CONTENTS

Statement Request for meeting on cut-off lands question. Hon. Mr. Levi — 2133

Routine proceedings

Emergency Programme Act (Bill 6 1). Hon. Mr. Hall Introduction and first reading — 2134

Land Registry Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 78). Ms. Sanford Introduction and first reading — 2134

Oral Questions

Purchase of Bute Street block. Mr. Bennett — 2134

Rental of Marine Building. Hon. Mr. Hartley answers — 2134

Natural gas price increases. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2135

Supervision of jail inmates. Mr. Wallace — 2135

Payments to Vancouver Island Tourist Services. Mr. Phillips — 2136

Amount of low tender on Kimberley government building. Mr. Chabot — 2137

Losses in Crown ventures. Mr. Gardom — 2137

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates. On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2138

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2149

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2150

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Hon. Mr. Stupich. — 2150

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2151

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2152

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman . — 2152

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2152

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2152

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2153

Point of order Clarification of items in vote under consideration. Mr. McClelland — 2154

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2154

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2154

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2155

Point of order Suspension of Mr. D.A. Anderson from service of the House — 2158

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates .

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2159

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2160

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2161

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2162

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2163

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman. — 2164

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2164

Point of order Imputation of improper motive. Mr. Chairman — 2164

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2165

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply:- Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2167

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman . — 2168

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2169

Point of order Relevancy of remarks under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2171

Point of order Suspension of Mrs. Jordan from service of the House — 2173

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. McClelland — 2173

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman. — 2174

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. McClelland — 2177

Point of order Imputation of improper motive. Mr. Chairman — 2178

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. McClelland — 2179

Appendix — 2180

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the gallery today a group of strong Conservative supporters from the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain, and their president, Mr. David Moorhouse. They are here to find out if life is really as tough for the Conservative leader as everybody says it is. The House should welcome them.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the galleries today is a group of students from the North Island Senior Secondary School located at Port McNeill. They are here today with their teacher, Mr. Parker. I would like the House to make them feel welcome.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, if you are surprised at the good behaviour of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), let me assure you it's because of the presence in the gallery of his daughter Kim, and I hope we all welcome her.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope she stays in the gallery. (Laughter.)

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make a statement to the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this is in relation to the cut-off lands question. Today I wrote a letter to Mr. Phillip Paul, George Watts and Bill Wilson, the executive members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, in care of Mr. Lou Demerais, 2141 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver.

"Dear Sirs:

"Since the meeting of the cabinet committee and the Premier with your delegation on March 4, 1975, we have continued to examine the cut-off lands question. We have compiled extensive background information on the cut-off lands, and are now prepared to arrange a further meeting with you.

"I am proposing that your committee meet with a committee of cabinet in the latter part of June at a date convenient to all concerned. The purpose of this meeting would be: (1) to set up the terms of reference for continuing discussions on the question; (2) to provide an opportunity for an exchange of information; (3) to agree on the mechanisms required to acquaint the general public with the facts related to cut-off lands.

"It is important to remember that all of the people in British Columbia have an interest in the lands in this province, and therefore the people must understand the issues our committee will be discussing. It is my hope that the meeting in June will initiate a series of meetings which will enable us to develop adequate techniques and procedures for the discussions.

"I look forward to hearing from you at an early date."

I spoke to Phillip Paul and George Watts over the phone. I read the letter to them and they said: "How about the 26th and 27th of June?" I will undertake to get back to them next week, once I can get a meeting of the minds of the members of the committee in terms of a date that is convenient to everyone.

I would be interested, Mr. Speaker, if any of the opposition leaders have some comments on this.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we are happy the government will be meeting with the Indians in regard to the cut-off lands. I only hope that the discussions will provide the guidelines for the discussions which must take place between the federal and provincial governments in concert, meeting with the 23 bands involved in the cut-off lands.

I hope the action will prevent any disruption or threatened disruption which may have happened, and I hope the government and the Indian chiefs will find a basis for the discussion which we hope will find a solution.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we welcome this statement by the Minister. It appears that it was not too difficult to arrange the meeting that we've been urging for some years now.

It appears that the Indian groups themselves and the provincial government are indeed in a position to discuss the question of $36,000 of cut-off lands without negotiations from other parties.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sorry, 36,000 acres.

We trust that the advertising campaign referred to by the Minister will not be entirely one way and not be just of the government's, so that the Indians will be given an opportunity of making their case as well and that they will not be faced with a massive barrage of government money used for advertising which they obviously would be unable to meet.

[ Page 2134 ]

We think June 26 and 27 are quite appropriate. We hope that before the end of this summer the matter is settled once and for all and this grave injustice that has continued in British Columbia now for many decades is rectified.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we certainly approve of the announcement which the Minister has made. We strongly believe that this kind of issue can only be settled by discussions around a table.

I would just like to ask one question. Perhaps the Minister could tell us if, in the light of this decision by government, there has been any reciprocal commitment by the Indian people that in the meantime, prior to June 26 and 27, some of the unfortunate scenes which have resulted in interruption of the B.C. Rail, for example, and other disturbances in the communities, will be minimized or discontinued now that the government has taken this step to negotiate.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, Mr. Speaker. We have not put any strictures on the question of the meetings. I think the answer to that question, Mr. Member, is something that the Indian leadership itself will have to deal with.

Introduction of bills.

EMERGENCY PROGRAMME ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hall, Bill 61, Emergency Programme 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.

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill 78, Land Registry Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

PURCHASE OF BUTE STREET BLOCK

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Public Works: can the Minister confirm to the House that the government purchased last November a seven-storey office building located in the 600 block Bute Street in Vancouver, the legal description of this property being lot 10, block 17, district lot 185, plan 92; and that the purchase price was in excess of $2 million'?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to check that out.

MR. BENNETT: Well, you don't know....

HON. MR. HARTLEY: All right, Mr. Speaker, he asked me if I will confirm this. Now I'd like to reply to the question that he asked last week.

RENTAL OF MARINE BUILDING

On Wednesday of last week the Leader of the Opposition asked if my department had rented space on the 8th floor of the Marine Building in Vancouver ...

MR. BENNETT: Two weeks ago.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...at an annual cost of $4.50 per square foot, until the price goes up on May first to $5.70 per square foot.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that because that information is not correct. When any person gets up and asks a leading question: "Can you confirm?" I think a person is very foolish to answer yes or no. I could not confirm the majority of his questions. If I had confirmed them, I would have been just as wrong as he is.

Now I could be pleased to give the information with regard to the Marine Building. The Department of Public Works has rented space in the Marine Building...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an answer to a previous question.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...and they've rented space for the past 17 years; to be precise, since May 1, 1958. Now we had hoped to be able to occupy this space on January 1, but the oil company operating it did not vacate until later in the year.

MR. BENNETT: When?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The rate is $5.30. This space is included in the overall lease for the period May 1, 1975, to April 30, 1978 — that is, a three-year lease of $5.52 per square foot. This space was not vacated, as I said, by Standard Oil on schedule, but at a later date.

MR. BENNETT: When?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We will receive a credit on our temporary lease for the overrun by the oil company. The B.C. Forest Service are renovating the space, and the B.C. Forest Service will move in when

[ Page 2135 ]

they have completed the renovations.

MR. BENNETT: I have a supplemental to that, and a supplemental to the question you didn't answer.

Would the Minister advise when the oil company vacated the space, how much the credit will be, and why it has taken so long for the renovations to take place?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The refund to the oil company will be prorated for the length of time, and I believe it was early February when they vacated.

MR. BENNETT: Didn't you come in with the answer? Do you know the date they left?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. BENNETT: Will you give us the date they left? You came in with the answer.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Early February.

MR. BENNETT: It was early February? Fine.

Now in regard to the question I asked the Minister about the building, did you take that as notice?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I said I would look into it and report back. I would like to check out the facts rather than getting up and very foolishly answering yes or no, as you might do.

MR. BENNETT: Just as foolishly as you've done now.

NATURAL GAS PRICE INCREASES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The question is to the Attorney-General in connection with the price of natural gas.

When the federal Minister announced the increase in price a few days ago, his statement indicated that Ottawa and Alberta would be together considering the matter of the increase of price to the producers of gas. May I ask the Attorney-General whether we in British Columbia may act unilaterally, or is the national government involved in the decision in this province?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The federal government is not involved. They have been content that we should await the results of the inquiry which is now going on under Dr. Thompson of the Energy Commission into what is a fair price to pay for the producers in the field for natural gas. I would hope that that inquiry would be able to make its report by late August or even the beginning of August so that we'll have three or four months before the major drilling season commences in the winter season.

That inquiry is now well underway. Counsel has been engaged, and they've already had an initial meeting, with most of the producing companies turning up to that meeting. So it's a very active inquiry that's going on, and it will recommend to the government what the prices should be.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Supplemental. If the price of gas to the producer rises, will that result, under the formula that has been negotiated with the national government, in a reduction in the moneys that the B.C. Petroleum Corp. Is obliged to pay the national government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will result in a reduction of the revenues of BCPC.

Your second question is a little more complicated: will it, under our undertaking, pay to the federal government the taxes that they would have achieved under the Turner budget? I'd have to check out whether or not that would increase our obligation to Ottawa under the arrangements we've made.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: My final supplemental, Mr. Speaker. In view of the staff study which was announced in the press this morning, indicating that the increase in price to the producers appears to be appropriate, is the government considering an increase in price at this time?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. This is merely one research paper on the subject, prepared by staff, with facts and figures. The decision as to what recommendations will be made to the government, of course, will come from Dr. Thompson.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Supplemental. Can the Attorney-General give a commitment to the House to make the report of the Energy Commission, when it is prepared, available to all the Members in the Legislature and to the general public as soon as that report becomes a fact?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we renew our commitment as to open government. This is a public body making a report to government. I think it should be available to the producers and I think it should be seen by the people.

SUPERVISION OF JAIL INMATES

MR. WALLACE: To the Attorney-General. With further reference to my question of May 5 regarding

[ Page 2136 ]

the suicides of accused persons in custody, and in view of another suicide yesterday — this time at Oakalla — and in view of the report by Mr. John Cramm of the Justice Development Commission which was highly critical of facilities, will the Attorney-General initiate on an urgent basis the necessary correction of these most serious deficiencies in the system of supervising accused persons in custody and inmates in jail?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, the answer is undoubtedly yes, including the question of closed-circuit television, as the Hon. Member mentioned the other day. I can see that in a lock-up situation; I am not sure that I can approve it in terms of long-term custody of somebody after sentence, because that's a little bit Big Brother, isn't it? In local lockups it is being used. It's a matter of urgent consideration, yes.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Attorney-General what more immediate steps are to be taken? I presume that the longer-term study which will be undertaken as a result of the report will come forward with steps. But in view of the continuing situations I've quoted, is there not some immediate urgent step that the Minister is prepared to make a commitment about right now?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is underway, of course, a coroner's inquiry into the case. It wasn't New Westminster; it was Oakridge, that death that was referred to. In the one that has just happened, I don't know whether there will be a coroner's inquiry or a coroner's inquest, but either one of those two steps will certainly be taken.

PAYMENTS TO VANCOUVER
ISLAND TOURIST SERVICES

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Travel Industry. In view of the fact that it now seems to be a policy for the Premier and the Minister of Travel Industry to rebuke the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) publicly, and that the contract which the Minister of Transport and Communications signed with Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd. has now been broken, would the Minister advise if any moneys were paid by any motel operators to Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd. to have their brochures placed on the ferry before the contract was broken?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): First of all, dealing with the suppositions on which the Member bases his question, he's wrong in the first instance; it's not a policy to rebuke anybody. Secondly, the contract — I forget the word you used, but whatever word you used, you were wrong again. (Laughter.) The enormity of the Member's questions staggers the imagination. I told the Member during estimates what was happening. If he chooses to fool around with the answers, that's on his head. May I say to the questioner what has happened now, so he now knows what he should say?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you remember the question?

HON. MR. HALL: I do remember the question, indeed. I've given a number of accounts about it in the corridors already. A press release has gone out and it's been well received all over the place.

In consultation with the ferries, on consultation with the Minister of Transport and Communications, I as the Minister of Travel Industry renegotiated and augmented the service and the contract that was in existence with Mr. McCall of Vancouver Island Travel Services Ltd. The Department of Travel Industry is now in charge of the business of brochures on the ferries. Mr. McCall is going to continue much of the work that he had already contracted to do. It will be a better system.

If I remember correctly, the Member applauded my remarks on Thursday, April 24, when I was going to negotiate with Mr. McCall. Mr. McCall has agreed to the contract being cancelled, and that's part of the deal.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Travel Industry is trying to soothe the Minister of Transport and Communications, would the Minister answer my question? Were there any moneys paid by any motel operators under the contract that the Minister signed? Were there any money paid before the contract was renegotiated? Was any money paid by any of the motel operators?

HON. MR. HALL: The answer to that question is yes, and the moneys are being returned to the people who sent the money. They were held in trust by Mr. McCall. My information is that Mr. McCall has contacted those people and will be refunding the money.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the contract that Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd, had, which could have brought them $150,000 a year, and in view of the contract they now have with the Department of Tourist Industry, under the new terms of the contract was there any bonus paid to Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd. when the contract was renegotiated?

[ Page 2137 ]

HON. MR. HALL: No bonus.

AMOUNT OF LOW TENDER ON
KIMBERLEY GOVERNMENT BUILDING

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Public Works and cafes. With respect to receipt of tenders for construction of phase 2 of the government building in Kimberley, could the Minister confirm that the low tender was received from Bill Carlson Building Services Ltd. of Cranbrook in the amount of $22,928,90?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it as notice.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The answer is yes. I'm not certain of the exact figure, but the answer is yes.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary. The company submitting the low bid does not have a collective bargaining agreement with its employees, nor was the company qualified to bid and undertake the work through contract under the public service fair employment which permits non-union work. The contractor submitting the bid employs less than two people. Therefore could the Minister give the reason why the contract is to be re-tendered?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The contract is being re-tendered. We have called new tenders and...

MR. CHABOT: Why?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...as soon as the...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...tenders are in, we will announce them. The first tender was not in compliance with the public works fair employment legislation.

LOSSES IN CROWN VENTURES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the House Leader, but since the House Leader is not here and the Deputy House Leader's not here, who is the House Leader? If someone would put up their hand? Who?

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: If there is a House Leader, I would ask the Hon. House Leader: in view of the fact that every 24 hours of every day ICBC is losing over $100,000, the B.C. Ferries are losing $68,000 and B.C. Hydro transit is going down to the extent of $46,000, 1 would ask whatever Member is prepared to answer on behalf of the Premier whether they are prepared to recommend to him that he correct and amend his budget, because we're clearly in a deficit position. Or failing that, would they be prepared to go to the people so we can replace this administration with one that won't bankrupt the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Any party over here would do a better job than you, my friend, make no mistake of that fact. This or that — any one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, whatever ICBC or the B.C. Ferries lose, the people gain. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I note that according to standing order 25, the daily routine indicates that this is private Members' day. There hasn't been one for over a year, and I just wonder if the government is ever going to subscribe to the rules of the House and follow them.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he took part in a motion and agreed to it at the beginning of this session that priority would be given to Committee of Supply? Therefore, until Committee of Supply is completed, that priority persists unless you get unanimous leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: At the moment I don't think we have unanimous leave. But possibly by Monday it may be possible again to have....

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 6: production and marketing programmes, $4,413,655.

[ Page 2138 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis).

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought the Hon. Member had just come in and not taken his seat. I recognize the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a most interesting turn of events. Having stopped smoking and now having an extreme weight problem, I find it somewhat flattering to have been sitting here the whole time since the House opened this afternoon and finding that you thought I wasn't here. I also find it most interesting at this time, when we are working under a means of selective closure by this government, that we are entering on a very vital portfolio long after its initial votes were passed, with a period intervening of some two weeks. Then we find that even with those interruptions, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is trying to ram the votes through without allowing debate. There certainly doesn't seem to be any resistance on the part of the Chairman.

I would like to pose a number of questions under these votes, but first of all I would like to talk about the section on weed control. As the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) may or may not be aware, we are somewhat concerned that this vote, which was $200,000 last year, is reduced to $100,000 this year. In another vote, presumably, the transfer of emphasis which would be under the insect and biological control programme is only $100,000, which means that the actual control on the part of the government, if I understand the estimates correctly, in terms of weeds and insect control....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the Hon. Member for North Okanagan, we are considering vote 6, production and marketing programmes.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, under section 20 of vote 6, it has weed control with an estimate of $100,000....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member continue?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, are we having a little problem today?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what day it is.

MRS. JORDAN: Now that you have interrupted me, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister follows my point: one cannot look at weed control in isolation from the other vote which I mentioned on page L23, vote 8, designation No. 2, insect and biological control programme. These are interrelated. I assume the Minister's reason for cutting the weed-control programme to $100,000 this year from $200,000 last year is, as I mentioned, that he is changing his emphasis.

Now, Mr. Minister, this is a matter of serious concern to the producers in the agricultural industry in British Columbia and to us as an opposition. As the Minister is well aware, the attitude publicly, whether it is intentional or not, has been to sock it to the farmer when it comes to this matter of weed control. It has been the producer in this province, whether he is in the production of fruit or the production of row crops or the production of cattle or whatever the various production .... Emphasis on environmental control, which certainly is a matter of considerable importance, and the emphasis on ecological management, which has prohibited the use of many sprays which have in the past been of benefit to agriculture has meant that the producer is bearing the cost in terms of dollars and in terms of his manual output for this social concern.

If the Minister has been made aware, there has been a rapid increase of noxious weeds on the ranges in British Columbia. The distribution of the seeds is considered to be accelerated by traffic — cars, helicopters, people on foot who are more and more utilizing rangelands and agricultural properties for recreation, traffic by birds and traffic by animals.

Trains. There are a number of tracks criss-crossing the Province of British Columbia, and since there has been a restriction of chemical sprays along the railroad tracks, there has been a great increase in the number of noxious weeds throughout the province. These are spreading increasingly through the various traffic patterns or avenues which I have mentioned, as well as nature itself through winds.

It is the producer who is having to cope with the problems this is causing. The spread of weeds is cutting down on the productivity of a lot of our rangelands. It is cutting down the productivity of many hay crops, for example. I would cite in this instance the problem we are having in the Okanagan with a weed which is commonly called peppergrass. I won't give the Latin name because I don't think any of us would understand it. But this is a weed that is proving resistant to almost any type of control. It spreads by root; it spreads through animals. Once it infests a field it is like a cancer — it is highly malignant; you can't kill it. It seems to feed on itself,

[ Page 2139 ]

and it will eventually take over the whole field. It is not only unattractive to animals when they are grazing — they won't eat it — but it also has a very destructive effect as far as their appetites are concerned if it is in the baled hay.

This is one area, Mr. Minister, where there is a great need to have more money available to the Agriculture department in order that they can carry out more pilot projects to, first of all, find an effective control for this weed and, secondly, to be in a position where it can be applied at minimum cost to the producer.

We have other range problems, and I am sure the Minister is aware of it. Before I go into all the details on this specific point I'd like to ask him why this vote is down, other than the point I mentioned, and what emphasis he is placing on weed control in the province at this time? Where are the funds coming from to accelerate this problem? What compensation is there going to be made available to the producer who is having to bear the brunt of social concern in this area?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, under this vote I'd like to say a few words about marketing boards, which isn't anything new. Prior to being elected I had a lot to say about them, and since being elected I've had a lot to say and I'm still no happier with them.

As a matter of fact, up until this time I felt that there was room for marketing boards to improve, there was room for them to start working for the betterment of the consumer and the farmer. But through actions which have taken place through past months, I've lost that small amount of faith that was left.

I'd like to refer to the six million pounds of turkey and the three million pounds of broilers in storage in this province at this time. I think in both cases it is regrettable and almost unforgivable.

The consumers in this province will be in the position that they have three pounds of turkey in storage for every man, woman and child in this province at the present time. The consumer will be continually eating a product which is dried out more than it should be — not as fresh a quality as what they should be having an opportunity to purchase. This also applies to broilers. It is a known fact that neither one of these should be kept in storage more than six months. They start deteriorating prior to that even, at a period of four months.

The marketing boards were initially set up to control production so that there would not be surpluses in the province, so that there was orderly marketing, so that both the consumer and the producer would be protected. But in my view they haven't worked. When you end up with this type of surplus in storage, it's an indication that there has been a failure. To me, this affects everybody in the Province of British Columbia.

Some of the actions by marketing boards affect some parts of this province more than they do others. I've said this before and I'm going to say it again: throughout the whole interior of this province there isn't one producer who has the right to raise fryer or broiler chickens. This has a bad effect on the economy. It has an effect on the consumer in regard to the product they eat. They eat a product which often comes in from Manitoba or Alberta or from the lower mainland of the province, and it is often quite old before it reaches the store shelves. I feel that this government should have moved to see that something was done about this before this time.

The past government let it carry on for 20 years and we have let it carry on for almost three years.

MR. WALLACE: What have you got in mind?

MR. LEWIS: I say that production should have been into the interior shortly after we were elected with the stand that we took that there would be regional control of marketing throughout this province. But the marketing board structures are set up and Pan-Ready Poultry is set up with complete control in the Fraser Valley of this province or with some on Vancouver Island. The farmers in the interior of the province don't have an opportunity to go into these fields. When Pan-Ready Poultry was structured, I took the stand that if there was a plant built in the interior, there should be farmers from the interior who would be the directors on that plant. But this isn't what happened. The directors for that plant come from the lower mainland of this province.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Vancouver Island.

MR. LEWIS: The directors who represent the growth in the interior or the construction of that plant are people who are tied with Pacific Poultry in the Fraser Valley or Pan-Ready in the Fraser Valley as well. It is not to their best interest to see that there is a plant constructed in the interior of the province. There were quotas allocated almost a year ago in the interior. Many of those producers have gone ahead and built buildings and have them ready for production but there is no processing plant.

I say that Pan-Ready Poultry isn't responsible to the whole of the province; they are responsible to a few producers which they represent in the Fraser Valley of this province. Harry Liedtke is the chairman of the Broiler Marketing Board and he is also the chairman of Pan-Ready Poultry. I say that decisions that Harry Liedtke and his board are making aren't in the best interests of British Columbians.

[ Page 2140 ]

I urge the Minister to do something to see that something happens in regard to the construction of this plant so that some production takes place in the interior immediately. I know there have been problems in regard to a site for the plant. There was an initial site which was to be built near the Shuswap River and there was a lot of concern by environmentalists that it could pollute the river. I feel that the location of a second site was desirable, as does the Minister. But if that had taken place in the lower mainland with that same board, they would have had an alternate site within a matter of a couple of months and that plant would have been under construction.

Because of the large amount of surplus poultry that is in storage in this province at this time, decisions are being made by Pan-Ready Poultry, the Broiler Marketing Board and the turkey board to see that farmers throughout the province don't have a chance to get into production on these commodities. I say this has to change. I ran on a strong platform that there would be regional production throughout this province. The party policy was this way. There has been a push by people throughout the interior, not just the farmers but also the consumers, for something to happen to see that people throughout this province have equal opportunity.

In my view, the operation of the Egg Marketing Board hasn't been quite as bad. At least they have producers throughout the interior; they have one member on the board from the interior. But it is still far from being perfect.

With regard to the tie-in with CEMA, I say that CEMA right now is a disaster. I say that if we go ahead and sign the agreement which CEMA has put forth for all the provinces, B.C. will be sold down the river. Farmers in this province will lose a share of the market which they have enjoyed for a number of years. The interior and Vancouver Island in this province will likely be put in the same position as they were when marketing boards came into this province in the first place: they will get a smaller share of the total market and won't have the right to grow with consumption in those areas.

I think the example of what happened in Terrace with an egg farmer there who is being sued for $136,000 right now for producing too many eggs is disgraceful. That farmer, in my view, broke the law; there is no doubt about that. He produced more eggs than he should have. But I say that the law is lousy. I say that farmers in that area should have an opportunity to supply products to the consumers of that area. When you can say that there is only one egg farmer between Vanderhoof and Prince Rupert at the present time and that he is going to be sued for $136,000, which will put him out of business and leave that whole western corner of the province without an egg producer, with the consumers dependent upon production from either the lower mainland or Manitoba, I think that is disgraceful.

That is my view on it. I stand very strong on it; I am not going to change my position. I think that I have had a fair position. I think it is a fair position for all of the province, not just for the interior. I think the interior has been discriminated against for a number of years. It's time that it changed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I find that Minister's presentation most interesting. I think it is just very typical, when one recalls comments that he has made in this House before as they relate to his comments now, where he seems to change his position whenever it is convenient and where he thinks it is politically popular. This is very characteristic of this government, of that Member and this Minister. It is an example of the games that this department is playing with the producers in the province and with this whole industry. Referring to the Member for Shuswap....

MR. LEWIS: You were there for 12 years and didn't do anything about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to vote 6.

MRS. JORDAN: I am. I am referring to his position on the poultry industry in British Columbia today.

I certainly don't blame anyone for standing up for the rights of the people they represent. That's our job. But if there was a man in real estate in this Legislature, or a lady in a commercial business in which there was a Ministerial responsibility, and they said what this Member has said about his own business, they would be accused of conflict of interest, Mr. Chairman.

This Member has taken three positions in this House. When he first came in he couldn't say enough bad about the Egg Marketing Board. Now he's mellowed his tune, and yet there has been no major change in the Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, if this Member was sincere in his efforts, he would ask the Minister, as I will, what the Minister is going to do about the Garrish report. That's the avenue. Don't champion your own pocketbook. The Garrish report was commissioned by the former administration to look into the operations of the Egg Marketing Board in British Columbia. They were given a certain period of time and a certain amount of money, and the chairman of that committee came back to the government of the day and said that the job was too big and there wasn't enough money, and that they would like an extension of the time that they were given and more money than they were given.

[ Page 2141 ]

Subsequently they filed a report to the current Minister and the current administration in which they made a number of very positive statements about the value of marketing boards. I think they were very unemotional and very realistic statements. They also went on record as suggesting that if it hadn't been for marketing boards for some products in this province we wouldn't even have those products produced in the province today, because of external factors that are beyond the control of the province. I think the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) is aware of this.

Also in the report Mr. Garrish and his committee recommended that there could be some constructive alterations made in the marketing system. He concluded on behalf of his committee with comments to the effect that it needed more extensive study and more time, and he recommended that changes to the marketing board in the interim, without this type of in-depth study, would merely be a Band-aid approach.

So, Mr. Minister, because we seem to see a schizophrenic attitude on the part of this government, first of all the Member for Shuswap, who changes with the wind and seems to stand for anything that he thinks his constituents might fall for...and that we see the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) who is violently opposed to marketing boards, who has condemned them openly and without constructive criticism, who has done a great deal of harm to the agricultural industry in this province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to make my point of order first, and then the Hon. Minister.

On vote 6 we are considering the administrative responsibilities of the Minister only under this vote, and not the points of view that might be held or might be taken by other Members of the House. You must discuss the administrative responsibilities of this Minister under this vote.

The Hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Fine, Mr. Chairman.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I have never said at any time that I was opposed to marketing boards, and that Member has falsely accused me of making such statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. We accept the correction by the Hon. Minister. Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan continue?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In deference to your rule I won't read from press releases I have, issued by the Minister of Consumer Services, to substantiate my statement. But I will address my question to the Minister of Agriculture, who has, to his credit, staunchly defended marketing boards.

I would suggest that if one examiner, these various statements and one examines the interests of the consumers in this province and the interests of the producers of this province, it is imperative that the Minister of Agriculture give us his position with regard to the Egg Marketing Board in particular and marketing boards in general.

I would like to ask him what his position is in regard to the Garrish report. Is he going to follow the recommendation that was made and have an overview of the Egg Marketing Board, or does he intend to disregard the report?

In speaking of poultry, Mr. Chairman, I also would like to know the Minister's view on the poultry-processing plant in the interior. I find it a little difficult to understand the various positions that have been put forward, first by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and at times by the Minister, because my understanding is that there is indeed a surplus of turkeys in the Province of British Columbia in storage and a surplus of poultry in storage. The former speaker mentioned six million pounds of turkey and three million pounds of broilers.

My understanding is that the processing plant that the Minister is endeavouring to establish in the interior of the province will produce, in one year, the amount of poultry that is currently in storage now, and for which there is no market. My question to the Minister is: where does he intend to market the poultry that will be processed in the plant which is to go into the Salmon Valley area? Where does the Minister propose that the current backlog of processed poultry in storage be marketed?

I also understand that it is economically not feasible at this time for the turkey processing to operate on a separate basis from poultry processing, in light of the overhead and the limited market. I would like to know the Minister's views on this and if, in fact, he does intend to amalgamate, one way or another, this type of production.

I would also like to ask the Minister in relation to the processing plants.... I would like to suggest that the government was very wise indeed to back off from the location the way they did, because there was certainly a good deal of public concern from the pollution control point, but also there was a lot of public concern from the economic point of view as to whether this plant was indeed viable.

I would like to know if, in fact, the Minister is intending that it should be established in the Salmon Valley area. Have there been extensive studies done as to whether or not the pollution factor is to be taken into consideration if the effluent is used in spray irrigation? If the Minister intends that the government or the companies buy the whole of the farm involved, what does he intend should be done

[ Page 2142 ]

with the balance that will be not used for the poultry-processing plant? I would also like to know if he could give the House an explanation as to why the criteria for the pollution control permit was altered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Shuswap on a point of order.

MR. LEWIS: I would ask that you have the Hon. Member withdraw the inference that I spoke on behalf of self-interest. If that is the criteria taking place in this House, then she should never speak on health, because her husband is a doctor; no lawyer should speak on a law case or anything to do with lawyers. I say that her action is irresponsible and disgraceful. She should speak up for her riding instead of speaking against it.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, last time we talked about marketing boards the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was in his seat. Is he going to be in this afternoon or...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister proceeds, in dealing with the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), I gather that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was suggesting that the Hon. Member was speaking only out of self-interest. Therefore I would ask her to withdraw this inference or imputation against the Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I think you have misinterpreted my intention. I said that if a man was in the real estate business and spoke as this Member did, he would be accused of conflict of interest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Then I would ask you the question, Hon. Member, if you were, in fact, suggesting that the Hon. Member for Shuswap was speaking only from self-interest.

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to save some of my remarks about marketing boards in general and in particular until the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey returns.

There was a question about weed control — the vote for weed control. The reason that had been cut back was that we have found we haven't needed nearly as much money as was previously provided. As the Hon. Member for North Okanagan pointed out, last year $200,000 was voted for salaries and for grants to those regional districts or municipalities that wanted to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture in a weed-control programme. By the end of January, the last figures that I happen to have with me in the House right now, we had spent a total of $37,000 for that programme. So it would seem to be poor management to provide $200,000 if we expect that $100,000 will be quite adequate for the programme and for the anticipated expansion of this programme. That's why there is a cutback in this particular vote.

The question with respect to entomology, I suggest, would be more appropriate, Mr. Chairman, under vote 8.

With respect to the Garrish report: the Garrish report said many things about the egg industry, including the reference to the fact that when the egg board was first established there was general agreement that quotas should have no value. It is unfortunate that over a period of time it did develop that it would have a value and the price went up. I think in some cases there were sales as high as $400 or $450.

While agreeing that this was unfortunate, that the agreement was that it would never happen, Mr. Garrish in his report recognized that it did happen and that it would not be fair or equitable or even possible to wipe out this value overnight — not even desirable. But the implication was there that there should be a gradual reduction in the price of quota. We have achieved that by establishing a market for quota.

In the first year after the Garrish report was tabled we established a market of $300 a case per quota. We said then that we expected the market price to reduce. The price right now is $270 and we have indicated to the egg industry that we expect this value to keep on reducing at the rate of $30 a year for a number of years — not necessarily to wipe it out completely, but the plan is to reduce it.

Mr. Garrish in his report recommended that there should be changes in the management of the egg board — that is, their policies and the way it operates in the egg industry in the province — but that these changes should be made gradually. We have been trying to do that in ways other then in reducing the value of the quota itself. For example, relocation of the industry; there are good grounds for relocating the industry.

I suppose I am just a little bit surprised at the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) taking offence at anything the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) says. I would simply consider the source of those remarks and not take any offence at all, having had a fair amount of experience listening to her remarks in the House over some eight years. I'm not the least bit surprised or disappointed at anything that comes from that Hon. Member.

[ Page 2143 ]

But I will say that she, too, suffers from not being consistent, if you like, in that just last year she was urging me to consider one site in particular for a poultry-processing industry in the interior, urging me to get on with the job. Today she's raising the question as to whether it's economically feasible to do so and asking why we are trying to encourage production in a market where we now have a surplus. She's quite ready to be inconsistent when it suits her and is quite ready to attack anybody else, on any grounds, at any time, whether she has any basis for her attack or not. That has never really concerned her in the past and, I expect, will not in the future. I would just not consider anything in that way coming from her as intended to be sensible at all.

MRS. JORDAN: You're unbelievable, just unbelievable! No wonder you were defeated.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As I said, there are good reasons for moving production from the Fraser Valley to the interior of the province, quite apart from satisfying a market in the interior of the province, providing the people in those areas with fresh products when available, providing them with B.C. produce as opposed to produce coming in from other provinces and, to some extent, in the interior of the province. When — and I say when rather than if — we have a poultry-processing plant in the interior, there's no doubt that we'll be replacing, to quite an extent, poultry that is now coming in from Alberta and from other provinces east of Alberta. So it's not just a matter of adding to the production and hence to the surplus of poultry meats in the province; we will be filling a market with B.C. produce.

Apart from that, there are the problems of disease control. An increasing amount of evidence indicates that the efficiency of poultry production — poultry meat and poultry egg — in the Fraser Valley is suffering because of the concentration of poultry in the lower Fraser Valley. There are indications that there are diseases, some of them not always recognized as such, and indications that because of the heavy concentrations of poultry in that area, we are losing production. Production is not as efficient — that is, pounds of meat per feed. The conversion is not as good, the production of the layers is not as good as it should be, and the only reasons that they can come up with are the fact that there is the heavy population of poultry in that area.

So quite apart from trying to satisfy the consumers in other areas of the province, we do want to encourage a reduction of production in the lower Fraser Valley of these products and move this production — I don't mean physically move the people involved, but simply shift production from the lower Fraser Valley to other areas of the province. We are working to accomplish that. We have done a fair amount with respect to eggs, and when the poultry-processing plant is available somewhere in the interior of the province — I've not said Salmon Valley, but I hope very soon to be able to announce the location of that plant — that will encourage some production in that area. There might be a corresponding reduction in the lower Fraser Valley, and there certainly will be a displacement of products from out of the province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): In this vote dealing with production and marketing programmes, I was expecting some explanation from the Minister as to the weaknesses there are in the programmes, and the methods he intends to take to rectify them. We've heard of the superboard, and we've had, of course, the food council, which now has the consumer association representatives withdrawing from it because they feel that the whole thing — and I think I'm quoting them correctly — is a rubber stamp for ideas originally initiated by the Department of Agriculture. The food council is on another vote, but the fact of the matter is that it deals essentially with the problem of marketing and the frustration these people — the consumers association people — felt when dealing on that board with marketing board questions.

The other reason for asking the Minister to comment on new regulatory procedures for his marketing boards is, of course, the decision by Mr. Justice Hinkson that, indeed, the government has in the past — indeed the Premier himself and the Minister of Agriculture have in the past — intervened in the operation of marketing boards. Without going through the details of all this, you know full well that the Minister of Agriculture was unable to recall any such intervention but it was recalled by, others present at the meeting, and their testimony was accepted by the judge. Lawsuits resulted and large sums of money were eventually decided upon in the way of settlement and damages.

There's now, by decision of the judge, a clear indication that indeed the government did intervene on the question of northern producers and on the question of quotas that should be assigned. The intervention dealt also with going after the egg boards to have them reduce the amounts of levies that they were putting out against certain individuals, and once again, the intervention was apparently necessary to make sure that these levies were reduced.

What we have is a clear situation, a decision by a supreme court judge that the government has been interfering with the mechanism — the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture — have been interfering with the operation of these marketing boards in at least one instance, and, in fact, I am sure there are other cases as well. Therefore it would seem to me that the government has some duty to explain to this House

[ Page 2144 ]

what steps have been taken to rectify the problem, the technical problem, which led to this intervention, because the marketing boards simply weren't working well. Nobody denies that. The Premier made that perfectly clear. The Minister of Agriculture has made that perfectly clear. The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has made that perfectly clear. As a result of that, they decided to intervene in a manner which turned out to be not illegal, but I guess that's neither here nor there. The fact is intervention took place. I want to know what steps the government has taken to make sure that in the future this problem will not recur. That's the first point.

The second point is, of course, that now the decision in this case has jogged the memory of the Minister of Agriculture, I wonder whether he will in these last few hours of the debate on estimates, and this estimate in particular, be willing to apologize to members of the boards who were accused of perjury and who, in fact, as found by the judge, did not perjure themselves at all but were speaking the truth.

That's two points. The first one is: what steps are being taken to take care of the problem? The second matter is, of course, the question of an apology to innocent people accused of perjury.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the food council was disposed of under vote 4. With respect to what procedures we have adopted to make sure that the "problems" that arose in the past with respect to marketing boards will not arise in the future, well, of course, the action taken by the government there was to introduce legislation, that the House approved, to set up a provincial marketing board to which any problems that do actually arrive shall be referred.

The House, I am sure, is aware, or should be aware, that one problem did indeed arise fairly recently. It was the first problem that was referred to the provincial marketing board, and the board settled it during the course of a 12½-hour marathon meeting. The problem was quite serious to some members of the poultry industry, when turkeys that were due for processing just weren't being processed. The processors weren't accepting them any further. It was a problem about which I asked the provincial marketing board to call a meeting of the processors and the marketing board. It was solved at least temporarily and got the product moving again. I think the action of the superboard, the success of the provincial marketing board in that instance, justifies the setting up of the board in the first place and shows that this method of dealing with any problems that might arise is apparently a very appropriate method.

With respect to apologies, I don't feel I owe any apology to anyone. I never called anyone anything that I feel I should apologize for during the course of the debate. If the Member opposite feels that he should apologize to someone, well, that is something I should leave to him.

I would like to say something about marketing boards. I feel as though we are perhaps ready to move on to another vote.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, we may not be. That's fine. But I do want an opportunity to say something about marketing boards in general. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), when he was in his seat one day, led an attack on marketing boards in principle, in general, and suggested that these marketing boards, for example, should not be compulsory: they should be voluntary — and do we really need them at all?

I suggest to him that if there were not a case to be made for marketing boards, there wouldn't be marketing boards in the first place. Marketing boards are like a union of producers of a certain commodity — a getting together of the people involved in the production of that commodity — in an attempt to protect their interests in the same way that other people in society band together into various organizations to try to bargain collectively, if you like, or at least to manage their enterprise with some degree of collective action in order to protect themselves in a community where so many people are organized.

As far as the consumers are concerned, I think the consumers also benefit from this collective action on the part of the producers of any particular commodity. Perhaps good evidence of that is the fact that just about a year and a half ago the housewives in the country, on the continent, were banding together and taking collective action against the prices of beef. They were boycotting beef because beef was so high in price. Just a year and a half later, the prices which the cattlemen were getting for beef were so low that many of them were being forced out of business and they were turning to the government. Of all people, the cattlemen, the most independent of all farmers, presumably, were coming to the government and asking to be included under the income assurance programme.

The housewives, or the consumers generally, have had some temporary benefit from this in that the price of beef is lower now — although many of them say they haven't noticed any difference. Certainly they don't feel called upon to boycott beef these days. But these fluctuations in prices are harmful — very harmful — for the producers and, in the long run, do no good for the consumers who must pay a higher average price over the course of time because they are paying for the cost of getting production up and down. The cycles of production are expensive for

[ Page 2145 ]

the producers, and that cost eventually has to be passed on to consumers. So consumers, as well as producers, do benefit from marketing boards.

As far as location of production in the province is concerned — and I am talking now of egg production, turkey production and broiler production — it was not the marketing boards that decided that there would not be broiler production in the interior of the province, or turkey production in more areas of the province, or even decided that there shall only be one producer in the whole northwest part of British Columbia. These decisions were made long before there ever came a marketing board in any of these commodities.

The marketing boards simply established the status quo. While we would like to have seen some changes and while there would have been more opportunities for change had there been an increase in the market for some of these products — for example, if egg consumption in the Province of British Columbia had climbed in proportion to the population — it would have been much easier for these marketing boards to deal with the problems of increasing the proportion of production in the outside areas of the province and to move the proportion of production away from the Fraser Valley. There has not been an increase in the consumption of eggs.

The marketing board arrived on the scene when there was a certain production: one producer in Terrace, if you like, a limited number of producers in the Prince George area, a limited number even in the Okanagan. It established that position and allowed some movement. I think that was unwise; it should not have allowed movement out of the interior and should not have allowed movement off Vancouver Island. That has been stopped in the last two years. There has been some movement back onto Vancouver Island and some to the interior of the province. Under our policies, something like 500 cases of production have been accumulated in the Fraser Valley for relocation in other areas of the province.

It is slow. It is slow because there has not been the increase in consumption in the province that would have allowed us to achieve more of an increase in production in those areas. The same thing with broiler production and turkey production: we cannot get an increase. There is a little bit there, but we cannot really get a substantial increase in broiler production in the interior until we have a processing plant there. I am hoping that we will have it very soon, as I have indicated on many occasions. I hoped last year that I would be able to announce the site then.

Members have already commented on the fact that there was some difficulty in locating it because people in various communities, while they thought it was a good idea to have it somewhere, didn't want it on the sites that were immediately available. We are looking at sites now. No one site has been zeroed in on but a couple are being looked at pretty closely..still hope to be able to announce the site very soon.

It is true that there is going to be some difficulty in expanding the total B.C. production very much when we have this storage problem or this inventory problem right now of three million. Again, it is going to have to be a gradual thing. The increase in production in the Okanagan area of the province with respect to broilers is an example. But there will be some movement. We have said there will be; it is still government policy that there shall be. It is my hope to be able to announce the location of the interior processing plant very soon.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't have a great deal more to add to this, but I listened with great interest to the Minister. One cannot help but wonder; we have people in this province who know why he is wearing a red jacket.

He certainly is inconsistent. When I listened to him talking about marketing boards, I wondered why he was attacking the Member for North Okanagan. I have consistently defended the right of marketing boards ever since I came into public life and before that. It is the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), his own Member, with whom he is having trouble. It is his own Member who has been trying to undermine the rights of producers to organize themselves. I find it ironic that this Minister should accuse the Member for North Okanagan of inconsistency and irrelevance in his whole eight years in the House. I would remind the Minister that during those eight years I sat in the House the full time, but the Minister didn't. His constituents knew that he was the type to play games. They spoke, Mr. Chairman, as they will speak again.

Let's have the record quite clear on where the Member for North Okanagan stands and where this party stands. It is in the record from the time we came into opposition and it was in the record before that, but that is the time from which I wish to speak. We have consistently defended the right of the producers of this province to organize in their own organizations and in their own way and with a majority vote.

It was this opposition that attacked the government for trying to impose upon the rights of the producers an imposition that they were not prepared to impose on any other sector of society. Let us remember that it was this opposition that made very clear, when the Minister of Agriculture insisted that consumers sit on a marketing board that is supreme to all producers and all producer organizations and all marketing boards in this province, that if that was his policy for agriculture, his government must have the same policy for the IWA, for the Teamsters, for the government

[ Page 2146 ]

employees association and for every other organization that acts as a speaker for their group in this province.

We say, Mr. Chairman, there should be no more restrictions imposed upon the producers of this province than are imposed in other sectors of society. Let us not have the Minister twisting and twirling and conducting himself in a manner which could hardly be a credit to the position of the Minister of these subjects.

I hope the record is very clear. We believe that in the long run it is the marketing boards and the organizations of the producers themselves that have provided the consumers of this province with a product that is available to the best of our ability to produce in this province in terms of climate and soil. We believe it is the producers of this province in their actions and through their organizations that have ensured that the Province of British Columbia has an agricultural industry and can afford some opposition to imports, which are beyond the control of this Minister or any other Minister of Agriculture in this province.

We know, and I'm sure the Minister knows, if he is candid, that one of the major problems with agriculture in this province is that we are subject to imports from other countries and other provinces where the cost of production is far below our cost of production, where the climate is far more equitable to the production of agriculture, where the seasons are longer and where in fact the products have been subsidized. We understand the problems of the producers in the apple industry who have to compete with subsidized fruit on consignment landing on the docks of British Columbia. What concerns the producers and what concerns us and concerns the people of this province is how we can develop a market where the marketplace itself will bring the return to the producers that it should do.

Again, I would just say let it be very clear that we stand solid for the right of the producer to enjoy the same benefits in this province as do other segments of society and to enjoy the same freedoms. We don't, like you, Mr. Minister, believe that they should be restricted in their work. We don't believe that they should be excluded from agriculture if they choose to supplement their incomes in other ways. We don't believe that income assurance should be used as a means to control land and the producer in the future. We believe in their rights and their responsibilities.

I hope the Minister will, during his estimates, which have been badly interrupted, confine himself to the concerns of agriculture in this province instead of the petty politics he tends to indulge in.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show that the major problem for agriculture in the Province of British Columbia is that for 20 years we had a government that wasn't interested in agriculture. I think the fact alone that the previous administration in its last fiscal period spent something less than $6 million in the whole department, while the estimates before us total up to $60 million, shows quite clearly that this particular government is extremely interested in agriculture — in farmers and in agricultural production. So the major problem was the administration before, rather than the other problems — which are all problems we have to deal with.

I think perhaps I would be the last one, if not very near the last, in the House to invite the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to put anything else in the record. But I do recall last year that Hon. Member saying quite clearly that we should proceed with all due haste — not necessarily words to that effect — to establish a poultry-processing industry in the interior of the province. As I heard her remarks today, I believe she is now suggesting that we should go slowly on this because of the environmental concerns and because of the surplus that we currently have of poultry meats in the province. That was the inconsistency to which I was referring in my remarks earlier.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to advise the Minister that when this subject came up last year I was not the agricultural critic. Secondly, I suggested that if he was looking at a site in the North Okanagan region from Revelstoke to Lumby, through the Vernon area to the Faulkland area, he should examine the meat-packing plant in the North Okanagan which was standing idle and had a considerable investment. I did not at that time speak on the economics of the plant, because I didn't know. I merely addressed myself to the fact that he seemed to be having difficulty finding a site, that it was acceptable and that I felt he should consult these people.

He again has misinterpreted my point. I'm not telling you to get on or get off with the plant, Mr. Minister. I asked you some questions about its economic viability and how you proposed to market. I think these are very reasonable questions. They are questions that the public wants to know, because for some reason the public has the idea that this government is not really very responsible when it comes to investing their money. They seem to think that a $36 million deficit in ICBC, a $104 million overrun in Human Resources and now a major ferry deficit just may indicate that this government doesn't operate on a sound business basis.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Like the Columbia River treaty.

[ Page 2147 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, it is with that concern in mind that I asked you some questions which I put in the record and which have not yet been answered. I didn't state one way or another the pros and cons. I want to know where you're going to market this produce, how you are going to keep out Alberta poultry, if that's one of your ways, and how you intend to equate the oversupply at the moment with the production that's coming into effect when and if this plant goes ahead. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so. I think probably there are many people not only in this House but outside who would think they are very reasonable questions.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can only assume the Member was not listening when I was giving the answers. I said yes, there are economic problems; I said yes, there currently is a surplus of broiler inventory in the province, that the establishment of a plant in the interior of the province will make it possible for production to shift to the interior of the province, which will improve the efficiency of broiler production in the province as a whole and will provide an opportunity to get some of the broiler production out of the Lower Fraser Valley and improve the production there; that we will be displacing products from out of province.

Of course, there's always the mechanism, if you like, that is adopted now from time to time and is currently in place in the lower Fraser Valley — that the volume of production is varied according to the inventory. The broiler producers in the lower Fraser Valley right now, I believe, are operating at 85 per cent of quota. The opportunities of operating at full quota will vary, as does the consumption of broiler meats and poultry which altogether right now is down because beef prices are down in comparison to what they used to be. So there are the possibilities of expanding the total market. There are the possibilities of displacing out-of-province products, and having a plant in the interior will provide the opportunity for some production in that part of the province.

MRS. JORDAN: At least we're moving a little bit, and I appreciate the Minister's comments.

The situation seems to be a little iffy, and I wonder if the Minister has had an economic feasibility study done, both on the basis of production and marketing and potential markets. Have any studies been done as to how the integration of this production is going to take place? Quite obviously there's going to be a reduction of production, one would assume, in the initial stages in the lower mainland, and reduction of output down there. If the Minister has had these studies done, I'd ask him to confirm it and file them with the House; then we can allay our own concerns.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, we are getting quite concerned in the northwest part of the province about the possibility of our one and only egg producer going out of business. I often go down to the store to pick up the groceries for the family and, of course, I look for Samson eggs when I look for eggs. A great number of the other people in Terrace, Kitimat and also Rupert do, too. This would be a great tragedy, a great disaster from the food point of view if these eggs should disappear from the store shelves because of the levy that's being imposed against Samson's poultry, which is now owned by Stan Kincaid, and the writ that's been filed with the court with regard to this matter.

Interjections.

MR. DENT: Order, please. (Laughter.) I'm asking the Chairman to call the man to order — I must remember I'm speaking as the Member for Skeena now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Members. Let the Member speak, please.

MR. DENT: Now I would suggest a remedy that might be undertaken. The difficulty is that we are allowing a fair amount of freedom for various groups, such as the trade union movement, to operate and do their own thing, for the doctors and the lawyers to do their own thing and for the commodity groups, in a sense, to regulate themselves. I don't think the province should step in and interfere with the actions and decisions of various self-regulating bodies in the province unless it is clearly in the provincial interest. I would submit, viewed from our vantage point in the northwest, that it is in the public interest in our area for the government to intervene possibly through the B.C. Marketing Board, the superboard. I would propose that in some way the B.C. Marketing Board bring together the parties involved — the owner of Samson's Poultry and the representatives from the Egg Marketing Board — and resolve this in the public interest.

The public interest is not being served at the present time in the northwest by the Egg Marketing Board. It has not been served, since I have had the privilege of representing that area, to the satisfaction of our requirements.

B.C. is a regional type of province more than any other province in Canada. Each region is almost self-contained in many ways, and we are such a region. The northwest region is relatively isolated from the rest of the province. It takes time to move products in there. There's somewhat of a breakdown in communications, and so on. Therefore the more that we can do ourselves within our own region, the better. It's in the interests of the people there to do

[ Page 2148 ]

things for themselves, and certainly it's in their interests to try to provide themselves with their own products as far as this is possible, such as milk, eggs, et cetera.

I do not think the Egg Marketing Board is responding to that real need of the northwest. Therefore I would propose that some means be found by the Minister to bring together the representatives from the Egg Marketing Board and the principals of Samson's Poultry in order to meet the public interest in northwestern B.C.

MR. LEWIS: You know, it's a little bit amusing to listen to the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talk about how her party stands strong for regulated marketing in this province; she always has and she always will. For 12 years she was in the government before we took office — six years as a cabinet Minister, I understand. She supported marketing boards all right, but not B.C. marketing boards. She supported the Fraser Valley marketing board which says that you shall not raise broiler chickens or frying chickens anywhere else in this province. That's what she supported.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MRS. JORDAN: The Member is wrong on how long I've been in the Legislature. He is wrong about....

MR. LEWIS: That's the only thing I'm wrong about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to comment on the arguments only, rather than on the Member.

MR. LEWIS: The people in her riding will sure be glad to see where she stands when she says that she supports the present system which says there shall not be any broiler production in her riding. There won't be any egg production. There isn't a single egg producer in her riding that I know of.

MRS. JORDAN: I asked for the Garrish report.

MR. LEWIS: And for her to support that type of thing and say it is for B.C., she'd better take another look and look where she comes from in this province. I say that if you put that same type of regulation on a storekeeper, on a lawyer or on anybody else and said, "You can't operate in the interior because the ones in the lower mainland were there first, " see what the reaction is. Take a look at the reaction.

Just one comment with regard to what the Minister said when he said that marketing boards have, in fact, increased the number of producers. I disagree with that, because in the Kootenays there were 120,000 laying birds prior to the marketing board coming in. In the Prince George-Quesnel area there were well over 100,000. In the Okanagan, at one time prior to the board coming in, they shipped numbers of cases of eggs to the lower mainland. Actually, as to the conditions for egg farmers, as far as the ones who are in the business, I would say they have done better since the board has come in. But they have certainly reduced the number of farmers throughout the interior that are in the business. A promise which was made to the interior when we went into the marketing board system that the interior would grow with its consumption has never been honoured by the marketing board.

This is where most of the problem is. If they had honoured the growth in consumption in those areas, then there would have been orderly growth throughout the area. The interior wouldn't have been in the position where they have to import eggs from Manitoba or the lower mainland. Often eggs which the person has to import and resell are turned down because the egg inspector finds they are of low quality.

All of these problems have to be rectified somehow, and they are not going to be rectified the way the situation is now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, what I did say was that the marketing board did allow some shift in production from the deficient areas of the province. It was unfortunate that they allowed this, but since we have taken office we have stopped that shift. In consultation with the egg board, they have now stopped any decrease in production in those areas of the province. It has, in fact, turned around and there has been some increase in allotments to those areas. I think it is unfortunate that they allowed quotas to move out of the deficient areas of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to disagree with the last speaker, the Member for Shuswap, because it isn't only marketing boards that have caused the decrease in the number of producers in the industry. Farmers are retiring from agriculture in this country today at the average of 30 a day. That's the national average; it's a national trend. It's not only here in British Columbia and it's not only because of marketing boards; it's because of a critical labour shortage in agriculture and it's because of young people just not coming back into the industry when parents retire.

Just to follow up for a moment on the problem of conflict of interest in regard to this new plant in the interior, wherever it's going to be, I don't know whether the Minister answered the question or not about where the new site was going to be and when

[ Page 2149 ]

we might expect that a site might be chosen and this plan get underway.

The Minister should also, I think, bring before this House any feasibility and economic studies that were done in regard to this new plant and tell us, since it is pretty well accepted that the plant can't be economically feasible without some kind of government help, whether or not that plant will be subsidized directly from tax dollars from consolidated revenues.

I would like to suggest that there is a pretty high possibility that there is a conflict-of-interest situation in there with the chairman of the poultry board also being president — Mr. Liedtke — of the 10K group, Interior-Okanagan-Kootenay Poultry Co., which, I understand, is going to operate the new processing plant, and also president of William Scott processing in Burnaby.

I would just like to remind the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) too that Mr. Liedtke is not a Fraser Valley producer at all but is a Vancouver Island producer. Both of those companies are 40 per cent owned by the government, and the other 60 per cent is owned by Pacific Poultry Producers Co-op. That company, too, has a $2.5 million government investment in it. So that kind of interrelationship surely presents some kind of a serious conflict of interest. I think the Minister owes it to the marketing people in the industry to investigate and comment on that.

Now particularly with regard to Panco Poultry, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he could advise what the outstanding liabilities of Panco Poultry are at the present time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko Panco.

MR. McCLELLAND: Pinko Poultry, yes.

Would the Minister tell us whether or not any negotiations were going on prior to the government purchase of Panco Poultry through Pacific Poultry Producers Co-op to have Pacific Poultry Producers Co-op buy Panco Poultry? If that's true then, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Minister's comments, particularly since the government has a pretty heavy investment in Pacific Poultry Producers, that the government jumped in at the last minute to save jobs is baloney.

The government, at least an agency with which the government was connected, had in fact been negotiating prior to the government's purchase — in fact, quite a long time prior to the government's purchase. But the liability question interests me, Mr. Chairman, and I wonder if the Minister could help us out.

If I may be allowed, since we are speaking about agriculture and much of my constituency is in an agricultural area, I would like to welcome and have the House welcome some students who just arrived from Aldergrove secondary school along with their teachers, Mr. Phelps and Mr. Ruggles. They asked me to say something about Aldergrove because they said everybody always forgets Aldergrove. So — Aldergrove's a great place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to comment too much upon another Member, especially one who is not in his seat, but the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) said some extraordinarily curious things about a lawsuit currently taking place, of a man who is before the courts on a charge of perjury, with reference to what he said in the examination for discovery and the court case dealing with the production of eggs of his particular operation. Now I think it behoves a Member, in particular one who is a former member of the clergy, to realize that there is a very important aspect here which is also to be looked at, and that is whether or not egg producers or anyone else should get before an examination for discovery and commit perjury — lie. That's the issue at point in the case that the Member talked of, Mr. Chairman. You better believe it.

There was a very dramatic scene in that courtroom — undoubtedly the Member was not present — where, indeed, he was asked that very question as to whether he had given correct judgment in the examination for discovery. When the facts came out that he hadn't, that's when the troubles began. That's an aspect which is well worthy of looking into for the Member for Skeena.

The Minister talked of the superboard and how this is solving problems, but as the Member for Skeena as well as the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) pointed out very clearly, there have been plenty of problems and these problems have led to something I referred to before — namely, the Egg Marketing Board going to court. Now we all, I am sure, regret it when a government board has to take producers to court. We regret that it is necessary for a producer's money and court time to be wasted in this fashion. But the fact is that it happened. And in that decision Mr. Justice Hinkson came down with a clear statement that, despite the inability of the Minister of Agriculture to remember....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am waiting in anticipation that the Hon. Member for Victoria will somehow relate his remarks to vote 6. The only item in vote 6 that relates to marketing boards at all is the Provincial Marketing Board, which was not even established at the time he is describing now. Now unless he is intending to lead into a discussion of Provincial Marketing Board activities or possible

[ Page 2150 ]

activities, I just wonder about the relation, that's all. I just wanted to see that he will establish some relationship between his remarks and the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, The point of order is well taken. It is required in committee that discussion be strictly relevant to the item or items under discussion. Therefore I would ask him to relate specifically to items contained in this vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh absolutely, Mr. Chairman. The Provincial Marketing Board, which the Minister has explained was necessary to curb these problems, may or may not do so. Therefore if we are to examine whether or not money should be given to the Provincial Marketing Board, clearly we are going to have to look at the circumstances and the problems which led to its creation. That's a perfectly logical question of cause and effect.

While the Minister undoubtedly does not wish to be reminded of his memory loss, which the judge commented upon so acidly in this judgment by Mr. Justice Hinkson, it's important that we find out precisely why the Provincial Marketing Board was set up and whether it will succeed in what it's doing. Now to justify the $100,000 expenditure we are going to have to look into the background of this particular matter.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would suggest that the time to have looked into that background would have been when we were discussing the legislation setting up the Provincial Marketing Board.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is reasoning in a somewhat circular fashion, because efforts made at that time were met with the remark that it was before the courts, and we now have a court decision....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First of all, on the point of order the point is well taken in the respect that we should be dealing with present administrative responsibilities of the Provincial Marketing Board and its activities rather than to discuss the reasons for its creation. This would be rather a matter of legislation; therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to comment on the administrative responsibilities of the B.C. marketing board as provided for in this vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you for the elasticity of your mind and your conscience in this matter. But the fact of the matter is that when the discussion took place on the legislation, we were barred from discussing this point because of statements by the government, which were accepted by the Chair, that this was before the courts. The matter is no longer before the courts.

There is another matter which is before the courts, which the Member for Skeena spent his entire time talking about — namely, protecting some gentleman who committed perjury before the examination for discovery, interfering with the aspect of the course of action. But that is something else.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I can't see what relation that has to vote 6. I think if the Member wanted a general discussion of the Department of Agriculture, the opportunity was there in vote 3. But now, surely, we are in vote 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When a point of order is raised by an Hon. Member, as the Hon. Member for Victoria knows, the Chair is forced to make a ruling under the rules of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, the Chair rules that the Hon. Member....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, you're going to get someone this time. You make a speech that's out of order and then you rule out others. It's totally out of order. Then you rule out other people dealing with things that are in order. You are going to make that judgment as a minister of the cloth? Ho!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any Hon. Member at any time is entitled to rise and make a point of order. When the Hon. Member for Skeena was speaking, evidently no point of order was made on the matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. However, when a point of order is raised, the Chair, no matter who is sitting in the chair, must rule according to the rules of the House. It is not a case of personalities at all; it is a case of the rules of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's very simply....

[ Page 2151 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Therefore the Chair is simply drawing to the attention of the Hon. Member on the point of order that was raised that discussion must be confined to the items contained in vote 6 and specifically to the administrative aspects of this.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, further on the point of order, when the Hon. Member for Skeena was speaking, he was describing a case that could be referred to the provincial marketing board. Now if the Hon. Member for Victoria is suggesting that something might be referred to the provincial marketing board and he would get to that suggestion, then I think he might be in order. I am just trying to help him out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the dilemma rises because, despite the total loss of memory of the Minister when faced with a judge, he seems to have excellent recollection when it suits his purposes in this House. The fact of the Minister is, you see, Mr. Chairman, that interference took place in the operation of the board, as found by judicial decision and based upon the testimony of people on oath. Those who failed to give their testimony under oath...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...found themselves again in court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...is persisting in speaking out of order when the Chair has drawn his attention to the matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, Mr. Chairman, that's just....

MR. CHAIRMAN: These matters are clearly not contained under the items in this vote. That is why I would ask him to return to the vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the vote to which I am referring is vote 6, Provincial Marketing Board, code 20. Got it? Right.

Now what led, to the setting up of this? Why do we have $100,000 here this year and nothing last year? Got it? Good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also like the Hon. Member to get something. We are considering the reason, the purpose for this money in terms of its administrative functions. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, right, Mr. Chairman. I just refer you to the Member for Skeena's reference to the inaccurate testimony given in the examination for discovery regarding that trial of Kovachich's.

But, Mr. Chairman, what is important in this instance is, indeed, if statements made by the Premier and Minister of Agriculture are accurate concerning the whole aspect of the marketing boards and their failure to regulate properly in the area which was talked about so eloquently by the Member for Skeena, the Member for North Okanagan, the Member for Shuswap — all those Members — the judge has made a great ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...error of judgment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was assuming the Hon. Member was going to be leading up to some consideration of what responsibility the B.C. Provincial Marketing Board might have. This has not happened so far. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to items in the vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, you are indulging in obstruction of debate and obstruction of justice in your efforts to make rulings which suit your purpose and that of the Minister of Agriculture and that of the Premier. They fail totally to recognize the fact that we obeyed the Chair's ruling previously when matters were subjoined. When we have an opportunity under the debates of the Minister and have been waiting until vote 6 to deal with the specific item 20, we feel that it is fully in order at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order to which the Hon. Member is referring, the rules of the House must be applied equally to every Member in the House. If there is any dispute about that....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's about time they began. We have been waiting for three years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In regard to this matter, any Member at any time, if he feels that the rules are being abused, may rise in his place on a point of order. It is the responsibility of the Chair to enforce the rules. The point of order was raised. The Chair is merely following its duties under the standing order.

Would the Hon. Member keep his remarks

[ Page 2152 ]

confined to the administrative function of the B.C. marketing board?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, you have a very limited appreciation, clearly, of the intelligence of the Chair. Clearly it is possible to appeal to the logic and reason of the Chair. It is not simply necessary to assume that no logic or reason will prevail, no arguments can sway him, and therefore the only alternative is simply to state a point of order and then sit down. I don't think you are doing justice to the people who occupy the position in which you are presently sitting, Mr. Chairman. The fact is: here we have problems in justice. We have an either/or problem in justice.

I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is here; the Minister of injustice is here to hear of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that that type of remark is totally unparliamentary, and I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the remark.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, let me withdraw the remark....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To refer to any Minister of any department as the Minister of injustice is, I think, clearly an unparliamentary method of debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let me withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman, at your insistence, and suggest that we have here an opportunity for the Attorney-General to indicate if he is the Minister of Justice....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, we are not considering the Attorney-General's estimates. We are considering vote 6, production and marketing programmes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we didn't raise points of order when the Minister of Agriculture referred to the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) or referred to other Members present or not present in the House. We just didn't bother raising stupid points of order with respect to referring to Members in the room. I welcome the Attorney-General here. I am sure that he would appreciate, like the Minister of Agriculture, an opportunity to rectify injustice which essentially lies within the ambit of the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I would ask the Hon. Member either to speak to the vote or take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the provincial marketing board is what we are discussing. No matter how hard you try, I am sorry, I don't think you can allow this partial enforcement of the rules on a year-to-year and month-to-month basis, depending on whether it suits your convenience or that of the Minister of Agriculture, to interfere with the proper discussion in this Legislature by elected Members of the public of British Columbia of the affairs of the province. This is what you are doing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order. I'd just like some clarification from the Chair, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the rulings that you have made. I understand that descriptions of these votes were provided as a guideline for the Members as to which parts of this vote we can discuss. I don't know whether the Chairman has read the description of this particular vote, production and marketing programmes, but it is very clear. Just read the last three lines, Mr. Chairman. Those are the parameters around which we must discuss this vote, and we must be allowed to discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair does not follow any preamble that may be contained in the vote, but rather the rules of Committee of Supply. The rules of Committee of Supply are that we are not to discuss matters of legislation. We are not to discuss any other Minister's responsibilities. We are to consider only the specific items contained within the vote for which sums of money are indicated. Therefore the Hon. Member must discuss those items.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.... You are right on. Let me just read three lines from the description. This is at the top of vote 6, the description of this production and marketing programme, okay? I'll read the last sentence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think it is irrelevant to refer to the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The description of what is in the estimate is irrelevant. I can't even read you the description the government itself produces to explain what this money is for? Now that is absurd! You've done lots of funny things before, but that really takes the cake. That's unbelievable!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair makes rulings. It is not necessary to lecture the Chair. The Chair has ruled under the rules of Committee of

[ Page 2153 ]

Supply that Members must confine their remarks to specific items contained within the vote for which sums of money are to be voted. The Hon. Member must speak to these matters. As to the parameters of what is to be discussed under each item, the Chair will make rulings as the occasion arises.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, to aid you in your rulings....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Chilliwack on a point of order.

MR. SCHROEDER: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, you say that these remarks here are a preamble to the vote. With all respect, please note that vote 6 is clearly marked at the top of the page and that the preamble becomes part of the vote, according to the printing of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule that the preamble at the top is not part of the vote, any more then an explanatory note is part of legislation.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair does not wish to debate. Would the Hon. Member continue with his remarks? The Chair will rule if he is in order or out of order on specific items.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, could I indicate to you what we are discussing in this Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote or take his seat?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. I would like to speak to page L 21, Agriculture, vote 6, production and marketing programmes.

"Description. The programme provides assistance and technical advisory...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair rules again that the section at the top is not, strictly speaking, part of the vote, but rather the items for which money is to voted constitute the vote. Therefore the Hon. Member must speak to the items for which appropriations of money are provided. Then the Chair will determine, when the Hon. Member is speaking, whether or not he is in order. So would the Hon. Member speak to the items in the vote?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Chair will determine whether or not the Hon. Member is in order. Okay? Is that your final statement? Fine.

I would to discuss a programme which provides assistance and technical advisory services to agricultural producers and commodity groups through specific extension programmes and specialist services. I would like to describe these activities which are "designed to facilitate improved management and production of livestock, poultry, apiary, and field and horticultural crops." I would like to discuss grants that are made "to agricultural organizations in reference to livestock and crop improvement and weed control." And, Mr. Chairman, what I would really like to discuss is "legislation and regulations pertaining to the inspection, orderly marketing and promotion of British Columbia-grown farm products" which are administered and conducted within the programme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is in order, providing that he does not discuss matters which are matters of legislation, or the responsibilities of other department, et cetera. So would the Hon. Member proceed with his specific comments?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to discuss is the orderly marketing promotion of British Columbia-grown farm products. Orderly marketing of British Columbia farm products.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again draw to the attention of the Hon. Member rules of Committee of Supply, standing order 61(2). I will read it for the benefit of the Hon. Member: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." Now clearly this means those items for which appropriations are provided. Now his remarks must relate to those items, and I would ask the Hon. Member to ensure that his remarks do relate to these items when he continues.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where we started off and how much time we've wasted by your incredible rulings. I would like to discuss vote 6, and I would like to discuss provincial marketing boards. If I can get back to where we started off, I would like to describe and discuss the genesis of this, which comes right out of a court case, the Hinkson judgment on the Kovachich case where, Mr. Chairman, you will find....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member said he intended to discuss provincial marketing boards. There is only one Provincial Marketing Board as contained in this vote, so if he would speak to that board....

[ Page 2154 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order. I would like the Chair's ruling as to whether or not there might be conflicting rights here because every Member spoke on marketing boards, including yourself. Could you advise the House whether or not the orderly marketing of products should be properly discussed under the director's salary on this vote, because the director, obviously, is in charge of all of the programmes which are described in the description of the vote? I think that's properly the place that marketing boards and orderly marketing can be discussed.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There was a point of order raised and it is the Chair's responsibility to comment on the point of order before the Hon. Member proceeds. Providing that the remarks are relevant to the administrative responsibilities of that particular person.

Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me my afternoon's exercise getting up and down from my chair. If you do it often enough, it's really quite a good programme of exercise.

Along the lines suggested by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) I would like to question whether or not the $53,609 put aside for the director of this operation is justified in the light of the fact that the government doesn't think he's qualified because they keep interfering. How's that? Okay. Now he's gone up in salary from $36,476 last year to $53,609. That's down there under director — first line under activity: staff estimates 1974-1975; staff estimates 1975-1976. Now, Mr. Chairman, you have here a man who, as I see it, is being paid more and more....

HON. MR. STUPICH: On a point of order, I just wonder whether the Member realizes that it is two people we're talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it's down here: staff, two. I'll read the whole thing because the Minister....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister adding this when I try to get on to the description, I'm ruled out of order. I thought if I read anything about the staff column I might be ruled out of order, too.

Last year, $36,476; this year $53,609. A lot of money. The only way we can judge whether this large increase is justified is to check as to whether or not, in the last year — or even previous to that — this director, or perhaps it should have been directors.... I don't know if there's a misprint there; I'm just reading the activity description....

HON. MR. STUPICH: You want me to help you before you dig yourself in too deeply? Can I just explain something?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Explain? Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you've got an explanation to give, at long last.... We've been waiting for years.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Just before the Hon. Member digs himself in too deeply, I draw your attention to these estimates. You'll note in the top half it says activity, and in the bottom half it's expenditure classification. Now the activity to which you've been drawing the House's attention, that is, director: in the first place, it applies to two people's salaries, but it also applies to the expenses of the directors in their capacity as directors. So a portion of such things as travel expense, office expense, materials and supplies, all those things, all those items in the top half under activity are divided among those items at the top. So that's not salary alone. When you're looking at two people getting $53,000, that's not salary alone; that includes the expenses of their activities as directors.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I quite agree with the Minister's statement. I didn't think that he was going to be the one to point out how stupidly this thing has been put together. You can't work out from this what the salary of the director is.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, but you know you can always ask and get an answer if you want it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but that's the sort of thing that should be down here in black and white. It should be right there. It used to be in the estimates. It is in some estimates, but here we can't find it. Oh, yes, they'll throw everything in and call it all simply the estimates for all the directors.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It would be novel for you to ask a question during estimates and discussion. You might try asking a question for a change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2155 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Question — okay. The direct question is this; in the light of the fact that the Minister's memory is so wrong or so failing, in the light of the fact that we have a judgment from Mr. Justice Hinkson regarding egg marketing in the Province of British Columbia, in the light of the fact that apparently the Hon. Premier and Hon. Minister of Agriculture know something that the judge didn't when he made his decision ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not think the Hon. Member can do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly. The Hon. Member must speak directly to the items under consideration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to know whether the Minister of Agriculture intends to have this decision appealed or to instruct the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to appeal this decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked the Member to speak relevant to the items in the vote. He has not done so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll try one more time and if the Hon. Member is not relevant to the items in the vote, I will ask him to take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we have professional services for lawyers, we have travelling expenses, office expenses; that's where this all comes from. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that if you look at that detailed vote which you keep instructing us to look at, you'd find it is perfectly in order to ask, in light of the information which the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Attorney-General...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member proceeds....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...whether the case will be appealed...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...because a travesty of justice has occurred unless it is appealed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member made a statement which I want to assist him with. That is that he is talking about items in here which he assumes to be for a purpose in the past. Clearly these items are for expenditures to take place during the current fiscal year.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): How do you know?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the matter could be cleared up by asking the Minister a question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, my question to the Minister is: will we use any of this professional services' money to appeal the Hinkson judgment so that the judgment which is based upon the testimony of a large number of people — Kovachich, Link, Samson, for example — which supports the affidavits in this House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I don't think it's necessary to go into detail.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...will be appealed because of the fact that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture apparently, through...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...statements in this House, know something the judge didn't?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And if the Hon.....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 6 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman. The question is directed to the Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've asked the Hon. Member to take his seat...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I have more to ask.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...because the Hon. Member is persisting in irrelevance and...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Irrelevance!

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...disobedience to the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Disobedience! Come on, Mr. Chairman, you can make up better excuses than that! The fact is that they have...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! Would

[ Page 2156 ]

the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...given information in this House, and if it's....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Now the Chair has attempted to bring the Hon. Member to order. The Member persisted in continuing to be out of order. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to discontinue his speech.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now again I would ask the Hon. Member to discontinue his speech. What this means, as a point of order, is that you may not speak until someone else has spoken again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair has the prerogative, that's why. The Chair has made that ruling.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Member to be seated and to remain seated until another person has spoken.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will read the respective standing order. Standing order 43:

"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 in tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members of debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.

"If the Member still continues to speak, then Mr. Speaker shall name him or, in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House." Now I have asked the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

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

Now the Chair ruled that your remarks were irrelevant to the vote under consideration.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, the Chair ruled that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) were irrelevant. The Hon. Member may appeal the ruling of the Chair; however, the Chair has ruled that you must discontinue your speech.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make the observation that if the Hon. Member rises again before....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When a speech is discontinued, that's discontinued. Therefore, if he rises in his place

[ Page 2157 ]

again, then I will have to report him to the Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: I wish to make a point of order, Mr. Chairman, but as I do I must deplore the conduct of the Chair in this whole issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: Would you hear my point of order, Mr. Chairman, before you turn your back on this House again?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: There goes another slice of democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee in consideration of vote 6 the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) persisted in irrelevance. First of all I drew to his attention the fact that he was speaking irrelevantly to the vote. He persisted in being irrelevant. I read standing order 43 and I ordered him to be seated. He did not remain seated. I am now reporting it to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is the Hon. Member prepared to obey the orders of the Chair in regard to the request that he be seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I constantly returned to my seat. I popped up again to point out that professional services are in this vote and it is perfectly in order to ask how they are going to be spent. I was quite willing to resume my seat; I am quite willing to get up again, though, to keep pointing out that when you have money put aside for professional services you should be entitled to ask how they are going to be spent and specifically how they are going to be spent in a lawsuit which otherwise might indicate a lot of people were committing perjury. So I'm going to question this Chairman as to this weird decision which would stifle debate in this House on estimates. I guess that's it.

MR. SPEAKER: I can only advise the Hon. Member that if the Member has indicated to the Chair, after being called to order under standing order 43, that he intends to continue to disobey the orders of the Chair, then he is in violation of standing orders and in disobedience to the Chair, and it could only call for his withdrawal.

Now I'm willing to put the position to the Hon. Member that if he is prepared to undertake to conform to the standing orders, and particularly standing order 43, nothing further need happen over this matter. It is entirely within his own hands, and I think this is the time to advise the Chair as to his conduct on this question. After all, the proper way to deal with the question of a ruling of the Chair would be in this case to have appealed the ruling of the Chair in Committee of the Whole House.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, the Chairman indicated to the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) that the Member for Victoria would have to take his seat and wait his turn after another Member. Then the Chairman would sit down. There was not any other Member standing and the Hon. Member for Victoria stood up. Then the Chairman refused to recognize him, Mr. Speaker, and turned his back in this Legislature. I do not think that is appropriate conduct on the part of any Chairman of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think you should also take into account, though, in considering the question that the rule regarding this has to do with persisting in tedious repetition or irrelevance. Those are the criteria required in these matters to be determined by the Chair. If the Chair has, on that point, come to the conclusion that there is tedious repetition or irrelevance in debate, then it has no course open but to fail to recognize the person who persists in that violation of the order.

What I am asking is — and I think the sensible solution to the problem would be — for the Member concerned to give an undertaking that he would not violate those provisions of that standing order in future, or, if he does, that he take it to an appeal and that the House make a judgment of the question. (Laughter.)

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a Kangaroo court!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I could give you an absolute, iron-clad guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that I will continue to question on whether professional services, which are under this vote — $87,000, up from $8,700 last year — will be used in the area of marketing boards to appeal the Hinkson judgment, which, if incorrect and left unchallenged, would

[ Page 2158 ]

indicate that a large number of people have been committing perjury.

After all, the Hinkson judgment came down earlier this year. It deals with the whole question which the provincial marketing board was set up to cover. It went right on that area of these two points in the estimates, quite apart from the directors' salaries and the directors' estimates.

I'm going to continue under rule 43 to put relevant and interesting — as opposed to tedious — questions to the Minister. There is no rule in this House about 67 times that you are allowed to ask a question, but it is curious that you can't put a question....

MR. SPEAKER: There is no such rule that I know of. I can't find a standing order on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Precedence!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Rule of precedence.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, is it? I find that rather amusing, but anyway....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, great, Mr. Speaker; I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humour.

But the fact of the matter is that under rule 43 I feel I should continue to question on this particular matter. Whatever the government or the minister of the cloth over there who serves as Chairman of the committee (Mr. Dent)....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to show more respect to the Chair. The Chair has a duty to perform and it is trying to perform that duty without any unnecessary friction. The Hon. Member has obviously, from the report given to the House, set out on a course of defiance of the Chair. The usual consequence of defiance of the Chair has to be invocation of the standing order, and I have no course open to me but to ask the Hon. Member, if he is not prepared to change his position on this matter, to withdraw from the House. It's entirely in his hands; it is up to him which course he should follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I find it amazing that to refer to the Chairman as a minister of the cloth would somehow be discourteous. Nevertheless, I intend to continue to question on matters which I feel are within the specific votes, line by line on estimates of vote 6. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of something that you are fully aware of, as you now know what takes place in committee: we were unable even to read out for the advice of the Chair the words which occur in this vote as part of its description, until indeed we had made many interventions with the Chairman. A persistent course of action by the Chairman to deny us the ability to even read what the government itself printed about this specific vote is, we feel, highly unjust. Secondly, I intend to continue, Mr. Speaker, questioning what I feel is immensely relevant and which other Members of this House also feel is relevant — how this money is going to be spent.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows from long experience that you are not in a position to dictate what answers shall be given by the Minister concerned. You may ask but you may not necessarily receive. The reference which you made was clearly not a part of the vote but an explanation similar to explanatory notes.

Since the matter of standing order 43 has been reported to me by the Chair, the question before the House really is whether or not the Hon. Member should be disciplined for refusing to obey the Chair. Defiance of the Chair in circumstances such as this obviously requires some decision and I have to make that decision. I was hoping I wouldn't have to make it and that the Hon. Member would agree on a more sensible course, which would be obviously not to ...

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Quit editorializing.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to editorialize — I assure you of that. But I do want to point out that you are putting me in the position of having to make a decision I'd prefer not to make.

MR. GARDOM: Be fair in this House!

MR. SPEAKER: I am trying to be fair, but I cannot judge the circumstances in this matter. All I can do is receive a report from the Chairman that he has given to me. He has said that you have defied the order of the Chair by persisting in irrelevant debate and repetition.

MR. PHILLIPS: Get a new Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: Now what can I do, in view of that circumstance, but to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw, since I have not witnessed the debate to which you refer and have no knowledge of it other than the report I have just received?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, obviously I will accept your order to withdraw. It is my regret that we are unable to discuss in this House, by reason of decisions of the Chairman, questions which are entirely within the estimates and questions which are

[ Page 2159 ]

very germane to the proper functioning of the Department of Agriculture.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Another day of closure.

AN HON. MEMBER: You lost your leader.

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

On vote 6: production and marketing programmes — continued.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, we have just seen a very tense moment in this House, and I find it extremely disturbing that a Member has been asked to leave this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak relevantly to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman. I find it extremely shocking that a Member has been removed from this House for speaking on the same subject that the Chairman spoke on in this same debate when he left the chair and took his place.

MR. SMITH: Different rules for different people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan has the floor and I would ask the Hon. Member to speak relevantly to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Not only is the integrity of this Minister in his role of administering provincial marketing boards and the Provincial Marketing Board, item 20 of the vote 6, in question, but, indeed, the integrity of this House is now in question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Premier hiding in New York? In China?

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to point out, referring specifically to the Provincial Marketing Board, that we appreciate the embarrassment of the government that is taking place by the opposition asking these questions.

But the government, in turn, must appreciate the embarrassment of the people of this province when we find that the government, through legislation and in this particular vote with this particular Minister in terms of the Provincial Marketing Board, has set themselves up above this Legislature and above a court of law. That is one of the most serious concerns about this government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is not discussing the vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks to a specific item in the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the Provincial Marketing Board, because that is one of the examples where this government has taken upon itself supreme power. This Provincial Marketing Board, by legislation, under this government and by the direction of this Minister, is supreme in its authority and power over every marketing organization in this province, over every producers' organization in this province, over every producer in this province, whether he or she chooses to be a member of an organization or whether he or she chooses to be a member of a marketing board.

Yet we have administering this board a Minister who set this board up in this House with the sole argument that it was to be a board and avenue of appeal. When one consulted with the involved marketing groups, they understood that, indeed, its powers related directly to appeal and not supreme authority. Some of them even went so far as to say: "We doubt that this even will be enacted unless there is an appeal."

Yet we see a vote of $100,000 for appeals this coming year by this supreme board. It seems to me, in light of that, that either someone is not telling the full facts or the Minister is so concerned that his administration is under such question that the board is going to be flooded with appeals.

The Hon. Member asked: "What about the truth?" and that is the other core. This supreme board set up by this Minister whose integrity is under question not only in this House but outside this House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is straying away. I think for the guidance of the Hon. Member....

Interjection.

MR. Chairman: Order, please. Order! For the guidance of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), what we are to discuss in Committee of Supply is the advisability of supplying the funds necessary to meet the needs of this particular body in its administrative responsibilities. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks to those points.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder why the Chairman is so very touchy on this subject. Obviously his conscience is bothering him and obviously the opposition is getting to the core of this debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Under instructions.

[ Page 2160 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. We saw the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) call the Clerk of the House out just a few minutes ago in an attempt to influence the Chair, and I deplore that action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! That was a highly improper remark for any Hon. Member to make.

The Hon. Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): On a point of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) be silent?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, because not only was I mentioned but one of the Clerks of the House was mentioned in terms of trying to influence a ruling of the House, may I say that the Clerk and I did not discuss the procedure that was going on at the present time in the House at all.

MRS. JORDAN: But I would caution you: the appearance was certainly very....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is to discuss the administrative responsibilities of the matter under this vote, not what the Clerk is doing with the Attorney-General.

MRS. JORDAN: If the Chair then will allow the Member to proceed and not run interference, I could draw my argument together and point out to the Chair why the integrity of this Minister that is under question is so important in relation to the administering of this Provincial Marketing Board. I pointed out....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan is aware, I am sure, of the rule that says the conduct of a Minister may not be questioned except by a substantive motion. We are considering vote 6 and the money being provided for these items. I would ask her to speak to these items.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, we have no wish to transgress the rules of this House, but I do wish to convey to this House the serious concern there is on the part of producers and the public of British Columbia about the administrative ability and the serious questions that surround the administrative abilities of this Minister...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not considering the administrative abilities of this Minister under this vote. We are considering the items in the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: ...in relation to the Provincial Marketing Board, Mr. Chairman. Do I have to keep repeating it? This is all I am talking about at this time. This board that was set up by this Minister by an act of this Legislature under this government under the guise that it was to be nothing more than a board of appeal is, in fact, becoming a $100,000 activity this year. It is important that those who serve on the board and those who are subject to its awesome powers have confidence in the Minister's administrative abilities as they relate to the Provincial Marketing Board.

A point that I wish to make is that there have been two resignations from this board, with direct accusations made in public that the Minister has set the board up in such a way that it was nothing more than a rubber stamp for his policies, Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: The question was asked if that is relevant. Indeed, it is relevant, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, would the Minister answer one simple question that I would like to pose? Because of the need of confidence of the members of the current Provincial Marketing Board, because of the need to lay aside on the basis of the Minister's word the charges that have been made against that Minister by members of this Provincial Marketing Board who have resigned, if the Minister will answer this one simple question, there need be no further debate on this subject.

HON. MR. STUPICH: On a point of order, I think the Hon. Member may be mistaken. No members of the Provincial Marketing Board have resigned.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister is as aware of the rules of this House as any other Member is, I presume. He knows that if during the course of debate a Member says something that the Minister takes exception to, he has the right to get up after the Member has finished making the point and rise on a point of clarification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: There is no need to interrupt the

[ Page 2161 ]

Member who was speaking with a fictitious point of order part way through the debate. You are as aware of that as I am, and so is the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for North Peace River is on the point of order; the point is well-taken. It is the practice, normally, that a person waits until a person is finished their speech before they make a correction to an incorrect statement contained in that speech.

MR. SMITH: Well, it seems very peculiar...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: ...Mr. Chairman, that the Minister can sit anywhere in the House except when he wants to rise and interrupt the speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River on vote 6.

MR. SMITH: I was on a point of order, not on the vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member making a further point of order?

MR. SMITH: I'm not making....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Does the Hon. Member for North Peace River have a further point of order?

MR. SMITH: I was on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I didn't realize the Hon. Member had two. I'm sorry. Will the Hon. Member state his second point of order?

MR. SMITH: The second point of order is this: it seems to me, from an unbiased position, that the Chairman has been interrupting the speaker from North Okanagan on repeated occasions, and unnecessarily so, Mr. Chairman. I'd suggest that you're being a little oversensitive in the application of your duties at this particular time. Try to restrain yourself until such time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order. Will the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: I think the Minister's attempt once again to deflect the questions of the opposition is another reason for concern.

Mr. Chairman, when you repeatedly interrupted me, I was trying to pull together a point of why it is important that this Minister answer just one simple question that can allay the concern that there is about his ability to administer the Provincial Marketing Board.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, he has been accused of selective amnesia, not only in this House but in a court of law in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may well ask why the Chair interrupts so frequently; it is because the Hon. Member is out of order so frequently. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep her remarks confined to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you interrupt so often you lose the gist of the argument. Two members of this all-powerful marketing board have resigned. It now stands that the public have their word against the Minister's word. Because the public have $100,000 voted for this board this year, as well as what was spent last year, they want to know who to believe — those citizens who took their place on the board and resigned because they felt that the Minister was using this all-powerful board as a tool to gain more control of the agricultural industry and that he was using it to rubber stamp his policy. The public have heard this Minister accused of a number of faults, which I won't go into at this point, and they have heard the statements by these two responsible citizens. And, frankly, Mr. Chairman, they don't know who to believe.

The Minister must surely understand that silence is interpreted as consent when a question isn't answered. This whole issue this afternoon revolves around the fact that the Minister is refusing to answer questions, not only questions that are being put to him today under this vote but questions that were put to him very specifically....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is drifting away again from vote 6, and I would ask her to return to vote 6 and the specific item in the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Chairman dispute the fact that the Minister's ability to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The purpose in committee is not to chastise the Minister for failing to answer questions. The purpose is to ask questions about the specific vote we are considering.

MRS. JORDAN: I think it is the prerogative of the opposition to chastise the Minister if he doesn't answer questions.

[ Page 2162 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right on.

MRS. JORDAN: What does this government think estimates are all about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: What is this government trying to hide day after day behind Ministers accused of lying...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...and convenient amnesia in the courts of British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. For the information of the Hon. Member, I did not mean to say that you couldn't raise matters or even express criticisms under this vote, but what I meant was under other votes or other general responsibilities in other areas. I am sorry if I misled the Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate your explanation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you understand that? He doesn't even understand what he said.

MRS, JORDAN: Does the Chairman understand and does the Minister understand how vital this debate is in this House this afternoon in relation to the Minister's ability to administer the Provincial Marketing Board in British Columbia which, as I mentioned before, is all-powerful over all the agricultural industry, including the distribution of food and transportation? That is the Act under which this board operates, Mr. Chairman. Don't be quite so jumpy.

Does the Chairman understand and does the Minister understand that if the Minister will answer a simple question which can absolutely clear the minds of the people who must work on this board, the taxpayers who support this board, then there need be no further concern and cause for debate? They will accept his word over the words of those who resigned from the board, I am sure. But for the Minister not to answer is tantamount to being consent.

I would ask the Minister if he can deny in this House the recollection of the defendants in the court case in which he appeared as a witness...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not relevant to this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: ...and in which the judge found the recollection of the defendants...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...to be believable...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on. Go to the heart of the matter.

MRS. JORDAN: ...in which the judge found the recollection of the defendants to be believable as to events which took place in the Premier's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: All the Minister has to do so that we can have confidence....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule that the remarks of the Hon. Member are not relevant to this vote. We are considering appropriations of money for the activities of this board for the current fiscal year. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep her remarks relevant to this item.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what the whole vote is all about.

MRS. JORDAN: Surely the integrity of the Minister to handle $100,000 and administer an all-powerful marketing board in this province, from which two members have already resigned and dispute the Minister's words, is the very core of this whole vote.

Someone asked: what are we here for? I must pose the same question, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Minister.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Very much so, Mr. Minister. What about weed control? The story I got from the Minister earlier this afternoon does not gybe with the story I got from his department and the field representatives. This man is handling stumping powder, an explosive. Surely a man must have integrity if he is to administer that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member realizes that to question the integrity of the Minister is wrong on two counts. First of all considering the integrity of the Minister should be done by a substantive motion. You are considering the conduct of the Minister; that should be done by a substantive vote.

[ Page 2163 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second point is that if you are considering the Minister's administrative responsibility, you should do it under vote 3. Under vote 6 you consider specifically the marketing board itself rather than the conduct of the Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Right on.

MRS. JORDAN: I agree, Mr. Chairman. You are quite right. I just wonder, if I am reading correctly, if the Chairman is suggesting that the Minister will not be administering the Provincial Marketing Board and that $100,000 vote. I find this in most peculiar....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is stretching a point, and I would just draw the line more clearly.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You must not talk about the general integrity of the Minister. This must be done by a substantive motion. If you want to ask questions or discuss the general operation of the Provincial Marketing Board, you may do so.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am using the wrong word and you could supply me with a better word. But the Chairman and the House will recall that when the Provincial Marketing Board, No. 20 under vote 6 — and it is proper to debate that, is it not, Mr. Chairman — got into serious difficulties and was on the verge of collapsing because of what the Members thought were directions from the Minister, the Minister himself made a public statement that he would, in fact, go in and chair the board meeting, a most extraordinary move by any Minister. An extraordinary move. Here is a board which he is supposed to administer in an unbiased manner. It is in difficulties because of charges of interference against that Minister that he was using it as a tool to control the producers in this province, that he was using it as a tool to overrule the declarations of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) and, in fact, was using it against the consumers of this province. His response to that was to say: "I will go in and chair the meeting."

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, some chairman! Impartial judge.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Minister and the Chair can now appreciate the need for the public to have confidence in this Minister and his administrative ability. It could be possible if the Minister would answer my question. Does the Minister intend to answer my question? Do you recall it?

Interjections

MRS. JORDAN: I'll be very glad to sit down. All it takes is a simple yes or no, Mr. Minister. I am quite willing to sit down if the Minister will answer yes or no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member cannot direct how anyone is going to answer a question. She may place the questions and then wait for the answers.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you. I appreciate the right to place the question. Let me place some more before this Minister if he is not going to answer the first question I asked. It was raised in this House before by my colleague from Langley (Mr. McClelland). If the Minister would answer these questions, it would help alleviate the serious concern there is about his ability in his administrative capacity.

Would he confirm or deny the statement by Mr. Barrett in Hansard of February 25, 1974 ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN:...that they, meaning the marketing board, were not asked or ordered to do anything? Would the Minister confirm or deny that? Would the Minister confirm or deny the statement by Mr. Barrett in Hansard on February 25, 1974: "1 told no one to draft an agreement."?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is totally outside the vote in this matter. I would ask her to return to the Provincial Marketing Board as contained in this vote. You are discussing matters that happened last year. Will you confine your remarks to the reasons for the expenditures of this money for the current fiscal year?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that I am quoting from Hansard a year ago, and I never heard that quoting from Hansard was ruled out of order before. Is this a new rule? On the same vote?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): She's right on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, this is very pertinent to the Minister's ability to administer $100,000.

[ Page 2164 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member asked the Chair a question. For the information of the Hon. Member I will be happy to answer the question. The point is in standing order 61(2) which deals with Committees of the Whole, Supply, and Ways and Means. In section 2 it says: "Speeches and Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

The item under consideration is vote 6 and the proposed expenditures for the current fiscal year. Now the Hon. Member may ask questions about items in this vote, but they must be relevant to the items in this vote for the current fiscal year.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your direction, Mr. Chairman, and I think you are quite right. Therefore I know you will allow me to continue, because they are very relevant to the Minister's competence to administer the Provincial Marketing Board in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, two members have resigned, accusing the Minister of interference and manipulation. That's very important. This board cannot possibly serve its legislative function unless it is free of any form of suspicion. I am sure the Chairman would agree with that. There is no way the board can be free of suspicion until the conflict of statements between this Minister over the reasons for the resignations and the conduct of this board when it got into difficulties.... He made an announcement that he was going to chair the meeting, and the statements of those....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member this question. Is the Hon. Member imputing any improper motive to either the Minister of Agriculture or to the Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we would never accuse the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you calling into question the conduct of either of these two Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture in particular?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Indeed not. It's his silence that worries me. I would like to have answers so that I could make up my mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Member for North Okanagan a direct question. The Chair is seeking to determine whether a ruling is required.

MR. GARDOM: All she wants is the truth. All she wants is the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am asking the Hon. Member if she is imputing an improper motive of any kind to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

MRS. JORDAN: No, I am not, Mr. Chairman. I want the truth of these statements. The Minister is the only person who can supply these answers; he is the only person who can clear the names of the two people who resigned from the Provincial Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, I fully intend to help this Minister clear his name and clear the suspicion that is surrounding him. I'm a nurse, Mr. Chairman. If he has convenient amnesia, then I avail my nursing abilities to his service. (Laughter.) Amnesia. Selective amnesia is a very serious illness, particularly for a Minister of the Crown. I am not asking as an individual but, Mr. Chairman, as one who represents a position in the British parliamentary system. It is that office and that position that we are concerned about, as well as the public. If the Minister tells the truth, he upholds the tradition of that position.

All we ask, Mr. Minister, is for you to tell us if it is true what Mr. Barrett said in Hansard on February 25, 1974, when asked by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland): "I told no one to draft an agreement."

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member again: is she alleging misconduct by this Minister?

MR. BENNETT: She's asking questions. We want answers.

MRS. JORDAN: No, I was just asking a question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm asking the Hon. Member....

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking the Minister, but silence can be interpreted as a consent and a positive answer. I do not want this to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is repeating the question without giving the Minister an opportunity to answer the question, and by repeating the question she is alleging misconduct. The Chair would rule that she should either wait for an answer from the Minister, or that she should not be repeating

[ Page 2165 ]

the question.

MR. McCLELLAND: She has other questions. Let her ask them all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair must exercise a certain amount of common sense in regard to the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: When? When?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the Hon. Member by repeating a question is alleging a form of misconduct to an Hon. Member. If she wanted to clear the matter up, if she was sincere in clearing the matter up, she would sit down and let the Hon. Minister answer the question. But it appears that she's not prepared to do this: therefore the Chair is really suggesting that she is alleging a form of misconduct.

I recognize the Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: I want clarification, Mr. Chairman. Are you suggesting that we can only ask one question at a time, that we can't ask a series of questions? You have now said that you're not happy, that the Member must sit down immediately upon asking a question. This Member has a series of questions to ask. The Minister has a series of non-answers about clearing up this situation in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! On the point of order....

MR. BENNETT: I am still on my point of order. Mr. Chairman, we want this Member afforded the opportunity to ask her questions without direction from the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will follow the rules of the House at all times. Now the point is that the Hon. Member is apparently, by her questioning, suggesting that there is a form of misconduct on the part of the Hon. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore I would suggest that she put other questions, totally different from that question, or that she waits for the Minister to answer. Would the Hon. Member continue?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Members to observe standing order 19(2).

The Minister for Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) followed the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Members to allow the Hon. Member for North Okanagan to continue with her remarks.

MR. PHILLIPS: How about you allowing her to continue.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully suggest that if the Chairman can't function as an unbiased chairman, then I'll be forced to request that the Chairman leave the chair.

I believe as a Member that when the Minister doesn't answer my questions, I have the right to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any attack on the Chair is an attack on the House itself and must be done by a substantive motion. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan must speak to the vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is just a shambles.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't want to keep repeating my reference to the vote, so I request the Chair's acceptance of my previous statement as to why the answer to these questions is so important in the Minister's capability to administer the Provincial Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, did the Premier tell you, as Minister of Agriculture, to prepare an amendment to the egg marketing...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has ruled that persisting in asking this particular question suggests a form of misconduct; therefore the Hon. Member should either await the Minister's reply or go on to other questions.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, let me cite an example of how this Minister answers — in relation to your argument. I have asked him and the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has asked him in this debate about a feasibility study for the poultry-processing plant in the Enderby area, how he is going to adjust the marketing procedures, how he could predicate a balancing of the budget in light of the fact that it is considered to be economically unviable. And not one single answer. If the Minister chooses not to answer, I suggest that the Chair has no right to interpret my....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I looked through the vote and I fail to find the particular item that

[ Page 2166 ]

you're discussing. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks to the items that are in the vote.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: I pose this question to the Minister: did the Premier tell the northern producers that if Mr. Stupich did not act the producers should return to the Premier?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was wrong with that?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): It's because it's embarrassing. Perfectly good question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister believe that the judge was correct in finding that the Premier instructed the board to implement the demands of the northern interior producers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That item is not in any way relevant to this specific vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you yourself got up, left the chair, went down the aisle and took your place in this Legislature and spoke on the producers of the north.

Mr. Chairman, surely you, of all people, would afford the Members of this Legislature the same privileges you would choose to afford yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you make your own rules as you go along?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue, relevant to this vote?

MRS. JORDAN: Did the Premier tell the Minister of Agriculture to prepare an amendment to the egg marketing scheme? Did the Premier tell the northern producers...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I would ask the Hon. Member to speak relevant to the items in this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister of Agriculture agree with the judge when he says, "The intervention of the Premier caused the board to enter into the agreement of November 1, 1972," which affects the poultry production of this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Nothing in the remarks of the Hon. Member that is relevant to the specific items in this vote....

MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There are 165 staff members provided under this vote, production and marketing programmes. All of those staff have responsibility for making sure that there is an orderly marketing programme in this province of the products grown in British Columbia. It is impossible for them to do that kind of orderly job as long as these questions, which haven't been answered in more than a year, continue to hang over the programmes. Unless those questions are answered, that whole marketing area will go down into a shambles. The directors won't be able to carry out the job. It's very relevant to ask these very questions in the House under this vote because probably there is no other better place to ask those questions.

I think the Chairman has been very narrow, particularly since he himself stood in this House moments before he asked the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to withdraw and talked about marketing boards under this vote. Mr. Chairman, we must be allowed to discuss this question and get the answers to questions for which, we have been waiting over a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you do — make your own rules?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may recall, if he was in the House, that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) was asking the Hon. Minister to see whether the Provincial Marketing Board might, in some way, involve itself in this dispute. The Provincial Marketing Board is clearly contained in this vote.

I would ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan to relate her remarks to the responsibilities of the Provincial Marketing Board in a similar manner.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am, because the Provincial Marketing Board is all-powerful in this province. It is in the hands, and solely in the hands, of this Minister. It is a superboard, and this Minister has been accused of intervening, of manipulation and using the board solely for his philosophical purposes.

Now, Mr. Chairman, those accusations have been implied by two responsible citizens who resigned from this board, and the public and this opposition are in a position where they must decide who is right. If the government would stop trying to hide these

[ Page 2167 ]

things, then there wouldn't be this need for concern. We want to know why the Minister won't answer these questions.

Does the Minister agree with the statement he made in Hansard by Mr. Barrett on February 26, 1974: "Mr. Speaker, I did not, I have not, I will not order any solution to the egg-and-chicken war in the Province of British Columbia "?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: Now given that statement by the Premier, how does the Minister of Agriculture relate the testimony and the comments ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I was assured by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that she would relate her remarks to the responsibilities....

MRS. JORDAN: ...when Mr. Kovachich, talking about Premier Barrett...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: ...said: "...myself and Mr. McLatchie, and Mr. Barrett, he said to me: 'Yesterday the board was in my office. I chewed their ass off. I told them they had to give increased quotas to the north.' " This is in direct conflict with the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: I am speaking to the vote, Mr. Chairman. The Minister must answer these questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Hon. Member one more time to speak to the specific items of the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, because the competency of the Minister to administer this Provincial Marketing Board and the staff are involved in this vote, these questions must be answered.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): No leadership.

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the Minister, through you, if....

MR. PHILLIPS: You should talk about leadership!

MRS. JORDAN: ...the statement of Mr. Morgan is true: "The board was advised by the Premier that the suit with Mr. Kovachich was to be settled out of court, that he was to be given certain amounts of permit or quota to satisfy the claims made by him."

Mr. Chairman, is the Minister telling the truth or is Mr. Morgan?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Morgan was under oath.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister, by his silence, condemning the chairman of the egg marketing board? Is the Minister...?

[Mr. Chairman rises]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member will remain seated for a moment. I wish to make a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Hon. Member to be seated for a moment.

I will refer to standing order 61(2) again: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or the cause under consideration." Again, I would ask the Hon. Member to relate her remarks to a specific item contained within this vote. If the Hon. Member is seeking in any way to call into question the conduct of the Minister, it must be done by a substantive motion.

Would the Hon. Member proceed with the consideration of this vote?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MRS. JORDAN: I am asking the Minister to please answer these questions. These are responsible citizens in our province who have no opportunity to defend themselves. Do the Members who resign from the Provincial Marketing Board have to go to court to protect their integrity? Do the Members of the Egg Marketing Board...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the Minister if he believes this to be true? This is Mr. Samson talking about Mr. Barrett, under oath:

"I listened most of the time and listened to what Mr. Barrett had to say. Mr. Barrett explained directly initially that he directed us producers in the north, myself, Mr. Kovachich; and he said that he had already directed the board to settle the matter out of court and get busy, sit down and resolve the difference for the sake of the board."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2168 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister claim that these...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member would remain seated for a moment, I wish to draw her attention to a point of order.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the 17th edition of May, page 396:

"Certain matters cannot be debated, save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House."

"For the same reason, no charge of a personal character can be raised, save upon a direct and substantive motion to that effect."

Now clearly the Hon. Member is implying or at least suggesting that there is some improper conduct on the part of the Minister or of another Minister. Therefore, I would rule that this is out of order.

The questions have to be directed to the specific items contained within this vote under standing order 61(2).

MR. GIBSON: Just on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me, having read that section in the 18th edition, which I think is substantially the same, that impropriety in the conduct of official duties would hardly qualify as charges of a personal nature. I would think those to be more charges of an official nature.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll read this section in question again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The idea of no charge of a personal character.... I think the questioning about the conduct of the administrative responsibilities — that's quite right; it's correct. However, it must be in conjunction with the operation of the Provincial Marketing Board under this vote.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. They must be in the form of questions rather than in the form of suggested charges.

MRS. JORDAN: My question is simply: are they true? This Minister is administering, under vote 6, $4,413,655. That is a good deal of taxpayers' hard-earned money. It's glue, Mr. Chairman. The question is: has the Minister got his feet in it? The people of British Columbia have a vested interest and they want to know if he is in his office upholding the responsibilities of his office and the traditions of his office. I ask this Minister if he will say: "Yes, this is true" or "No, this is not true."

Here is the statement made in the transcript:

"...that Mr. Barrett turned around, pointed his finger at Mr. Stupich, who had been sitting behind the desk of Mr. Barrett in Mr. Barrett's desk chair, and said: 'His head will roll or come off if he doesn't do as I say.' "

Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking the Minister: is that true? Did he threaten you? Did he direct you in your role and office of Minister? Did he direct you to interfere with the marketing boards? Did he direct you to...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we have to at least try to follow the rules in the House.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like a further effort.... The Provincial Marketing Board did not exist at that time, and I can't see the relevance of the present administrative functions of the Provincial Marketing Board....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Marketing Board has existed for years, and your ignorance is glaring. It is your ignorance that is causing the confusion in this House today, I regret to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Provincial Marketing Board was created by recent legislation, the B.C. marketing board.

MRS. JORDAN: How can this Minister operate a Provincial Marketing Board if he interferes with it politically?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: How can an all-powerful board over every producer in this province operate to the benefit of producers and consumers if there is political interference from the Premier of this province and from the Minister of Agriculture? That's

what is at issue, Mr. Chairman. This Minister has got to stand up in this House and refresh his memory and just tell us: are these statements true...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN:...or are they not true?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member proceeds, is the Hon. Member suggesting that a Minister of the Crown in this House interfered improperly with the operation of the Provincial Marketing Board?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: That's for the Minister to say, Mr. Chairman. I'm not impugning anything. But if the Minister sits silent forever then this must hang over his head. Silence is construed to be consent.

I would ask the Minister if this statement is true.

"The Premier came up to me after he made some remarks, and he laid his arms around me and patted me on the back, and he said: 'Arnold,' — this is my first name — and he said: 'Yesterday was one of my best political days of all my days in politics. I chewed the ass of those people from the Egg Marketing Board....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is becoming tediously repetitious and I would....

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN:

" '...I ordered him to implement this how you call this, representation which, in the meantime, he had given to us in order to implement then.' "

Mr. Chairman, how do we know that this Minister is not going to be guilty of the same type of charges in his administration of the Provincial Marketing Board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member suggesting that a Minister of the Crown is guilty of some charges now?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would ask the Minister if he would answer these questions which require a simple yes or no. He would defend the integrity of these people and there would be no problem.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was a question asked earlier — I think it was the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) who asked it — about the feasibility studies for the proposed poultry-processing plant in the interior. Feasibility studies were done in-house, and any questions you have about those I would be prepared to give myself rather than to file correspondence that would go back and forth from several members. So if you have any questions on the feasibility of that plant, I suggest you ask them under vote 7 when we get to the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act vote.

The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) raised a question about a particular poultry producer who is at odds with the Egg Marketing Board right now and suggested that this is something that might well be looked into by the Provincial Marketing Board, I think that's an excellent suggestion and I will refer to the Provincial Marketing Board that particular situation.

The Hon. Member for Langley raised the concern that he has, and that I have, that the same person is president of the Broiler Marketing Board and is president of Pan-Ready Poultry Ltd. For all I know, he may be President of Pacific Poultry Producers Co-op as well. All I can say is that he was elected as president by all those organizations. I'm hoping that he will not continue to wear those three hats much longer. He did tell me in conversation not long ago that he intended to divest himself of one or two of them, but he hadn't at that time decided which of the ones he would voluntarily not seek at the next elections which will be coming up soon.

A question was raised with respect to Panco: was Pacific Poultry Co-op negotiating the purchase of Panco? I think you gave the answer yourself. It was at one time, that time it finished and completed its negotiations unsuccessfully, a little over a year prior to the time that Federal Industries Ltd. came to us. When they were unsuccessful in their negotiations with Panco or with Federal Industries, they then turned their attention to the Alberta Poultry Marketing Co-op. As a result of those negotiations, they acquired Scott's Poultry Ltd.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) persists in her statement, in spite of my attempt under a point of order, which was incorrect, to tell her that no one has resigned from the Provincial Marketing Board. Unless she has some information that is only one or two or three hours new, no one had resigned from the Provincial Marketing Board up to lunchtime. If anyone is contemplating any such resignation, they certainly haven't told me about it. I think it's very unlikely that anyone is contemplating resigning from the Provincial Marketing Board.

[ Page 2170 ]

It's a relatively new organization and, from everything I've heard, they're getting along well together and working well together. As I said, the only problem that has been put to them so far has been settled successfully. So whether she doesn't know that no one has resigned or whether she's privy to some information that I don't have or whether she's trying to manufacture an incident on the floor of the House today, I just don't understand. No one has resigned from the Provincial Marketing Board. I'm insisting that no one has resigned from the Provincial Marketing Board. Although I tried to correct her and gave her an opportunity to change her question or statements, she persisted in asking a question based on false information. It's not unusual for that particular Member, as far as the official opposition is concerned. They often ask questions based on false information. But one would think that when they're given an opportunity to correct it, they would do something about it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

HON. MS. YOUNG: You wanted the answers; now listen to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River not to interrupt the person who has the floor.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to say about a court case in which I appeared as a witness. I answered all the questions that were put to me at that time.

I prefer not to enter into any discussion or court case under this vote. There may be other opportunities at another time and in another forum, but certainly not under this vote.

Another question was asked, and I think this is perhaps the only question she asked which had any point with respect to vote 6: what will the $100,000 to the Provincial Marketing Board provide? Mr. Chairman, there are five members to the Provincial Marketing Board. An order-in-council was passed that provided for a per-diem rate for them for expenses when they are meeting. It is the first time that we have had such an organization. It is rather difficult to anticipate the extent to which they will be called upon to hear appeals that will be put to them from I time to time.

It is difficult to estimate just how much will be spent by the Provincial Marketing Board this year. In addition to the per-diem rate for the expenses of the members of the board in dealing with these hearings, the board will also have the opportunity and has indicated its desire to investigate the operations of marketing boards and the operation of marketing itself as it exists in different provinces and to some extent to call upon people from other jurisdictions to gain some expertise of marketing that they feel will be an advantage to them in their work as members of the Provincial Marketing Board. As long as they stay within the funds that I hope the Legislature will vote for the operation of the Provincial Marketing Board — I hope the Legislature will vote for that this afternoon — and for all of their work, the hearings and their research work, I think the Provincial Marketing Board will have done a great service for the marketing of agricultural produce in the Province of British Columbia.

MRS. JORDAN: I stand corrected. It was the food council on which there were two resignations, but it is impossible to discuss that because of the way in which this government is forcing selective closure.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. There was ample opportunity to discuss the operations of the food council under a previous vote, and it was discussed.

MR. BENNETT: Okay, now get on with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm on this vote. I'm not going to argue about the fact that the Minister wanted arrangements so he could be away during his estimates before. I won't bring that in.

But the issue here, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister would stand up in this House and suggest that the presentations that are being made here in terms of his conduct as Minister in Mr. Barrett's office in the court is false information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: It's simply unbelievable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is stepping outside this vote again. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the items in this vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, it is time we put all this nonsense aside. Is this Minister accusing Mr. Morgan, the chairman of the Egg Marketing Board, of crying in court? Is '.'his Minister accusing Mr. Kovachich of lying in court? Is this Minister denying that, in fact, the Premier of this province pointed to his Minister and told him his head would roll...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2171 ]

MRS. JORDAN: ...if the Premier's orders were not carried out...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is persisting in irrelevance.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, this Minister will not answer one single question....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member be seated? I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated? Thank you.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: During consideration of vote 6, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan was speaking to the vote and the Chair ruled that she was speaking about a matter which was irrelevant to the vote. However, she continued to speak on this matter despite my caution. I stood up and ordered her to be seated. She refused to obey the Chair and she so stated that she refused to obey the Chair. I report this to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regardless of disputes, I think it is well known that in all parliamentary law, flagrant violation of the order of the Chair, to refuse to be seated, is of such a nature that the person who does so must withdraw if they are not prepared to obey the rules of the House. I have no course, therefore, but to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw for the day. I think we must do that because, if we don't.... Unless the Hon. Member has something to say — that she is prepared to obey the order to be seated by the Chair....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I respect your authority very much, but I must bring to your attention that in relation to the Chair itself, the Chairman doesn't even know what vote we are on. He undertook special privileges for himself. He is defending a Minister who is under serious charges in this province...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...a Minister who refuses to answer questions, a Minister who by his silence is condemning the label of lying on citizens of this province who have testified under....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There really is only one question to decide.

MRS. JORDAN: The Chairman is not ruling fairly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: The Chairman is not upholding....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is only one issue. The Hon. Attorney-General has a point, too, on this?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think you know the resolution of this House....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I was about to make a statement. The Hon. Attorney-General wished to make a point of order as well on this question. I have heard the Hon. Member for North Okanagan on her point.

Interjection.

[ Page 2172 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Members passed a resolution in this House that, whenever the Speaker or the Chairman stands, the microphones in the House go dead except for that of the Chair. This is a resolution you passed unanimously.

I point out that every debating forum of the Commonwealth that has this type of microphone uses a similar system. It is done in Great Britain, in the mother of parliament; it is done in Ottawa; it is done in nearly every forum. Now you can't complain if the rule of the House says that there can only be one person speaking at a time. That is, after all, democracy. I ask all Members on all sides to try to observe that rule and we may be able to get along with the business of the House.

Now you have a point of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Hon. Members to respect the rules of parliament. There is enough disrespect for rules and law outside in our community at the present time without us setting a bad example.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is easy to wreck confidence in parliament as a workable, democratic institution.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is very bad to build that confidence. I'm simply making an appeal that if we behave in this House as unruly children, we are setting a very poor example for the real children in our community.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment and then...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is certainly disregarding that basic rule himself. If the Hon. Member has a point of order to make, I would gladly recognize him if he speaks to the question.

I point out to the Hon. Members that the question really before the House is that when the Chair asks a Member to be seated, the Member stated that she would not be seated and disobeyed the order.

Now it seems to me to be only proper and regular that we obey the orders of the Chair. If you disagree with the Chair, there are two ways of dealing with that, as you know, under the rules. If you sit down, you are always entitled to stand up again to make a point of order. I invite one if it is on this very point. But I don't want to hear, surely, a widening of the issue to whether or not the debate should range over the conduct of the Minister on another occasion, which has nothing to do with the present provincial marketing Act or the present Provincial Marketing Board, which was set up by this Legislature more recently than the events that are being discussed by the Hon. Member.

The real question that I and that the House have to deal with is that the Hon. Member has refused to be seated when required to do so. That is the simple issue. I don't want to see the Hon. Member withdraw from the House. I merely asked if she is prepared to obey the order of the Chair in future in this debate. If she is, I would not ask her to withdraw.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I am at all times prepared to obey the orders of the Chair when that Chair in itself is, in fact, unbiased on law and order, and when the Chairman in that chair upholds the democratic process.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Chairman in his actions today both on the floor of this Legislature as a Member and in the Chair have brought about extreme provocation so that I simply, with all regret, cannot accept his ruling.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member realizes, too, that it is quite improper to attack or debate the conduct of the Chair in terms of bias.

If the Hon. Member feels that deeply about it, there is a proper course to follow. That is by a notice of motion to deal with the conduct of the Chair on whatever it is doing. That is another rule of parliament that should be observed.

If you attack the conduct of the Chair, you are attacking the House and its constitution. When you do that, you are destroying parliament. It is as simple as that.

Interjections.

[ Page 2173 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, as I understand the issue, asked the Hon. Member to desist from speaking on matters that were not pertinent to the particular vote on the Provincial Marketing Board.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member, if he felt that the Chair was wrong, had the obvious recourse of appealing the decision of the Chair, but not merely attacking the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan is telling the House that she is prepared in future to obey the order of the Chair to be seated when requested to do so. Is that correct?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You have no right in this manner to make the statements of the kind that you are making. I have already pointed out the rules of the House. You know what the rules are, and if you want to break down the rules of the House, continue to do what you are doing. I am asking you if you will agree to obey the rules when you are asked to be seated and follow the order of the Chair. Will you agree to that, please? Will you?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MRS. JORDAN: If you will change the Chairman during this debate and get us an unbiased Chairman who will uphold the rules of this House, uphold the integrity of the democratic process and parliamentary procedure and uphold free and democratic discussion. then I would be pleased to obey the rules of the Chair!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: You know that the Hon. Member has not taken the route that one must take in parliament. Not having done so, I have no order that I can make except to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw for this sitting. I can't do anything else, and I regret it very much. But what else could one do?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat]

MRS. JORDAN: I regret it too. I assure you that if the Speaker would change the Chairman to allow fair debate then I would not withdraw, but in light of his refusal to bring in an unbiased chairman to uphold the democratic parliamentary process, then, regretfully I must withdraw.

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

On vote 6: production and marketing programmes — continued.

Mr. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think truth, honesty and democracy in this province are on trial here today for another time again.

Mr. Chairman, vote 6, as I pointed out to the Chairman on a previous point of order, makes available money to provide for a staff of some 165 people. Those 165 people will be charged directly with not only administering the Provincial Marketing Board but also administering. Mr. Chairman, all of the programmes which the Agriculture department develops. Those programmes are listed in horticulture, apiary, livestock, field crops, poultry, expansion, farm economics, markets and many other areas in which the government, through the Agriculture department, will make various grants for agricultural purposes. There will be people who will have to be charged with the direct administering of those programmes down through the staff. Now if the moral of the staff — in fact, the moral of those people who are asked to be in charge and direct the staff — is forced into an all-time low, then those programmes cannot be carried on with any kind of order, and certainly can never ....

MR. CURTIS: The Chairman is smirking. Ha!

MR. PHILLIPS: What kind of a Chairman is this? He's making fun!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What kind of a Chairman is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Members are interrupting the Hon. Member for Langley, who has the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: For good reason! You should have seen the look on your face!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair may have been thinking about the weekend with his children.

Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly hope that....

MR. PHILLIPS: He might not be able to have the weekend with his children when democracy dies in this province! He'd be told where he could go!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon.

[ Page 2174 ]

Member for Langley has the floor.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would certainly hope that the errors you have made in judgment this afternoon were not because you were thinking of something outside of this House rather than thinking about the business that you have in that chair. You certainly have made errors in judgment today in this House, and the result of those errors has seen two people being forced to withdraw, totally wrongly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is attacking the Chair. I would invite any Hon. Member in this House....

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The proper procedure under the standing orders of this House and this B.C. Legislature is that if any Member is dissatisfied with the conduct of the Chair, then he must make a substantive motion on a notice of motion. Meanwhile, the Hon. Member for Langley has the floor and I would ask the other Hon. Members not to interrupt him.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would certainly ask you, Mr. Chairman, that you give this House the assurance that your mind has been on the business of this House, because you have made two very serious decisions this afternoon. Now we are faced not only, Mr. Chairman, with a 135-hour closure which was forced on the Members of the opposition by that crushing majority on the other side, but also we are now faced with the kind of decisions you have made imposing additional closure on the Members of this House!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't remember what vote we are on anyway.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I continue to speak to this vote, which I will remind the Chairman is vote 6, I was attempting to point out to you earlier that these people who are employed in the production and marketing programmes of the Department of Agriculture have a very serious task before them. If they, through actions of the government or government Members, lost their confidence in the Department of Agriculture, if their morale is forced down, if they see political interference in the operation of various marketing boards and programmes and particularly if they see that political interference in the operation of all of these programmes, they can't help but wonder why they are there in the first place. Their morale must suffer, and those people who are in a position of authority within that department, their morale must suffer too, and they must consider themselves to be in a position of only rubber-stamping decisions which are made for pure political purposes to suit the political purposes of a government Member.

Mr. Chairman, we've seen what's happened to another important Crown corporation, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, because of that kind of political interference. I don't want to see the same kind of thing happen to the Department of Agriculture and to the programmes that are going to be administered by these 165 persons employed by the Department of Agriculture in the marketing of products and in the development of new programmes for the department.

Mr. Chairman, that is the heart of the whole matter. Because you could not understand today when two other Members were speaking about this very thing, you forced two Members of this House to withdraw and not be allowed to take part in this very serious discussion. Now I think, Mr. Chairman, that you should be ashamed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is not speaking to the vote. I would ask the Hon, Member to speak to vote 6, please...

MR. McCLELLAND: I am speaking to the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and not to reflect on the decisions of the Chair.

MR. McCLELLAND: I never....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Look, if the Hon. Member does not agree with the decisions of the Chair, under the rules there is a procedure. You are not following that procedure, and I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to this vote, and it is one of the most important votes in this whole department. I wish there was some way I could impress upon you the importance of the events of somewhat over a year ago to the whole morale of the Department of Agriculture in regard to its production and marketing programmes.

Those questions must be answered before we can be assured that there can be any meaning to the various jobs which are listed under this vote, because if those questions aren't answered, those people cannot do their jobs. It doesn't matter how much money you give them; if you don't give them some kind of confidence, then they can't do their job.

I'll suggest to you that these programmes, which should mean the development of new sources of

[ Page 2175 ]

markets for British Columbia-grown products, which should mean the development of new methods by which we can advance the marketing of British Columbia-grown products, go down the drain .... Then British Columbia's agricultural industry goes down the drain with them, Mr. Chairman, and so do British Columbia's farmers.

Now if that is what you want, then stifle debate under this vote, because that's what will happen if we don't get the answers to these kinds of questions. Now we have been waiting over a year for the answers to these questions, Mr. Chairman. We have a direct contradiction between what came out under oath in a court case and what was said in this House and quoted in Hansard. A direct contradiction on many, many times — not once, but a number of times. That Minister has got to answer these questions pretty soon.

Did the Premier threaten to fire that Minister if he didn't do as he was told? Did the Premier...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is not speaking to this particular vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is not speaking to this vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the items contained in this vote. The conduct of Ministers a year ago is not relevant to the specific administrative matters contained under this vote.

Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you know you get more incredible as the afternoon wears on, or off, or whatever it's doing.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you, for instance.... Suppose we had a programme last year to develop a system of better marketing of beef in British Columbia, and that programme collapsed. Then would we not be allowed to talk about it under this year's programme? If we had developed a programme through the past year under this production and marketing programme generally, if we had had a programme of B.C. food promotion, for which we now have $250,000 in this vote, and that B.C. food promotion programme was an utter and complete disaster and failure, are you telling me that the Members of this House could not get up under this year's vote, for which there is $250,000 provided, and discuss that programme this year? Is that the kind of ruling you are making today? If it is, it is as shameful as the rulings you have made earlier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member proceed with his speech rather than lecturing the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Somebody ought to lecture you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Get back to your own seat.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, democracy....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask Members on both sides not to interrupt the Member for Langley in his speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right! That's the first good ruling you have had all day, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Members on the other side of the House are talking about democracy. They destroyed democracy last year. Democracy was effectively destroyed by the crushing majority of that government in forcing closure rules on behalf of the opposition...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member speak to vote 6?

MR. McCLELLAND: ...and the Premier, Mr. Chairman, has gone into hiding because he can't face his lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the unparliamentary term: "the lies of the Minister."

MR. McCLELLAND: I will withdraw. Unconditionally.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): That's the third time you've withdrawn that kind of thing. The public should know what you are doing.

MR. McCLELLAND: The public does know, Mr. Chairman. The public knows....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! Would

[ Page 2176 ]

the Hon.... ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him to sit down. He's not on a point of order.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Provincial Secretary to take his seat, and I'd ask all Hon. Members, including the Member for South Peace River, to observe Standing Order 19(2).

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate your drawing me to order. I always obey the rules of the House, but I ask that you administer the rules of this House in fairness. There is a Member, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), who is not in his place, who has been yapping for the last five minutes. I would suggest that you draw him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order is well taken. It is not permitted for any Member to speak, except from his own seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just be fair. What we want is fairness.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member for Langley proceed with his speech?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make it very clear that I withdraw at the request of the Chair because it offended the Chair, not because I have any doubt about the truth of my accusation.

Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. Member for Langley, you must withdraw an improper remark without qualification and without conditions. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw this remark unconditionally.

MR. McCLELLAND: I will withdraw at the request of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, before this debate is over....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: He had to get a stacked committee to bail him out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley has the floor. I would ask the Member to...

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, before this debate is over, I must impress upon you that the events of the trial which the people in this House have been talking about this afternoon are very important to all of the operations of the marketing programmes and to this whole programme about which we are talking and which is under discussion now. It's the whole principle of the morale within a government department — and this department is probably the most important department to agriculture of all of the departments. Not only is this department charged with the administration of the provincial marketing board about which you have made so much today, but it is also charged with the administration of food promotion of British Columbia products, of grants to various organizations, of the management and production of livestock, of the poultry programmes, the development of poultry programmes.

Basic to the whole vote has to be that establishment of an ongoing and vigorous programme to make sure that British Columbia products are marketed to their best advantage and that the new programmes to make sure that the people of British Columbia have the opportunity to buy more and more British Columbia products is advanced. It is as simple as that. If you can't understand the relationship to the morale of the staff to those very important programmes, then I just don't understand you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking to this vote when I speak about that trial which will destroy the morale of the staff of this department.

Mr. Chairman, in a year and a half we have had no answers to these questions. I point again to startling comments taken from two different sources, one set of comments from Hansard and one set of comments from transcripts of the trial which is under discussion here this afternoon, both of them diametrically opposed to each other, in direct contradiction to each other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member must....

MR. McCLELLAND: It raises serious questions about integrity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. The Hon. Member is doing two things wrong. One, he is suggesting improper conduct on the part of a Minister of the Crown. The proper method of dealing with this is by a substantive motion under parliamentary rules. Two, this matter has already been mentioned a number of times and has been ruled out of order. Therefore I would ask him to keep relevant to the items in this particular vote.

[ Page 2177 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the remarks are in order, with regard to marketing boards, under this vote. They are in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. What the Member says is correct. Marketing boards certainly are in some way related to this vote. However....

MR. McCLELLAND: First time you've admitted that today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want a star, or a bunny rabbit?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. However, the Hon. Member has failed to make the distinction: that is, that we are considering the responsibilities of the particular personnel under this vote, as it applies during the current fiscal year for which we are giving them some money, and therefore we are not dredging up things that happened a year ago, two years ago, or whenever.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless they are strictly relevant to this particular vote. However....

MR. McCLELLAND: You did it again!

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...the Chair has ruled that the items which the Hon. Member was discussing are not relevant to this vote. Therefore, would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wonder now, in the light of those last two statements that you made, if you might like to rise and call the Speaker in and invite those two Members back into the House, since they obviously were....

AN HON. MEMBER: How'd you like to invite them back?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his speech relevant to this vote?

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you sleep well tonight. I wouldn't if I was in your position.

It's very important that we do talk about the findings of this trial, in relation to the marketing board situation today, as it exists today, because we cannot have orderly marketing of British Columbia farm products without clearing up these questions and allowing those people who were charged with this responsibility to do their job without threats and without the possibility of interference for political purposes. Now that's the simplicity of the thing and that's why it's so relevant to this vote.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. If there is any matter of improper conduct, past, present, or future, the matter must be dealt with by a substantive motion.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, the Hon. Member should confine his remarks to the questioning of the particular items of the vote before us and not dredge up matters which are suggestive of a misconduct in the past. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that's nonsense. We have to discuss this with relevance to the programmes that we have here. You're wrong, and you must understand that this is very important to this vote and to every part of it, and to the future of agriculture in British Columbia. If you don't understand that we can't market agriculture in an orderly fashion while these questions go unanswered, then you don't know what's happening in agriculture today.

The Premier of British Columbia did intervene and use the power of his office. Now that's a fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley a question. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that in some way a Minister of the Crown, either the Minister of Agriculture or the Premier, was guilty of impropriety? Yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAND: The answer is, I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question. That's the answer we've been trying to get for a year and a half in this House.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Somebody tell us that. That's what we'd like to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. Is the Hon. Member imputing any improper motive on the part of...?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, how can I? I'm asking

[ Page 2178 ]

a question. Now I stated a fact, which came up under sworn testimony in a court case. I have the transcripts of the court case right here. I'm stating a fact. The Premier of this province — now listen to it....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member seeking to discuss the items under this vote or is he seeking to determine what happened in a court case a year ago in order to determine whether the Minister is guilty of impropriety or not?

MR. McCLELLAND: I know. I know what happened in the court case. So should you. I'm sure you read the transcripts. Everybody read the transcripts. We know what happened in the court case. No dispute about that, and that's why I'm telling you that it is a fact that the Premier of the province did intervene and use the power of his office as a club to force an independent marketing board to submit to his will, and his will only.

Now that's a fact. That is a fact, and it underlines that that kind of political action undermines the possibility of any marketing board in British Columbia ever again, under this Minister at least and under this Premier, operating an orderly programme of marketing the products of the people of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that kind of interference is a fact and I'm just quoting directly from the transcripts of the court trial. That kind of activity by the Premier and this Minister, who developed then a case of selective amnesia because of his fear that the Premier was going to fire him, because the Premier threatened to fire him....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is suggesting by his comment "selective amnesia" that in some way the Minister is guilty of some impropriety.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm accusing the Minister of forgetting conveniently.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there something wrong with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is stating that those remarks constitute imputing an improper motive to the Minister, and I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that remark:

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister himself admitted that he couldn't remember. He lost his memory about these events which were very clear and very forceful in that office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the Hon. Member....

MR. McCLELLAND: ...had an arm around the egg producers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

MR. McCLELLAND: People threatening to chew other people's asses off, if you can imagine that!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, how can you forget that kind of stuff? That's what they said, yes.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Who would use that kind of language?

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure, who but the Premier? Then the Premier, after telling him that, had said that this....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The remarks made by the Member, "selective amnesia" or "conveniently forgot," suggest an improper motive. I would ask the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) to withdraw the imputation of the words "selective amnesia" or "conveniently forgot."

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, how do you know that that suggests an impropriety? The Minister may have conveniently forgotten for a high purpose of state — that is hypothesized. (Laughter.) I'd ask the Chairman how you can possibly make that ruling on the evidence you have before you. It's nonsense!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Well, I think we can resolve it very simply. I'd just ask the Hon. Member for Langley to state that he is not in any way imputing an improper motive, and then we will carry on.

[ Page 2179 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have explained to you before that there is no possible way I can impute an improper motive on anyone in this House until we get some answers to these questions. No possible way!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Now if we get the answers to those questions, and the answers are what we might think they are, then we can impute a motive. But we can't do it without the answer to these questions.

I say again that this whole question is vital, very vital to the future of agriculture in British Columbia. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the Premier of this province stepped in in a situation which was already rather tenuous because of the ....

MR. PHILLIPS: Delicate.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right. It was delicate because of the festering sores which had been created in various sections of the province. I have no quarrel, nor does any other Member in this House, I'm sure, have any quarrel with the establishment of a better system of marketing in this province and getting the marketing into the areas where it belongs. Sure, we want to expand it into the interior. Sure we want to expand it into the north. We'd be stupid to say that we didn't, because it's the logical thing that has to happen next.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: But it has to happen.

Look who is back — the Minister of typewriters. How is your typewriter today, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We know that at that time there were some serious problems in that industry. Tempers were high. Mr. Chairman, you know that as well as anyone because much of that festering was in your own area.

So there isn't any doubt that this was a pretty delicate situation at that moment. For the Premier of this province to step into that festering situation and help out a political supporter for political purposes is the kind of politics that has no place in this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Highways on a point of order.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I think that they are being a little flippant with your ruling. It is obvious to me that the two parties — the Liberals and the Social Credit — have made a deal to get themselves thrown out of this House for political purposes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: And I think the sooner we get down to it the better off we are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: No, it's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was just going to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley has further remarks to make?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the House that I have been no part of any deal, and that I don't have any intentions to get thrown out or asked to leave this House, because I intend to speak to this vote, and you won't have any reason to ask me to leave. I am speaking to this vote, and you have agreed with me so far and I'm thankful for that. So if I may continue, Mr. Chairman, you don't have to interrupt me yet.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask the Chairman to ask the Highways Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Highways on a point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I'd ask that Member to withdraw that statement he made about the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), I would ask him to rise in his place and....

MR. CURTIS: What was the remark, Mr. Chairman? Did you hear it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I distinctly heard the Member for South Peace River shout across the floor the words: "the lying Premier." The Hon. Minister of Highways has asked that these words be withdrawn. The Chair requests that the Member for South Peace River rises in his place and withdraws these words unconditionally.

[ Page 2180 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you first: does it bother you what the Premier has done when lied... ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has requested that the rules of the House be observed and that the Member withdraw....

MR. PHILLIPS: If you force me to withdraw it, I will withdraw it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Lea files an answer to a question. (See appendix.)

MR, GARDOM: Are the Hon. Members entitled to be back at 8:30 p.m.?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, yes, the Hon. Members are entitled to be back at 8:30. That's another sitting.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Hall tables the annual report of the Department of Travel Industry for the year 1974.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

APPENDIX

151 Mr. Phillips asked the Hon. the Minister of Highways the following questions:

1. How many contracts were awarded for the construction of a bridge over the Skeena River at Kitwanga?
2. Who were the contracts awarded to?
3. What was the total price of each contract?

The Hon. G. R. Lea replied as follows:

1. "Two contracts awarded; bids close for third and final contract on May 21, 1975.
2. "Contract No. 1, Dillingham Corporation; Contract No. 2, Canron Limited.
3. "Contract No. 1, $962,387; Contract No. 2, $1,072,000."