service serving that department is $6.7 million, just for the increased cost of staff. The reason I bring this up and compare, Mr. Chairman, is simply due to the fact that while travelling around the province last year, what did we hear from the farmers in the province? What was one of their biggest problems? They said that it is very difficult to hire people when they can get nearly as much from the Human Resources department as they can get working for us at the wages we can afford to pay. That's why I draw the comparison of over $6.7 million for increased staff alone. That's not for money that's going to be paid out; that's simply for increased staff alone in the Department of Human Resources. I think, Mr. Chairman, that that's a reasonable comparison.

I could go on through other estimates and compare the increase, but I still get back to the fact

[ Page 641 ]

that agriculture only takes 1.6 per cent of the entire budget. For a government that said in the past that they were going to do so much for agriculture in this province, 1.6 per cent of the budget is a very small amount of money.

Had the government done what they said they were going to do and backed up their legislation with money, I wouldn't really have cared if it was only 1.6 per cent. But what I'm saying is that 1.6 per cent is not enough.

I'd like to refresh the Minister's memory just once more. I'm not going to use the same quote I did yesterday, but when Bill 44, the Agricultural Credit Act was being introduced, what did the Minister say? He said it was "legislation that I believe will be more important to the farming industry in this province than any other single piece of legislation in this session or for many sessions in the past and perhaps even in the future." And he is referring to Bill 44, the farm credit Act.

So I discussed it with the Minister yesterday, or the day before — or was it the day before that? — when I first opened the debate on the agriculture estimates. The Premier came back to me and he said, "Look under vote 7." I'll quote the Minister with respect to the amount of money available under the Agricultural Credit Act for direct lending, and we will discuss this, perhaps, when we get to the vote:

"There is some money in vote 7. You will recall that the legislation itself did call for guarantees as well as direct lending, and without getting further into it now, the policy, at least in the first year of operation, will be more for guaranteeing than for direct lending. But there is an amount in vote 7 of $2.5 million available for direct lending."

As I read that, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, that money available under vote 7 is for the Agricultural Land Development Act (ALDA). I would like the Minister to tell me if I'm interpreting the estimates wrongly. It's down here twice, once as being listed for loans under the Agricultural Land Development Act, and the same $2.5 million is listed under expense 95 as "other expenditure loans, " but it is still $2.5 million that is available under ALDA.

Where is the money under vote 7 for the farm credit Act? The Premier and the Minister of Agriculture says: "Well, I suppose he's inferring that the government can back a farmer's loan without it costing the government any direct money." But, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, are you going to go to the chartered banks in British Columbia and persuade those chartered banks to loan money to farmers for up to 30 years at low-interest rates, below those available currently at the bank? Are you going to change the Bank Act?

Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I didn't create this situation — you created the situation. Mr. Chairman, it was the Minister of Agriculture who led the farmers of this province to believe that they were going to get help in this budget to improve their farming operations. I didn't do it; the Minister of Agriculture did it.

As I said yesterday or the day before, one of the most frequently asked questions for help, in all our tours with the agricultural committee, was for money — money to be available to improve their farms, money to be available at low-interest rates.

Now, if the Minister of Agriculture would like to return to his seat, and explain to me where I am wrong, I am quite willing to listen, but I'll tell you that there are farmers out there now who have relied on your word. I want you to tell those farmers here tonight that there will be money available, that you will be hiring a staff, and when you will be doing it.

In your words, and I'm not going to go back and read them out of Hansard again, you know this is the most important piece of legislation that you've passed — you said it would be. Now, would you explain to me, Mr. Minister, your intentions in carrying out your promises to the farmers of this province under Bill 44?

HON. MR. STUPICH: If the Hon. Member had paid attention to the figures in the estimates, the $880,000 was for the ALDA programme and the $2.5 million in there this year is ALDA and it is farm credit — there can be no doubt about that. It is a very substantial increase in that particular program. Beyond that, Bill 44, as you may recall, under section 3 (3) did provide for guarantees totalling $5 million. In section 4 (1) it did provide for an immediate provision of $5 million for direct lending, with the additional provision that the Minister of Finance may add further to that as required after March 31, 1974.

So there was money actually approved by the Legislature last fall, with approval at the same time for the Minister of Finance to add to that as required.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister advise me then when a farmer will be able to make an application? I don't know whether this $5 million is going to be enough, so I won't comment on that. When will a farmer be able to make an application to borrow money under the $5 million which is appropriated in that piece of legislation?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As soon as the regulations have been approved by order-in-council. They are being drafted now. I did indicate earlier that I hope they will be ready in March. That may not be the end of the programme, but a start will be made on this programme sometime in the month of March.

MR. PHILLIPS: In other words, you are telling the

[ Page 642 ]

farming community of this province that as of March 1, which isn't very far away....

HON. MR. STUPICH: I didn't say March 1. I said sometime in March.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. Sometime in March they will be able to write to whom in your department? Have you hired specific personnel to carry out this operation and to check? Will you be able to advise them what the interest rate is going to be?

At that time, before the end of March, would you hand out a release from your office that will indeed advise the farmer how to qualify for this loan? Will you advise the farmer prior to the end of March that you will tell him what the terms will be, whether they will be short-term or long-term? Will you advise him what the interest rate is going to be? Will the interest rate be below the normal bank interest rate?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's a goal that I certainly expect to be able to live up to. I have every expectation that we will be able to do that by the end of March. It will be widely advertised.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I don't want to be repetitive but I had to leave the House on some other business. I also don't want to get involved in the legal questions and the integrity of the statements made over the chicken-and-egg war.

I would like to point out, because of statements made by many Members in this House, that this side, and I as a Member of this Legislature and as a representative from the North Okanagan, have always stood firmly with the opinion that quotas should grow in other parts of the province as the population grows. The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), who isn't here, knows very well that this has been my position and he knows very well of some interesting conversations that I have had about this in the past.

We do not have any egg producers in the North Okanagan, but there is no question but that our producers would strongly support proper and open negotiations to see that quotas do expand properly all over the province, not only in the egg production business and the poultry business, but also in the milk industry.

Again, as a Member of this Legislature, I have no hesitation in committing myself to the fact that I believe all boards should have a strong representation from the minority areas, and this would include the Milk Board. It is my conviction that the Milk Board should have Interior representation on it, and I hope that the Minister would give me some indication today whether or not he would consider this action.

In speaking this way I would like to ask the Minister a question, and before that respectfully suggest to him that rather than the crate that he's in now because of the way this current situation was handled, there is the agriculture committee, which has worked hard and basically done a very good job in trying to support the Minister's efforts in trying to get at the root problems of agriculture and perhaps come up with some practical solutions, which we all know isn't easy, because the whole agricultural industry is so complex and really is affected by so many factors beyond the jurisdiction of the province.

If the Minister does think in terms of expanding the Milk Board, I hope that this will be done in a different manner than the last situation.

On that, I'd like to ask you, Mr. Minister, why, when you were, I'm sure, justly concerned about the problems within the Egg Marketing Board, you didn't bring the matter before the Legislature.

At the time the first meeting took place, as I understand it, on October 26, 1972, the Legislature was in session. If the Minister had done this, then I would suggest that he would have had an excellent debate on this problem and would have received strong support for Interior representation and the reviewing of quota allocations, perhaps even on the matter of fines levied for overproduction.

You did this, Mr. Minister, with the plebiscite for the fruit producers in the Interior, and I would quote your reasons from November 2, 1973, in Hansard when you brought in resolution 10:

In an attempt to find an answer to some of their problems — to identify the problems, at least — the government took several courses of action.

One was to offer funds to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to conduct a study in this, among other sections of the industry. Another was to ask the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to look into the problems of this particular part of the industry.... The third was to commission a study for the Department of Agriculture.

No one had any quarrel with those terms and those concerns, Mr. Minister. At the time, what we did quarrel with was your bringing into this House a resolution requesting permission to hold a plebiscite within an industry that functioned under an Act of this House and already had that authority. Now, that's a matter of record.

The point I want to make, Mr. Minister, is: why, when you did it in this instance, did you not do the same thing when the whole problem arose in regard to the Egg Marketing Board? Would this not have been in the best interests of the producers, the board, and for marketing boards themselves in British Columbia?

The danger here, Mr. Minister — and it has come out in the debate — that while no one, I think, has ever questioned your sincerity in trying to improve the lot of the producer in British Columbia, what some question, including myself, in this particular debate, is: how much authority is the cabinet giving

[ Page 643 ]

you, and how much are you going to be able to disentangle yourself from political commitments, not perhaps made directly by you, but made by your party? I would cite as an example that part of the problem you are facing in the egg situation results from what you, yourself, said are political and party decisions.

In the whole fruit industry, as the Minister is well aware, there is a group in there who received a commitment, if not from the Minister himself, who wasn't Minister then, but from the NDP political party in the last campaign, that they would (1) break the one-desk selling and, (2) do a revamping of the marketing board.

Now, this relates to the current discussion, Mr. Minister, in terms that it is quite common knowledge that the Premier of this province is opposed to one-desk selling of fruit in British Columbia. I think myself, and I can't speak for you, but you have come to realize, quite wisely so, that the competition in this industry is coming from outside British Columbia. If we are going to meet the on-line production that is coming in, and the competition from it in the States, we've got to have a unified approach to the sale of our products, as well as the cost.

What the fruit growers in the Interior are asking today is: is the Minister going to be able to carry out what, in his best judgment, must be done in the fruit industry? Or are the Members of his party who made these commitments before the election, and who have stated very freely that they don't believe in the one-desk selling, and the Premier of this province, with his known feelings, and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), with his expressed feelings in this debate, and the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) who spoke yesterday and, to put it charitably, damned the marketing boards of British Columbia...? Is the Minister going to be able to meet what he wants to do and the commitments he's made to the industry? Is he going to be able to stand up under the type of pressure that he's obviously been subjected to? Obviously in this debate he has found himself very much the victim of politics within his own party.

I would hope, Mr. Minister, that if you rightly believe — and I am certainly not opposed to this myself — that there needs to be allocations or reallocations of quotas, that there needs to be expansion of representation on the Milk Board, and I believe there is, rather than become involved in the problems that you are involved in now, which can only shake the confidence of the agricultural community and your weight within the cabinet, you will bring the matter before the Legislature or utilize the agriculture committee, which, as I say, has tried very hard to meet its commitment on a non-political basis to the problems at hand and to the Minister's responsibilities.

I hope that he will comment on these matters.

Regarding the housing of the poultry industry, the Minister has stated publicly that this is a matter of open discussion, and I hope by now the information resides in his office. I don't know whether you wish me to advise you here what we have recommended, but it essentially is, to the best of my knowledge, a larger than 5-acre piece of land.

It is held in receivership by the Bank of Montreal because it was a meat packing plant that was financed under the federal industrial incentives programme and went bankrupt. It was a concrete block facility and, while it is not yet on sewer, it has its own lagoons which are functioning and can function. If the sewer line goes in, as it will eventually, the sewer line is projected to pass within 200 feet of the building itself.

I understand from much better authorities than myself that conversion of this facility, with all its freezing units and its internal mechanical transportation units, is not an expensive job, and also that it is quite feasible to convert it to poultry processing.

Another factor that might please the Minister is that while I am suggesting this site on a very practical basis, I would advise him that it isn't in my constituency. It happens to be in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis') constituency. It is in the area of Spillimacheen.

But I truly believe, if this proved a reasonable site, because of the fact that we are utilizing an agricultural secondary industrial facility which is now vacant and lying idle, the fact that the overall cost of purchase and conversion would be considerably less than starting anew, that it will benefit, hopefully, the poultry producers outside the lower mainland area, and also it will benefit the whole of the North Okanagan area.

Because I suggest it, I do it graciously to remove any suspicion from the Member for Shuswap — that if he supported this site, it had anything to do with a political decision.

MR. LEWIS: I already suggested that!

MRS. JORDAN: I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration. I will certainly do anything I can to facilitate your getting the information.

I would like to ask the Minister — and I recognize that he doesn't want to divulge the terms of the regulations for loans — but I do want to question him, or have his views, and make very clearly my own view, that when it comes to loaning funds for the development of agriculture in British Columbia, I believe that the eligibility for these loans should be tied to the basis of the quality of production, the management of the unit and the management and

[ Page 644 ]

utilization of that land.

It is these points that the government and the public of British Columbia, who are putting up the money, should be concerned about. I think, Mr. Minister, that if you try to tie your loans to people in fulltime farming, you are going to defeat the very point that you are trying to make.

Let us take the fruit industry, for example. From planting to any type of liveable production is a minimum of five years, and generally it's considered seven years. If an individual wants to repatriate land, and climatology reports indicate, along with soil reports, that this is a feasible project, you are asking a person to borrow money at presumably 8 per cent, which you mentioned earlier, for 20 years, and make his fulltime living off that land before it can even come into production in seven years.

This is a factor in the crop insurance where producers who plant cherries, for example, and have a failure in two to three years, have to turn around and replant again, and because of the production requirements can't qualify for crop insurance. Therefore they are on a losing scale all round.

As one of the Members has mentioned, and as we are all aware, in the State of Washington they very ruthlessly cull their trees. I personally believe that this is an excellent idea. If it isn't making money, it shouldn't be there; that is what it is all about. If it isn't making money, presumably it is not producing.

Mr. Minister, I think that you must be concerned, in terms that you want people to go into agriculture, that it can reasonably be done. What is wrong with a person who is in another form of industry or a young person who wants to work at training or anything else for 5 or 10 years, and then going into agriculture, qualifying?

There are many sizeable orchards, and I think of one in Summerland in the Okanagan, where the man who is buying the orchard is in his 40's, and he is working for the Department of Recreation and Conservation until he can get his orchard paid for, so that he then can live off the profits. That sounds to me like good business sense. It doesn't sound to me like a man who should be penalized from enjoying the benefits that any good grower enjoys.

As I say, there are protections against any major shifting of money in these loan programmes. Obviously nobody wants to see somebody utilizing a government loan to finance another project. But I would say again and stress very firmly, Mr. Minister, that it is the quality of management, the quality of production, and the quality of the use that is being made of that land that we should be concerned about in all these loan qualifications.

As I mentioned before, if there is any suspicion that somebody is abusing the loan, then you have got a good fraud squad under the Department of the Attorney-General, or even among your own employees, that could easily bring this to your attention. You can have a committee set up to investigate it, and the loan can be terminated.

But I suggest in the way you are approaching this, or as I understand you are approaching it, you are going to defeat the very purpose that I believe you have in mind.

Also, I think the danger is: why relegate the producers to second-class citizens? If you work for the civil service, you can moonlight. If you own a garage, you can work at another job. Many Members of this Legislature have other sources of income through their own productivity. Why not let the farmers? Why not adjudicate his eligibility on his ability and his responsibility?

I also would like to suggest to the Minister that he introduce a programme of low-cost, small-term loans to young people who are members of 4H clubs in the metropolitan areas — I speak in terms of the lower mainland — or who are also involved in farm or agricultural activities around the province.

At 14, 15, 16 many of these young people are very competent producers, and there is no better way to instill proper management in young people than to give them the responsibility. I am sorry that the suggestion bores the Minister, but I think it is something he should think about.

On the matter of loans, Mr. Minister, I must again ask you to review your position as far as the development of the CA storage is concerned in the Okanagan. You yourself have said, and we all know, there are tremendous problems confronting this industry, including the potential competition from the United States. Give them a one-third capital grant. On the basis of the current figures it would be $750,000. Designate it a pilot project, so that you are not locking yourself into a programme that might not really be of benefit elsewhere, and leave them with their one-third cost to amortize over the year, and let them carry the operating costs.

I would like to ask you again, Mr. Minister, to commit funds to assist in any way the study of the reorganization of packing units in the Okanagan Valley.

I would ask again a question that I asked yesterday, which the Minister didn't answer, and which I assume he forgot. It is very much in the minds of the producers of British Columbia, and is in regard to the fair employment practises Act. If farmers take part in the income-assistance programme, if the association takes loans or grants from the government for packing facilities, are they going to be, in the future, bound to that Act?

I feel the Minister must make his position and the government's position clear in this area, because if he brings it up later, after the farmers are committed, then he is not being fair to them, and I suggest he is not being fair to himself. Give them the groundrules

[ Page 645 ]

before they commit themselves.

I would ask the Minister to spend a little time with the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young). I found yesterday that her outburst, at a time when ICBC is up to its ears in overcharging, and holding money, and lack of interest in refunds, that she should so viciously attack marketing boards.... I think that we have to accept, or can accept, that without marketing boards in British Columbia, our industry wouldn't be where it is today — which may not always be that desirable.

I do suggest, Mr. Minister, that in the future that Minister must be in close contact with you, and that she has got to remember that the producer of this province is also a consumer — not only in terms of what he buys at the store, but he is a consumer of products in his production.

I wonder if the Minister would tell us how many meetings he has had with the Minister of Consumer Services regarding the cost of agricultural production, machinery and fertilizer.

Your own dairy assistance programme is based on cost of production. Has the Minister asked the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) to investigate, for example, the fertilizer mark-up between the producer and the farmers, because this falls within her purview, because he in fact, or she in fact, is a consumer?

I'll have some other questions, Mr. Minister, that I'd like to ask you, but I hope that along the way you will give me your views on these.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In several discussions between myself and the Minister of Consumer Services, she has welcomed my offer to supply material on the operations of all the marketing boards showing what they had accomplished for their particular commodity group, and not against the interest of the consumer — as a matter of fact in the interest of the consumers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The fair employment practises Act — to the best of my knowledge, all of the workers involved in the fruit industry are now organized in unions. There is certainly no intention of including that as a requisite, but it is my understanding they're all unionized now.

The CA storage programme: The last word I had with the representative of the fruit industry was that they could count on what I had offered to date; that is on the government guarantee which will give them long-term low interest. It wasn't closing the door to anything else, but they went away knowing that they were sure of that much at least. So the policy is being considered. You asked that it be reconsidered; it is not a closed door yet.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you consider a capital grant?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not on the basis.... You suggested that we consider it on the basis that it's a pilot or something. The CA storage benefits are well established, so it's nothing new. Nevertheless, I'm saying the policy has not been firmly established. I'm saying that the certain minimum position has been established and they know it will be no worse than that.

So far as the Milk Board is concerned, it's the one board that is different in that it's appointed as opposed to the others which are all elected. Representations have been made to me that it should be more widely representative of the milk industry in the province and that it should be elected. These things are being considered, but I don't have a position of my own yet. Let alone tell the House, I haven't tried to tell my colleagues yet because I haven't arrived at a conclusion.

With respect to the Coldstream Packers property: this is one of the first ones that was looked at. The recommendation for the poultry commissioner is that it would cost too much to convert the plant, that the better thing to do at that location, were it chosen as the one, would be to start by tearing down the facilities and starting from the ground. It's not discounted as a site; it's still open. If we can find another one that can be more cheaply, more economically and more suitably built on, well then we'll do that. But the Coldstream Packers site, you'd say that we wouldn't have to buy it, as you say it's in receivership from one of the banks, so likely we would have to buy it.

As for the plebiscite in the fruit industry: I was led to believe there was a substantial body of opinion within the fruit growers own organization that the very basis of the scheme did not have the support of the fruit growers. I didn't believe that was the case, but I thought that the opinions that way were strong enough that it warranted having a plebiscite to convince themselves and everybody else that there was genuine support in that organization for the very basis of the scheme. This is quite a different situation from the poultry industry where the quarrel at that time — the time of the fall session, as you mentioned — was between the board, representing all of the producers, and two individuals who were being charged certain fines and levies. But quite a different situation from the one in the fruit industry.

MRS. JORDAN: Just on that point, Mr. Minister. My point, and perhaps I didn't make it clear, was that there was the authority for the fruit industry to hold a plebiscite without referring to this Legislature, and you chose to refer it to the Legislature — and I don't want to go into the reasons now. But when you

[ Page 646 ]

recognized that you had a very serious problem in the poultry industry and a very serious position for the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), when the House was sitting why didn't you refer this matter to the House?

It seems to be something that's constantly getting your government into trouble. This side of the House has constantly tried to point out to the government that you are removing so much authority from the House that you're not only being unfair to the public of British Columbia, you're leaving yourself very vulnerable to such a situation as you're in now.

While the Members from your own backbench have tried to cloud the issue, it's very clear to this House and the public that what is at issue is the integrity of the government in the whole poultry situation. I'm suggesting that in future that you don't indulge in this sort of risky business and that your government bring back before this House the authority that is needed to meet the public's needs. I again want to know why you use this procedure with something that already had the proper authority to act outside the House.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I can't really add anything, Mr. Chairman, except that the problems were different and the solutions, as I saw them at that time, required a different action. It's just simply that.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question this afternoon; I think it's important that the answer be given before this evening. Shall this be the wish of the House?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan this afternoon, as she made the statement: "...and I understand that no one will be insured between 12:01 a.m. and 12:05 a.m. March 1, 1974." The regulations, as enacted in regulation (2) pursuant to the Automobile Insurance Act, state in part that the owner's certificate purchased prior to March 1, 1974, shall be for a 12-month period commencing 12:01 a.m. March 1, 1974. There is no elapsed time between the lapsing of the private insurance and the implementation of the Autoplan insurance. The Member may have been confused by the fact that the section number in the regulations is No. 1205.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answer, although I got it much earlier this afternoon myself — I had ICBC in a flurry.

I would like to suggest that it you check Hansard I prefaced my question by saying: "Correct me if I'm wrong," because I didn't know the answer and I have had requests from some lawyers to clarify the situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You get the regulations.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw Bill 27 standing in my name.

Leave granted.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, although you are unaware of matters taking place in committee, over the past two days reference has been made to certain affidavits of the documents in the course of the committee, and I would ask leave to table those documents.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the proper procedure has to be to take it up in committee and get a motion in committee to refer to the House. I don't know that that's been done.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm just asking leave to table documents.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. Well, there's no matter before the House upon which this depends. It depends, usually, on something that's transpiring in the House. Otherwise there is no relevance to anything. However, if you wish me to ask the House for leave....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm asking leave. The Members of this House know what went on in committee even if you do not, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that's true.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And I'm asking leave to table documents.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll ask the question: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.