CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2181

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2182

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2183

Point of order Possible partiality of the Chairman. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2183

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2184

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates On vote 6. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2185

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2185

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2186

Point of order Irregularity in division. Mr. Gibson — 2186

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2187

Point of order Possible partiality of the Chairman. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2187

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2190

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman — 2190

Point of order Possible inaccuracies in Chairman's report to Speaker. Mr. Smith — 2192

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates On vote 6. Division on vote 6 — 2193

On vote 7. Mr. McClelland — 2193

Point of order Correction of Mr. Speaker's statement on microphone cut off. Mr. Bennett — 2206

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In the debate this afternoon, it is possible that I might have used the term "Clerk of the House" in a way in which I would not wish to have done so. I in no way wish to leave the inference with the House that I was casting any dispersions on his conduct. I have the highest regard for these gentlemen.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much for those words. I think that you all know that the work done by the Clerks is for all of us.

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 — continued.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, I was unable to introduce some guests who were in the galleries, things went so fast. Usually in the evening nobody is introduced here. I have the privilege tonight of introducing three guests — two from my riding and one from the riding of Fort George. Mr. Fred Speckeen is from Prince George, and Mr. and Mrs. Dingwall are from Vanderhoof. I wish everybody here would welcome them.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, the debate this afternoon on vote 6 seemed to zero in, at least in the last half of the afternoon, on one relatively small item in the total vote, but an important one. That item was the Provincial Marketing Board.

The Members will recall, I believe, that last year we did pass amendments to the Natural Products Marketing Act, which provided for a provincial marketing board. Members, I am sure, will recall during that debate quite a bit of discussion as to just what would be the role of the Provincial Marketing Board, what authority it would have.

In particular, a lot of Members expressed some concern at the time that the purpose in setting up the Provincial Marketing Board was really to try to deal with something that had happened in the past. They were concerned that it might be used in that way and wanted the assurance of the government that it was not intended that way. During the discussion I tried to make it plain that the way the legislation was written made it quite clear that there was no intention of dealing with something that had happened in the past, something that did give rise to a court case. I want to repeat that assurance. If it becomes necessary during the evening, I can read from the legislation just to remind the Members, but I hope that won't be necessary.

The question of staff has been commented on. I think it should also be made quite clear that the figure of 165 in this vote does not include the members of the Provincial Marketing Board. The legislation called for a board to be set up of up to 10 members. Five members of that board have, indeed, been named and are serving as the Provincial Marketing Board. That is as many as have been named up to this point. None of the 165  staff members included in this vote work on the Provincial Marketing Board.

As far as markets, the item under "activity" in the top half where the figure for markets appears is seven people and $495,220. This is the activity of the markets branch itself. You will note the second-from-the-bottom item, B.C. food promotion, $250,000. This is a large part of the activity of the markets branch.

I thought perhaps with this clarification the Members would be prepared to enter into questions about the activities of the department under vote 6, and some kind of an analysis of just what the government is doing, what it proposes under vote 6.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Why don't you answer the questions that you were asked?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe (I can be corrected on this and I will certainly make not of any questions that are asked) the only questions that I have not answered to this point are questions dealing with the trial. I will not be dealing any further with that issue. I made it quite plain this afternoon that as far as I was concerned everything I had to say on that subject was said in court. I prefer to leave it that way. But any other questions that the Members care to ask I will do my best to answer.

MR. BENNETT: You're telling us what questions we can ask.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

Interjection.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Go ahead.

[ Page 2182 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wondered if the Minister would send us over a list of the questions that are okay to ask.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think the Member could do with a lot of help in asking questions but....

MR. BENNETT: You could do with a lot of help in answering.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Member for North Okanagan.

MR. BENNETT: You have selective amnesia.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I find the Minister's actions and comments at the opening of this debate following the dinner hour most extraordinary — in fact, completely unbelievable. He says that he thinks the gist of this afternoon's debate zeroed in on one item, if I can remember his statement correctly — one rather small item. Then he wasn't sure if it was the Natural Products Marketing Act we were debating or the child of that Act, which is the Provincial Marketing Board.

It is incredible that he's missed the whole point of this afternoon's debate, the whole point of other debate on his estimates, the whole point of a court case and the whole point of a debate in this session last year. The point missed is his failure to clarify misunderstandings — which he likes to call them....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds I would ask the Hon. Member to deal only with the items that are contained in this vote — the money that is set down there and the purposes for which this money is intended to be spent — nothing else. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the effectiveness of the Provincial Marketing Board, to which the Minister referred just a few minutes ago, is going to be completely jeopardized by this Minister's failure to answer the questions we've posed to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the future of marketing boards....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not discussing marketing boards generally. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member has been out of order, and probably the other Members have been to some extent, too. I think the Chair has been a little too lax; therefore we will confine our remarks to the times we have listed in the vote and the purposes for which that money is intended to be spent. Either the money is too much, not enough or whatever. Would the Hon. Member address herself to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you have just claimed that the Chair has been lax. I would suggest that the Chair has been inconsistent, but not lax. It is as if the Chairman treats this Legislature and democracy like an upside-down cake.

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

MRS. JORDAN: The top for the government and the bottom for the opposition...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN:...and all that's left of democracy in this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote or take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: I'll speak to the vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One or the other: speak to the vote or take your seat!

MRS. JORDAN: Oh!

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): No need to be nasty about it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, obviously the Chair is suffering from pangs of guilt. When we reviewed the debate earlier this afternoon....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you speak to the vote or take your seat? Order! We will not have debate on the Chair's conduct. You will speak to the vote or take your seat!

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to the vote.

I'd like to ask the Minister how he is going to provide impartial and respected administration for the Provincial Marketing Board as long as there is some cloud surrounding his testimony...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote or take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN:...and his administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon.

[ Page 2183 ]

Member speak to the vote or take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I did. I suggest that his whole administration is in jeopardy as it relates to the Provincial Marketing Board which he just talked about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not discussing the Minister; we are discussing $100,000 under this particular item. Would the Hon. Member speak about that $100,000 and not about the Minister?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, are you denying the fact that the Minister is responsible for the administration of this $100,000?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you are just asking for trouble.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: You are going to abuse the privileges of this House again as Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Member once again if she is intending to speak to this vote or not. So far you have been almost totally out of order. Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote or take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: It's funny, after I left the House I listened to the debate and the subject came up and was not out of order then. But we accept your inconsistency, Mr. Chairman.

I'll ask the Minister another question in relation to beekeeping in the province. Would he please advise the House what procedures or what steps he has taken to respond to the request of the beekeepers that he allots some funds on the basis of their viable units to provide fencing against invasion by bears when the colonies are out in the orchards.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal more trouble with bears in various parts of the province — at least the beekeepers have in particular. The livestock owners have as well.

This year we have provided an amount of $19,000, included in this vote, that will be used for a series of projects — some of them experimental and some of them controlled — in an attempt to find the best way. They have tried many ways and, unfortunately, when bears do get a taste of honey it's almost impossible to devise a means of keeping them out. Some of the experiments or programmes tried last year included using a chain-link fencing around beehives that were packed very close together — a large number of hives packed immediate to each other — and even there the bears were able to get in on top and wreck the hives from inside and destroy the fencing as well.

So it's not an easy problem. Last year the amount provided for this was $2,000. We have recognized how much more of a problem it is now by increasing this amount to $19,000.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, as a further follow-up to the question: is the Minister aware — and I'm sure he must be — that Alberta has felt that providing incentive and money for chain-link fences are worthwhile? I believe, if I'm correct, they have made available $100 per colony per beekeeper. Manitoba has made available $75 per colony — and I certainly stand to be corrected on those figures — in order to develop chain-link fencing. They seem to feel that until a better way is developed, the assistance that a beekeeper needs is not income assurance but protection for his ability to earn his own livelihood.

My understanding is that the association in British Columbia strongly favours this now as an immediate reaction to an immediate problem for which there is no cure at the moment and to help them over this difficult time. I wonder why, when it's an immediate problem, the Minister is embarking on long-term thinking. Why not give them some incentive now?

Is the Minister going to answer?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll defer to the Minister if he wants to answer that question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I can't answer while there is somebody on their feet. So far, the beekeepers' association in B.C. has not seen fit to make that particular request. They have come forward with some different ideas for controlling bees. We have met with them; we have considered all of them. To this point they haven't suggested that we adopt the Alberta plan, which is relatively new in Alberta. I think the Member asking this question is well aware of it but perhaps some of the other Members aren't. Beekeeping is much more of an industry in the Province of Alberta than it is in B.C. We're learning. We are further behind than they are. It is a much more important industry there, but we are learning from their experience. We are trying some things on our own. We are listening to our association and I think we are doing quite well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I rise on a

[ Page 2184 ]

point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the testimony of Mr. Link in the case of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board, at the proceedings of trial, dated December 18, in which cross-examination took place on one Mr. Link about a meeting in the Premier's office, the witness, Mr. Link, in his own cross-examination said in answer to the question of how many of those were handed out and to whom:

"So we have to count first the total number in attendance. That was — I start at the side of Mr. Stupich who was sitting behind the desk with Mr. Barrett — Mr. Hartley Dent, Mr. Nunweiler, Mr. McLatchie, Mr. Don Lewis, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Samson, Mr. Savo Kovachich and myself."

Now this fact of your presence at that meeting did not come out until the testimony of that court. The question, therefore, as to whether or not this court case should be appealed, the question as to whether a grave injustice has been done to certain people obviously affects you.

  You took it upon yourself earlier today, Mr. Chairman, to rule out of order any attempt to question whether the money put aside for professional services would be used for the appeal of the case in the Kovachich judgment by Mr. Justice Hinkson. You failed to point out at the time that you yourself had a very personal interest in not having this matter raised. Now, Mr. Chairman, I feel that under the circumstances....

HON. A. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Do you know what the case is about?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, yes. Leave it to the parties. As the Attorney-General has posed the question, the case is about whether or not the two affidavits filed in this house last year were accurate or otherwise on the question of these things that took place in this meeting, among others. And now we find in the testimony of Mr. Link, the verbatim transcriptof which I believe I tabled in the House some time ago, that the Chairman of this committee was personally involved. Furthermore, since that time, the Chairman of this committee has been taking decisions which are clearly considered by certain Members of this House to be highly partisan and very questionable on the question of the appeal of this case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I have the gist of the Hon. Member's point of order; there is no further explanation required. The point has been well made. The point of order is clearly whether the Chair is in a position of a conflict of interest. In the judgment of the Chair there is no conflict of interest. The Chair applies the rules equally to all according to the rules of this House.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, May I...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have made a ruling. The Hon. Member may challenge it or he can take his seat or....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there is an elemental principle of justice which I think I should put to you, and that is that one does not judge one's own case.

MR. McCLELLAND: Hear, hear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And you were doing that. And, therefore, you are involved in this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You have a personal interest in not having any more questioning on it. Then you are saying that it is not a point of order and you yourself have decided yourself that you are totally impartial. This is as phony as the proverbial $3 bill, because you've not been impartial.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter may be settled only by challenging the ruling of the Chair. Will the Hon. Member challenge the ruling or sit down?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The matter may be settled, Mr. Chairman, by....

[ Page 2185 ]

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? The point is whether the Hon. Member is going to obey the standing orders of the House. Order, please. I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was one question asked by the Member during the course of his remarks; that is the question whether any money in this vote under the heading "consultants" would be used for a court case. I can give him the assurance that none of the funds in this vote will be used for any court case. That's not the purpose, and I tried to make that clear in my opening remarks. I am not sure whether he was here to hear them but it certainly is not the purpose of this vote to use funds for any court case.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that the Minister has been able to make a statement about the use of this money for legal fees and to do so thoroughly unchallenged by the Chair, perhaps the same courtesy will be extended to other Members.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no problem here. The Hon. Minister was responding to a question that was asked earlier under this particular vote — how this money was to be....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly, and if he has responded to a question asked earlier, it's clearly in order to continue discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! It is not clearly in order to raise a subject in detail which is not related to this particular item. Rather, the question should be asked: what items are covered by this money? Then, if it's indicated that certain things are covered, you can proceed with the discussion; but otherwise we don't know if it's relevant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's also up to the opposition to raise things that should be covered under this particular sum of money. You are unfortunately partisan and interested in the outcome of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You have to be!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member attacking the Chair? Are you attacking the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm pointing out to the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It is the custom of parliamentary rules, if you are attacking the Chair on the basis of partiality, that this should be done by a proper motion. It should certainly not be done in committee. If the Hon. Member is convinced that the Chairman is not impartial, he should do it on a substantive motion. I'd ask the Hon. Member to proceed with the vote or to take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman,  I am convinced that the Chairman should not be either Stupich, Barrett, Dent, Nunweiler, Lewis...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:...because they're all involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is too!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Parliamentary rules require that if there is a charge of partiality, the Hon. Member should put a substantive motion on the order paper. The Chair has already ruled that this is not a point of order and the Hon. Member should proceed with the vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, up to now your special interest in whether or not this subject should be discussed has not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? Now shall vote 6 pass? The Hon. Member is clearly persisting in speaking in a manner that is out of order under the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it's down there in black and white....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't care what the Hon.

[ Page 2186 ]

Member's opinions are! The rules have to be followed!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the court action referred to is an action by the B.C. marketing board to collect certain moneys in the form of levies from certain producers. The Chairman has no interest whatsoever in that case and it is really stretching the limits of credibility, you know, to suggest so. I would say that there's just no interest. Let's be sensible for a few minutes, eh?

Interjections.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): On a point of order. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have your ruling challenged.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply, considering vote 6, the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) questioned my partiality as the Chairman. I ruled that this was not a matter to be discussed in committee but rather should be done by a substantive motion. Then the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The question the Chair has to determine is whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 14

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, quite a serious one I fear. Pursuant to standing order 16(2) — I'll just read the last part: No Member shall enter or leave the House during the stating of the question, nor leave the House after the final stating of the question until the division has been fully taken, and every Member present shall vote." Mr. Speaker, the Chairman was present and did not vote.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is mistaken on that point. It's been traditional for the Chairman whose ruling has been challenged not to vote.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, that may well be, but the tradition is then, surely, that he withdraw from the chamber. The standing order is quite clear: "...every Member present shall vote." I suggest that anyone with that kind of knowledge of the rules is not fit to be chairman, and the vote just taken is annulled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon. Member that I think it was obvious that he was not in his seat, and you must vote from your place?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the standing order reads: "...every Member present shall vote." There is no question but that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) was present. Your Honour has eyes to tell you that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I myself didn't notice whether he was in or out, but I point out to the Hon. Member that it would matter not a bit because the Hon. Member was neither counted nor did he vote, and that, I think, was the proper course for him to follow.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the standing order suggests that he must vote.

[ Page 2187 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Now may I suggest to you that you're asking him to take a position on the matter in which he was challenged?

MR. GIBSON: Or leave the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Or leave the room.

MR. GIBSON: The standing order is quite clear: "...every Member present must vote." I ask your Honour to nullify that vote.

MR. SPEAKER: What do you propose? In a practical sense, what do you propose?

AN HON. MEMBER: Redo it.

MR. GIBSON: Obviously the Chairman must withdraw if he does not propose to vote. That's fair, and the Chairman of the House ought to know the rules that well.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Member's feeling of the fitness of things is not satisfied, I'd be glad to take the vote over again. Is it the will of the House that I do so?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I asked the House if it wanted to take the vote again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want to take the vote again?

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: I will take the vote again so that everyone can be completely satisfied with the propriety of the whole affair.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, will you ring the division bell again?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division.

YEAS — 28

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A point of order. Mr. Speaker, under rule 9 of our rules you are charged with the duty of preserving order and decorum and shall decide questions of order. Well, on the question of order and decorum, on which I regret I have had to offend this House once today, the question has come up of a conflict of interest of the Chairman in making decisions relevant to the possible appeal of a lawsuit.

The reason for this comes, Mr. Speaker, because of a testimony at the original trial where it was revealed for the first time that the Chairman of this committee was present at a meeting in the office of the Premier at which time certain decisions were taken vis-à-vis northern egg producers. Therefore the whole question of whether the lawsuit should be appealed, the whole question of whether the matter should be reopened in this House, obviously is a question in which he himself has an interest. Now just for the record....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member know what having an interest means in parliamentary law?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but it is not the same as in legal; that's why I'm so glad you raised the issue. It's not a question of a financial interest; it's a question of political interest.

Here we have the problem of not only making sure that justice be done, but also that it appears to be

[ Page 2188 ]

done. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am appealing to you under rule 9 of this House to exercise your authority to make sure that this House, and this House in committee, is given a chairman who, indeed, cannot be in any way implicated or referred to in this particular lawsuit in question, and that means a chairman other than the chairman who has been heading up this committee this afternoon as well as so far this evening. He must appear to be, as well as be, above all suspicion of reproach. The fact of the matter is the chairman in question has been named in testimony as being present at a meeting which obviously would be affected by any further discussion of this matter. Therefore I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that this House, indeed, does have an impartial chairman for the remainder of the evening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order. On the point raised by that very learned Member, may I say two things? First, the Chairman, because he was present at a meeting, has no interest in the case. The parties in that case are plainly known and there is no possible interest.

Secondly this whole thing, this whole afternoon, this whole evening, is just politics.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me finish. The time for appeal for this particular case has expired. It is a total waste of time and total ignorance by that Member and a political game that is being played here. We should get on with the estimates of the people of British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the lawyer's talk of the Attorney-General, may I point out that we are discussing what takes place in this House. We are talking about whether or not the government should have appealed a case which the Attorney-General knows must be appealed if, indeed, the testimony of the Premier in this House was accurate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I interrupt to say that the Hon. Member appears to be arguing a case. I think the basic problem he has raised is whether it is decorous for a Chairman of the Whole House to conduct where the subject is vote 6. Therefore the question one addresses one's mind to is what vote 6 is about and whether, indeed, it has anything to do with the lawsuit that took place some two and a half years ago. That had to do with a different marketing board, if I remember correctly. If that is so, even if he were a witness, not being a party to it, not having any pecuniary interest in the matter, then it is very difficult to say there is a conflict of interest, because "interest" in parliamentary terms means some pecuniary interest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Legal, not parliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think you will find that if you look in our own rules, the subject of interest is defined. It is under the standing orders that deals with that; where a Member has an interest, he must declare his interest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What page?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would have to look it up. I think we can find it easily enough.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question of interest has been raised entirely in the legal sense of financial interest. I put the case to you. The Chairman and the government have made perfectly clear their interest in not having any further discussion. That is not necessarily a financial interest. It is interest in the commonly accepted wording of people who are not learned in the law such as yourself. I think that is the general assumption we've got to take in this House, that we use the ordinary meaning of words and not the legalistic approach of yourself and the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say with great respect that the word as used in parliamentary law in regard to interest is having a personal interest of a kind that involves one's pocket, as it were, against one's convictions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that is one interpretation of the word.

MR. SPEAKER: Look at standing order 18, I think you will see it clearly set out in standing order 18.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That deals with one particular type of interest.

MR. SPEAKER: But that is the only interest that I can see that we are discussing here: conflict of interest.

Now may I point out a further thing? I wish to finish my point. Then you can listen to that, perhaps.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Go right ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: The second point is that not only is the type of interest referred to in standing order 18 not present in this situation but you also have to address yourself to the question of whether vote

[ Page 2189 ]

has anything to do with the Egg Marketing Board and also the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act which were the subjects of the trial. Neither has to do with the vote that is presently before us, on which the general rule is that you must discuss that vote and whether the sum of money allocated for it is sufficient or not. To introduce and inject, as it were, into that subject something totally alien to it, and to try to debate the conduct of a Minister which should properly be done during that Minister's estimates, is really trying to rehash history rather than to address oneself to the year to come and how much money should be spent on the Provincial Marketing Board, which is the subject of this estimate — if that is a subject to which the Hon. Member is referring.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There are others to do with administration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just refer you to the last sentence of vote 6 which states: "Legislation and regulations pertaining to the inspection, orderly marketing, and promotion, of British Columbia-grown farm products are administered and conducted with the programme."

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but if the Hon. Member would take the trouble to read the Act that was passed by this House, he would perceive immediately that there is no way that the administration of that is taken out of the hands of the Provincial Marketing Board and the administrators of it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure. Your dilemma, Mr. Speaker, is that you come in and, of course, have only partial knowledge of what went on before in committee. In committee it was accepted that the Minister of Agriculture could make statements with respect to item 20, professional services. He made a lengthy statement on the question of professional services and what was involved.

We would like the same liberty, which is being denied us by a Chairman who may not have a financial interest but has a very direct political interest in not having any further discussions on the question of the appeal of the Kovachich case.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member what he intends to mean by the words "professional services"? What does he take it to mean? There are 20 employees hired for that. Is he suggesting they had something to do with something other than professional services to the production and marketing programme?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the words "professional services" cover a number of things. Obviously, rather than discuss it with you, as you are not a member of the committee, we should discuss it with the Minister. But we should discuss it with the Minister in committee with a Chairman in the chair who has no concern whatsoever and can without fear or favour make decisions as to whether certain subjects should be discussed — legal professional services, medical professional services, technical professional services, or whatever.

MR. SPEAKER: I wouldn't dispute with the Hon. Member that it would be quite proper to ask questions about what that means, and I wouldn't dispute with him for a minute that where it gives the figure 20 for the previous year it must have meant employees, because that's what the brackets around those figures mean. Therefore to question the Minister on that subject would be most appropriate. But to suggest that it has something to do with a lawsuit, which appears to be what the Hon. Member is directing himself to, would be stretching beyond all recognition the purpose of estimates and this particular vote. In the circumstances, I must say that he has not brought to my attention matters that can be construed as being a lack of decorum in the committee in regard to the Chairman's function or that he has indeed any conflict of interest that has been made apparent to me.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, first on the question of whether 20 refers to the number of people — it does not. It's a code number, apparently. Otherwise, there is a tremendous number of people in that department that the Minister has not talked of.

The second point is important. You can reject the point of order if you wish, but the fact is that if we are to operate in this legislature in committee we are going to have to operate with some assurance that we have a Chairman who does not have any interest in having certain things discussed or not having things discussed and we have a Chairman who, in the opinion of the opposition, does have an interest in having certain things suppressed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has not made his point clear to me, at least on this matter. I say this. There are two things that in any parliament must function. That is that the Chair must be treated with respect and must not be accused, without a substantive motion, of bias or in any way challenged with respect to its propriety in its rulings. There is a proper way to challenge a ruling. That's the first point. The second is that when in any parliament that is civilized a Chairman asks a Member to sit down for some reason, it also is required.

Those are two things that have apparently escaped

[ Page 2190 ]

the notice of some Members, and I suggest to you that those are the two things that should be treated immediately with consideration by this House in protecting the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in considering this I just suggest to you that this afternoon, as a result of the actions of this Chairman, two Hon. Members of this House felt constrained to carry on the debate over the objections of a Chairman to a point where it was necessary for Your Honour to support the Chairman's ruling. These were Members of two different parties who did not do this lightly. I think it must be said in fairness that the question of the credibility and impartiality of a Chairman immediately arises when a serious event takes place.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the basic thing that must be remembered is that one essential order that must be in all cases complied with is to sit down when the Chairman rises. I think the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) knows that this would not be tolerated in Ottawa — the idea of standing on your feet when the Speaker or the Chairman is on his feet. The other thing that would not be tolerated for a minute and would lead to immediate expulsion is refusing to obey an order of the Chair. Those two things must be done and any attempt to attack the Chair for bias is a breach and a contempt of the House. I say that it's very dangerous to the future of the parliamentary system. If you don't like some of the things that are done, you know the proper way to do it is by motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a farce.

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

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

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I regret very much the prolonging of this debate. Our party believes that agriculture is one of the most vital industries in this province. We believe that the producers of this province have been asked, through the land freeze and through the production of food for our citizens and through the role they are being asked to play, both through their work and the use of their land in environmental management, to bear more than their fair share of society's burdens. We feel that this type of debate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is making a point of order, would the Hon. Member make a point of order? Otherwise, would you speak to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

And it's probably most applicable — the fact that this debate is being prolonged through the Minister failing to answer questions — in the Provincial Marketing Board itself. As I pointed out in earlier debates and as other Members have pointed out in earlier debates, this is an all-powerful board set up by the Minister, and its rulings are supreme over nearly every other piece of legislation relating to agriculture in this Legislature. It is supreme over all voluntary agricultural organizations, it is supreme over all marketing boards, and it is supreme over all producers. It is essential that the Minister administrating this board should be above question in relation to the office he holds.

I mentioned the resignation earlier this afternoon of two members on the advisory food council. I recognize that it's not under this vote, Mr. Chairman, but it's essential to come in. If you'll just bear with me I can show you why this relates to this evening's debate, because there was a news release that came out on April 29, 1975, with a number of points in it from the advisory food council. Heading: "Advisory Food Council Kept Active." There are a number of points and they say:

"Also, a recommendation has gone forward to Agriculture Minister David D. Stupich, encouraging the government to pursue the initial study of food imports into British Columbia and their subsequent distribution. Council is reviewing" — this is the advisory food council itself — "policies of the marketing board concerning out-of-province competition, cost pricing structure and supply and demand."

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have pointed out, discussing the Provincial Marketing Board and its powers, that in light of the Minister's failure to satisfy this Legislature in relation to his conduct, both in the court and in....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is out of order again. I would ask her to return to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll try, Mr. Chairman.

It leaves the Minister in a position where the charges that he can manipulate the Provincial Marketing Board and its powers are open to a certain amount of credibility. Now the question must arise: in view of the charges against the Minister by two members who resigned from this other board, who in fact is supreme in this whole area of control of marketing boards? How far is this Minister prepared to go in manipulating one arm of his department with the other arm of his department?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon.

[ Page 2191 ]

Member is clearly discussing a matter which is properly brought up under vote 3 — that is, the conduct of the Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! What we are considering here is the expenditure of $100,000, the purpose for that $100,000 under code 20, for vote 6. Would the Hon. Member please speak to that particular code or vote if she's discussing the Provincial Marketing Board?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

If the council, in reviewing marketing boards, makes a recommendation to the Provincial Marketing Board — and this is just a supposition — that marketing boards should be curtailed in their activities, that marketing board, the Provincial Marketing Board, is supreme in its power, and the only person to whom producers, who would be subject to their ruling, have to appeal to is the Minister. In that case, surely, it is incumbent upon this government to see that that Minister's word is above reproach.

You can see, Mr. Chairman, that the entwining of the power in the hands of this Minister is very great through this Provincial Marketing Board. Because of the fact that the Minister is refusing to answer questions as to his competence and impartiality in administering the marketing board, then the question must arise in the producers' minds and in our minds: how reliable can he be to any suggestions that are made by other boards to this all-supreme power?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is apparent that the Hon. Member is really discussing the conduct of the Minister himself rather than this particular proposed appropriation of $100,000. Would the Hon. Member confine her remarks to the proposed appropriation of $100,000?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of this Minister's administrative ability in certain sectors of his office, $100,000 is too much in the hands of an incompetent Minister in terms of his....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Once again I would ask the Hon. Member to desist from discussing the conduct of the Minister under this vote. We are not considering the conduct of the Minister under this vote, but rather we are considering this particular code item of $100,000.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to pose another question to the Minister. Is this the face of the Premier the time that he pointed his finger at that Minister and said if he doesn't do what he's ordered to do his head will roll?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you trust this man? Would you defend this man, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The truth is sometimes very repetitious and tedious....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! A Member is making a point of order. It is the practice that when a Member rises to his feet on a point of order, the other Member takes a seat.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to observe that the Member keeps questioning my competence and wants me to answer a question about my competence. I'd like to remind the House that in the period of 10 minutes they voted my salary, and that was their opportunity to question my competence. It was passed in 10 minutes.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister would stop lecturing the House and answer some questions, we wouldn't be having this prolonged debate. I suggest that the Minister is skipping and skating around, avoiding the fact that we want these questions answered. The court wants these questions answered. The Minister knows that with the Chair running interference for him, with the selective closure in operation in this House, all he has to do is sit there; he'll be saved by the bell, and he won't have to answer any questions about the administering of the Provincial Marketing Board and this $100,000. He knows that that socialist bell that's going to save him is designed to hide the facts from the public of British Columbia, and it's designed to hide the facts from this Legislature, and it's designed to...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN:...protect Ministers who won't answer questions, who can't stand the heat of their actions.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're on vote 6, and you are not talking to vote 6. I ask you either to speak to vote 6 or take your place.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

[ Page 2192 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How does he know what vote we're on when he can't even find it in the book?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I would like to know how the Chairman knew what vote we were on when he can't find it in the book.

I'd like to ask the Minister, through you, a question. It's one simple question which would help restore confidence in his ability to administer No. 20 of vote 6, $100,000 for the Provincial Marketing Board. Can the Minister deny in this House the recollection of the defendants in this court case...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN:...in which he...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN:...was a witness...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am going to call for the Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee has been dealing with vote 6. The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) insists on speaking on vote 5 and has been ruled out of order two or three times. I want you to rule on whether or not she should continue on that basis.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Would the Hon. Member either speak to vote 6 or refrain from speaking, because if she is not going to speak to it, she is obviously out of order. It means that I have to order her to withdraw again. I would hope that rather than go through that unsavory exercise, she would address herself to vote 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How else can you discuss it?

MR. SPEAKER: The problem is, as I understand it from what has already been said, that the Minister's competence or his actions are properly discussed under his salary, and that is already passed. That was the opportunity that we have in parliament to deal with that particular subject.

I suggest to you that because you want to talk about something is not sufficient reason to talk about it. You have to have a parliamentary peg to hang it on. In view of what has been going on, I see that that has not been happening. The Chair has tried to bring the Member to order. The Member refuses to be brought to order and persists on a course that is obviously out of order. Now parliament cannot continue in that fashion, and I ask the Hon. Member: is she determined to pursue her course, or is she prepared to address herself to the rules of the House?

The Hon. Member for North Peace River on a point of order.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It occurs to me that the procedure that took place in committee, prior to the time that you were called to the chair, is not quite as suggested to you by the Hon. Member who occupied the chair as the Chairman (Mr. Liden).

First of all, he never suggested to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that she was dealing with vote 5 and not vote 6. Secondly, he called her to order about two or three times, and each time she yielded the floor to the Chairman and listened to what he had to say.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Selective recall.

MR. SMITH: Now there was no suggestion that she was on the wrong vote, or dealing with the wrong vote, until he reported to you, Sir.

MR. BENNETT: We know who's an expert in selective recall.

MR. SMITH: Now we don't expect that the Speaker is to know everything that takes place in committee, because you yourself have said that you have no knowledge of what takes place.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think I said earlier that I hadn't been listening to what had been going on in committee on the previous occasion.

MR. SMITH: Certainly there should be fairness to all Members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I pointed out that the House has no knowledge of what happens in committee, not that the Speaker does or doesn't.

[ Page 2193 ]

MR. SMITH: I suggest to you that there was no mention to the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that she was dealing with vote 5 in place of vote 6. That suggestion was never made to anyone on the floor of this House until the Chairman got up to report to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if there is any confusion on the issue, then obviously we should give the Hon. Member another chance to demonstrate that she can talk on vote 6.

HON. MR. STUPICH: On a point of order. I did interrupt and pointed out to the speaker that if she wanted to discuss my competence it should be done under vote 3, the Minister's salary. I pointed out also that the House passed vote 3, which is the vote where they could discuss my competency, in the space of 10 minutes. That was drawn to the Member's attention. She persisted in her remarks after that was drawn to her attention.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we've had an explanation that it wasn't drawn to the Hon. Member's attention, that she was wrongly speaking on vote 6, and that she was, in effect, speaking to vote 5. If there is any doubt on the matter, I think I should call the Chairman back and we could proceed. Perhaps the Hon. Member can address herself to vote 6.

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

Vote 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

On vote 7: general and financial services, $48,388,601.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister suggested that I raise questions about the feasibility study of the proposed poultry-processing plant in the interior under this vote. Really, I would just repeat the questions I asked before. Will the feasibility studies be made public if they're available? If not, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether those feasibility studies did show that the plant wouldn't be economically viable without some government help of one kind or another, whether it was a redirection of quota into that area or something else — some kind of direct government intervention in order to make the whole proposition economically viable, and whether or not the government intends in one way or another to supplement the plant with government aid from consolidated revenue if it isn't economically viable once it is open.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out earlier, the feasibility studies were done by staff. They showed that the plant would not be a money-maker. It would not break even for the first three years of operation; it would be a number of years before it could hope to break even. It could only be justified on the basis I mentioned earlier: with the disease problem in the Fraser Valley, the importance of breaking up this heavy concentration of poultry industry in one area of the province could only be justified if it were government policy to insist that there be some spread of the poultry production of the province into other areas of the province. But the reports were generally optimistic that in a period of time the growth of population in that area, the growth of production in that area and the replacement of the outside supplies would make it economically feasible.

The direct contributions from consolidated revenue — there are no plans to make direct contributions. The procedure would be to guarantee financing in the first three years.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, could I ask what the projections were for the loses in the first three years? How much were they?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't remember the figures. I am quite prepared to make that information available if the Member wants it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Just a couple of short questions to the Minister. Regarding the beef producers joining the farm assurance programme, I

[ Page 2194 ]

read a lot in the press but I don't read anything that any agreement has been reached. I was wondering if the Minister is ready to tell us where it's at and when an agreement will be reached. These people are in bad trouble.

The other question that I have is this. It says in this vote that you administer the leased properties under the Land Commission Act. There is a property 25 miles south of Prince George that has been purchased by the Land Commission. It has been advertised to lease it out. I would like a report from the Minister. Did they get any applicants to lease this property? If they did, what kind of arrangements were reached?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Just a second, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize here. Unfortunately this vote refers to "world food relief," which I think is just a misunderstanding. We have had a committee that has done some excellent work for many, many years. There has been a committee with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture as chairman for really a long time before this government. It really has been into world development and relief, not really world food relief.

It would certainly be my hope and I would ask the question of the Minister that this Legislature be much more interested in world development. Surely we are not into the old business of bags of rice to Biafra or food relief. I would hope that is not the emphasis of this House but that the emphasis is on world development, which really means self-sufficiency in the Third World.

I would just emphasize under this vote, Mr. Chairman, that if real justice and real competency...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. ROLSTON:...in other words, self-sufficiency...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Let the Member for Dewdney continue.

MR. ROLSTON:...is to be seen in the Third World...and the Third World is not just down in Latin America; the Third World could even be here in British Columbia....

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: No, sir, this is under this vote here. There is $5 million which....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Dewdney may continue. He's dealing with this vote.

MR. ROLSTON: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to leave the impression that great as this $5 million is, and I think it is a very exciting new emphasis in this budget, a much greater emphasis would be that this be development, that this be competency, that this be.... If it is following a disaster, Mr. Chairman, it is largely to help a depressed area really rebuild and get on its feet.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to get clarification through you to the Minister that this is a straight $5 million budget. The way it appears here in the estimates, it certainly looks clear to me. It is not just the interest on $5 million, but a straight budgetary item, which I certainly assume will be increased next year as a straight shot of money.

I am delighted there already has been some consultation with private agencies that will also raise money. It is my hope that there will be a real spin-off in this very excellent exercise in world development and relief. The private agencies' money, especially that of the churches, which raised $1.7 million last year through the five major churches — Roman Catholic, Anglican, United, Presbyterian, and Lutheran — will be doubled by the non-government organizations in CIDA. The money could be matched by this particular vote here and then that whole chunk would be doubled by CIDA, so that you really quadruple the original money in the private sector. I think it is very important that not just the government does this, but that it really be a catalyst to the private sector, which is doing a lot of very good work in world development.

It means a lot of development. It means a lot of advertising. It means, for this to really be beneficial, that there should be advertising and there should be a sharing between government, CIDA and the private sectors so that there is throughout the whole province a feeling of involvement in rural development.

It would interest the House that the City of Nelson, for instance, is committed to $5,000 in world development. The school children in those schools there are going to go out to clean up that town and they are going to do $5,000 worth of cleanup for the City of Nelson. They will then get the money from the City of Nelson. There will be at least that much raised by the private sector of Nelson, which is $10,000, plus $10,000 from the world development programme of this government. That is $20,000 and that, of course, becomes $40,000 through the NGO and CIDA.

So I just make an appeal that tonight, as we look at this section of the vote, there be real spin-off in education. World food relief is paternalistic and not

[ Page 2195 ]

really long-term growth to the Third World. It should be world development.

Of course, I would draw the attention of the House to the phenomenal increase in farm income assurance. I suppose in this whole budget probably the biggest increase in any section of the provincial budget, $27 million, has meant a fantastic boost to the farmers in my area. The largest swine farm in British Columbia is up behind Mission. Certainly the dairy farmers....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): All those rich farmers.

MR. ROLSTON: All those rich farmers? You know, I hear lawyers are $60 an hour. I've never heard of a lawyer going cheaper than $60 an hour.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: $60. Well, when they go around looking for legal services, I hear that.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. ROLSTON: Anyway, I've yet to meet the swine farmer that makes $60 an hour.

But this is a phenomenal increase, Mr. Chairman. I think it really has meant stability to the agriculture people in the Fraser Valley and, I believe, to the rest of the province as well.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, the item under this vote I'd like to refer to appears in both sections as agricultural credit and farm credit. I hope to make an appeal to the Minister. I'm sorry to see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) didn't sit in his seat, because he's been involved in this problem I've had over agricultural credit for the last year or so.

When the agriculture committee was travelling, we did receive some briefs from a group of food producers in the province who so far are not covered under any of our agricultural programmes, mainly the agricultural credit system. I'm speaking now of the fish farmers in the province. They are a small group. The biggest one is in Mission, but they'll be having some close competition from the Kamloops riding pretty soon, Mr. Member, because the industry is growing. It has grown a tremendous amount in the United States and in other parts of Canada and is now on the upgrade in British Columbia. But to be a successful operation they do have to have the same type of credit that other types of food producers enjoy.

It was my understanding that when the farm credit Act was brought in it was to be for, in general, any purpose, any good purpose that led to the production of more food. Fish is recognized as a good source of protein. But we find that when we try to get assistance for this group of food producers in the province under the Agricultural Credit Act they are not covered by the Department of Agriculture because they are not considered farmers at the present time. The Department of Recreation and Conservation are the people that this group comes under with their fisheries branch. Yet the fisheries branch has no money to make them any loans. If it came under the Department of Agriculture, the Agriculture department does not have any fish biologists to go out and inspect the operations. Therefore it still sits in limbo between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Recreation and Conservation. It is in with Recreation and Conservation, who have no funds to assist them.

Now it can be said by some people that if someone is raising fish they're really not farmers. But I'd kind of question the definition of a farmer now because the traditional description of a farmer simply doesn't exist any more.

We visited one place with the agriculture committee in the Okanagan where a man with only 20 acres produced over a million pounds of milk a year. He bought all the feed, put it through the cattle and simply had enough land to get rid of the manure. This to me isn't the traditional type of dairy farm. I think I'd put the egg producers in the same classification. While it was part of a farm operation, it has now become very specialized. You buy birds, you buy feed, put the feed through the birds and take the eggs away. That to me is no more of a farmer than a fish farmer. It certainly doesn't produce a higher quality of protein.

I think this is a new industry, Mr. Minister; it is a new industry that needs assistance and deserves assistance. They are not asking for something for nothing — simply the same treatment under the Agricultural Credit Act that other food producers get.

I would suggest to you tonight that if the two Ministries could get together, you could extend the benefits of the farm Agricultural Credit Act to these food producers and use the services of the biologist with the Fish and Game department to do an inspection of the premises for your people and make a report on whether it is a good operation or not and worthy of the extension of credit or not. As I said before, I realize they are a small group, but they are growing. Certainly if we can encourage them, we will find that we will be able to have not only trout but various other kinds of excellent fish protein food on the tables at a reasonable price in British Columbia. That will help the consumers and certainly help establish another industry with the spin-offs of supply to this industry that inevitably occur.

[ Page 2196 ]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, there are some questions being asked by the milk producers regarding the farm income assurance programme, which programme they welcomed when it first arrived on the scene. I think some 98 per cent of the producers in my area subscribed to the farm income assurance plan as it affects milk producers. However, after one year's operation they were faced with some severe cutbacks, and the question they are asking is: why was the cutback necessary? Perhaps they have some suggestions through their Member as to how these setbacks would needed to have been experienced. For instance, for the information of those Members in the House who are not aware how the farm income assurance programme works, it works like an insurance programme where there is a premium paid, but in the instance of the milk producers there is a breakdown of the premium. It is broken into three parts: a third share is picked up by increased prices to the consumer; one-third. of it is picked up by the farmer himself; and one-third is picked up by the government, as I understand. This was as given to me by the milk producers.

The share paid by the farmer was 20 cents per unit, per cwt. Now that has been increased in this second year, as my information is, to 30 cents. However, the cost itself, that is the premium itself, is not allowed in the actual cost of production. As a result it affects the computation of the amount of assurance that is incoming. Not only is that item not allowed but apparently some maintenance costs are no longer deductible and, as a result, they affect the amount of assurance that is collectible.

Cost of equipment — specialized equipment such as haymaking equipment — is not being considered, so say the milk producers. The computation is based on a dry lot or a constant-feed basis where the base price is some $88 per ton for hay, and some $130 a ton for grain. As a result, there is not an allowance for the cost of equipment that the farmer has standing by for production of grain or hay. As a result, in our area, the reduction has been, as the Minister knows, an average of some $200 per month.

It may well be argued that the assurance programme was offering too great an income during its first year of operation. It could be argued. However, the farmers did sign a five-year agreement and began to make some of their financial commitments on the basis of their experienced income. Now after a year's operation they are going to have these cutbacks which are going to affect them in some of their commitments. I am hoping that the Minister has given this his greatest consideration.

The question which automatically comes to the ones who are caught in the pinch is that they signed a five-year agreement, and now the sponsor of the programme, the provincial government itself, seems to be reneging on the programme. They want to know whether or not they are held to their full five-year programme. Or can they opt out now that programme is no longer what they expected it to be?

Then the second question is: how does the plan affect production? The Minister is also aware that there are production pressures other than just the local quotas. There is also a federal market share-quota which they refer to as the MSQ. If production exceeds the federal market share-quota, my information is that there is $1.50 per cwt, which is levied as almost a fine for overproduction. The farmers say that the only way they can overcome this is by producing even more milk. So from the department we have a letter in March which says that the plant facilities are no longer capable of handling the production.

The farmers gave me these statistics that the January, 1975, production, as a result of the pressures of these quotas, was already higher than the June, 1974, production, and the June production is the natural peak of milk production in the dairy business. If that is true, given the same herds, given the same production fluctuations, what will the production be this June? How does the Minister presume to handle the great production that has been forced by the farmers trying to recoup losses because of that $1.50 they are losing on the price of their milk because of the MSQ?

There was a further question as to the quota-building programme, and that was that a quota-building programme is established at 25 per cent of 120 per cent production in any six months. But the six months break happens to come on July 1, and if they start before July 1, apparently they can start building their quota as of July 1, and this again ensures only overproduction.

The farmers have some questions and suggested I ask the questions in the House, and perhaps the Minister can explain.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asked questions about the beef income assurance plan. I know that to him, representing a constituency where there are quite a number of beef producers, it seems as though the discussions have been going on for a very long time. But relatively they have not.

For example, in the case of the greenhouse cucumber and tomato growers, the discussions have been going on since February, 1974. Some of these programmes, depending on the nature of the programme and the nature of the commodity under review, do take a long time. I hope tomorrow to be able to announce that the tomato and cucumber one is in place, depending on final deliberations. I hope to be able to announce that one.

[ Page 2197 ]

Another discussion that has been going on for a very long time is with the broiler hatching-egg income assurance programme.

The beef has actually not been going on very long compared to some of these others. Moreover, it is a very big one, so it is taking a great deal of time and we are taking a great deal of care with it. Nevertheless, I expect to be able to announce, within the next two weeks, that we have reached agreement.

There have been discussions going on and figures were bandied about between my staff and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture committee. Some of the figures are very high. I did get involved in the discussions myself. A proposal was made to the cattlemen last week which they are now considering. It is not a final position on our part; neither is it on theirs. It is meant to be a negotiating one. But I think the areas of disagreement now are so fine I would expect within two weeks to be able to announce agreement on the beef income assurance programme.

The property south of Prince George; I know of one area in the vicinity of Prince George that was acquired for a community pasture area. You must be thinking of another one. This one was a very large ranch that was purchased for a community pasture area, and the advertisements were to the people who wanted to make use of that community pasture, advising them to form an association and that management of the community pasture would be turned over to the cattlemen using this particular pasture. If that is the one you are thinking of, then it will be managed as a community pasture and there will be local control. If there is another property...it's just possible that a smaller place has been purchased. If you can find out something in more detail, I would be quite pleased to look into that.

The Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) was asking about the world food relief vote. I think it is worth recalling to ourselves that the previous Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of this province quite a number of years ago set up a programme and called it the Premier's Fund for World Relief, I believe, and invited participation from the community. I think it is not to the credit of the people of British Columbia that in something like five years the government fund, at the invitation of the Premier, was matched to the extent of something like $1,000. That's all that the people of British Columbia were prepared to put in, at the previous Premier's invitation, to this capital fund for world food relieve.

I think now there is more of an awareness in the community of the need for this kind of a programme. Certainly the correspondence I have had would indicate that people generally are much more ready to become involved in this kind of a programme. In including it in estimates as an amount of money that will be spent rather than a fund that will be accumulated and only the interest spent, we're hoping that the total community will become very interested in the programme and that they will be prepared to match the government grant to the extent of $4 million, which would provide a total of $8 million, on top of the other $1 million in this vote.

So of the figure of $5 million, then $1 million would be spent unconditionally, with $4 million available for matching, and the emphasis, as the Hon. Member for Dewdney suggested, will be on trying to assist nations to develop their own food resources and techniques. We might even in this programme use staff from the Department of Agriculture to help work out some of our programmes.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Certainly it is a much expanded programme over the previous one, which was dependent upon the interest only on a $5 million fund. We are getting suggestions from the community, and an interdepartmental committee is working on it. We hope soon to have a preliminary draft of regulations.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) is pursuing his quest for a fish farm under the Agricultural Credit Act. Certainly it is food.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture in their 1971 convention.... Oh, no, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, the House committee, recommended that the name of the department be changed to "Food and Agriculture." Then we would be properly involved in fish farming.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) is making certain in his own way, both privately and publicly on the floor of the House, that the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and myself do get together to make whatever changes are necessary for us to be able to assist the people who are producing food, as he suggested in his remarks.

The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) asked about the dairy income assurance programme. Some pluses, some minuses. As he said, increases in milk production. I have a clipping here from Country Life, March, 1975, on the annual meeting of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers. At that time they were pleased to note that there was an increase in milk production of nearly 5 per cent. It has been much more now, as you say in your remarks; the increase has been much more notable since then.

I'd say that if it had not been for the income assurance plan that was made available to dairy farmers in December of 1973, if not by last winter then certainly by next winter consumers would not have been asking how much the price of a quart of milk was but where they could get a quart of milk. We were running dangerously....

[ Page 2198 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There is now. But at that time, when we brought in that plan, milk production was dropping even in B.C. Everywhere else in Canada and everywhere else on the continent, even in B.C., the indications were that milk production was going to drop. So the farm income assurance programme as applied to the dairy industry did reverse that trend in the Province of British Columbia and we do now have a surplus. Facilities owned by the Fraser Valley Milk Producers for processing milk that have been unused for some time — almost never — are now in use. As you say, there is this question not of worrying now about where we're going find milk but what we're going to do with milk. The surplus is not a serious question yet but there are some questions about it.

With respect to the premiums on the income assurance, your information isn't quite correct. It's not a third, a third, a third. The price that the consumer pays is really determined by the Milk Board when it sets the price that the producer gets in accordance with the formula. The price to the consumer then varies as does that old historic formula. The premium is paid two-thirds by the government and one-third by the producers. In the case of the dairy income assurance plan, it was different from all of the other plans in that the premium was considered as one of the costs of production, so the farmers really didn't pay the premium out of their own pocket. In that one way in particular, the dairy income assurance plan was out of step with the other plans.

In discussions with the central committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, we expressed our concern about this, our desire to bring all of the plans into step with each other. We had the agreement of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's central bargaining committee that this was a desirable goal.

We met with them and discussed a couple of other issues, one of them being the rate allowed for farm labour — that is, the operator's own labour which initially was $4. We agreed that in the period of 15 months running from January of 1975 to March of 1976, the rate will progressively move from $4 to $6 an hour for the operator labour. It perhaps falls far short of what people are getting in other industries but, nevertheless, was an important increase.

At the time the discussion was that when we brought this in and agreed that everybody would get it, not just the dairymen, we would also bring all the plans into step in that the dairymen would pay the premium rather than having it added on, as has been the case in the past. However, I communicated this to the dairy committee rather than leaving it to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's central committee to do the work for me, if you like, to take the responsibility off my hands. I was chastised by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture central bargaining committee for taking this on myself but was supported by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in this action. So they liked the results; they feel that I should have let them carry the ball rather than doing it myself.

The maintenance again is an adjustment that brings the dairy programme in line with all the others. The allowance for maintenance has been cut back to bring it in line with the others.

The MSQ? That is a federal quota. For any income assurance plan there must be some production supply management. We have supply management for the No. I milk, the fluid milk, through our own provincially controlled quota system. You made reference to that as well. The federal has supply management for the industrial milk, the milk that has been manufactured for powdered milk, cottage cheese, butter and all of those products. They have their supply management programme. There is a quota that is allocated to the whole of British Columbia that is divided among the producers in British Columbia and controlled by our Milk Board.

If a producer is determined to produce not only his provincial quota but also to produce this total amount of allocated MSQ, the federal quota, and to produce more besides, what we have said is that we will not pick up what the federal government deducts from you for producing over the quota. You may do it if you choose, but the producer who produces within this provincial quota, plus his MSQ, is the one that is managing his enterprise in the best way, I feel, and certainly making less problems in total because he's operating within the total quota.

As far as quota building is concerned, the formula is changed from time to time because the No. 1 quota depends upon the consumption of fluid milk. What months are used, the formula, the number of years that it takes to build it: all of these things are adjusted to try to make the No. 1 quota come as close as we can to the actual consumption of fluid milk.

MR. SCHROEDER: I am sure the Minister must have been aware, though, that in his computation the end result was going to be a smaller income for the individual farmer. Was the motivation to renegotiate the whole plan established by the conclusion that the Minister had made that the farmers were already gaining too much? Was that the idea? Was it deemed necessary to renegotiate the entire plan so as to put the dairy producer more in step with other producers, or was the fact that the milk plan was taking more dollars out of general revenue than had been anticipated...? As you know, Mr. Minister, it was at first anticipated that the plan would cost between $7

[ Page 2199 ]

million and $9 million, and it ended up costing more like $13 million or $14 million. I don't know whether the figures are complete and totally tabulated as yet, but I notice that the programme for the next year is some $27 million.

Is the Minister satisfied that the dairy producer, under the renegotiated plan, is making an adequate income, even though it's $200 per month less than it was the previous year; that costs to the farmer have increased, even over this past year? Does the Minister not realize that he is putting the farmer in some kind of a bind? The farmer has to recoup his losses. He has to at least make enough income to cover his commitments that he has made on the basis of what he believed was a five-year contract. Is the Minister satisfied that we can put this added pressure on to a commodity group that has been suffering — admittedly suffering — over the past few years; that we see now scurrying about over-producing, trying to find some way to make both ends meet, hoping that in the next year this contract can be renegotiated again and that their income can be brought up to something like the same level as it was over the last year?

Surely the Minister must be aware of these pressures that have been brought to bear. Can he give us any assurance that next year these will be renegotiated again to a more satisfactory level?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, of course, there's always pressure, but the prime pressure, I think, the thing that was concerning me more than the amount of dollars involved, was the question of bringing the programme into step with the other three programmes that were in place at that time — not because it was one of four, but because we had another seven applications in. So instead of being one out of step of a group of four, it would be one out of step out of a group of 11.

If we were imposing this one change without making any other adjustments, then even that might have not been reason enough to go ahead at that time. However, since we were timing it with the increase in labour rates in discussion with the central bargaining committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, there was agreement reached that this could be done. It wasn't done in a heavy-handed way or by one side only. Certainly we pressed our point of view. We did get their support and the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture supported what we were doing at this annual meeting of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers. I wasn't there, but I heard very good reports about the way he supported this move.

So I think the dairymen understand it, and the dairymen accept it. Certainly, I have had no reactions from any individual dairymen against it. I've had questions. I've answered the questions. But they haven't really been questions that were attacking the programme at all. They like the programme. They're quite prepared to continue to participate in it. The fact that the labour rate went up seemed to be enough to satisfy them that we were dealing fairly with agriculture in total. I think they liked the idea that the whole of the agricultural industry was being treated on a fair basis, as compared to each other.

MR. SCHROEDER: Just this one short follow-up, and that is that perhaps the reason why you haven't heard from individual farmers is that they were together. The chairman of the meeting, a Mr. Reynolds by name, told some 350 people who were present not to make any waves because if they did perhaps they would lose negotiating strength with the government. As a result, this is likely why you haven't heard from individual farmers. You'll likely hear from them as a group.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up the comments made by the Minister about world relief. After the throne speech there was a substantial amount — I don't know if other MLAs received the correspondence — but quite a few people wrote to me expressing a very approving feeling that the government was taking some initiative; but tonight I am a little stunned. I hope I didn't hear correctly. But I gather that the $5 million figure is $1 million for sure and $4 million if that $4 million is matched from other sources.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As it is matched. We wouldn't wait to get $4 million before we put any of the $4 million in; as it is matched, on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the question I want to get very clear in my mind at this late hour in the evening is: if it isn't matched, what does the government do with the $4 million that it was prepared to match? I think if, in fact, the rather miserable record of public response which the Minister referred to in previous years is unfortunately the experience we have now, I presume that that government $4 million will not be made available.

I don't wish to be unduly harsh on the government that apparently decided on that one-four formula for various reasons presumably. But I would have to say that out of a $3.2 billion budget this province has, and we've destroyed 26 million eggs and we've got God knows how many turkeys in cold storage, I just have to repeat the rather pathetic plea which has never had a satisfactory answer, not just in this province but in Canada: how is it that our world relief cannot be more effective by making surpluses available to foreign countries without in any way endangering the stable economy of the home

[ Page 2200 ]

producer? It just seems to me that when we can have world banks to try and prevent the world from getting into a financial slump like 1929 and we've got all kinds of complicated formulas in a vast number of areas of human endeavour and we've got technology that stuns the average individual, the man in the street, it just leaves me completely puzzled that apparently we can produce various surpluses, sometimes by accident, but even then we destroy the eggs or we kill the calves or we put the turkeys in cold storage.

I just wonder about two things: first of all, are we not being really cheap to come forward with a throne speech which suggests initiatives in the area of world relief, and really we might finish up providing one miserable million dollars out of a $3.2 billion budget? That's point No. 1.

As an aside to that, I wondered if we were to have specific legislation to cover this expenditure or are we simply approving that expenditure in this vote without any specific legislation spelling out the mechanism by which the money will be spent? The Minister did mention that there is much more mileage out of the dollar if we make it available to countries in need to promote their own agricultural efficiency. I agree with that entirely. But, of course, there are countries in the world where millions of people are starving. To tell them that if they just hang on for a year or two we'll teach them how to produce their own food is not much help if they are dead six weeks from now. That's part of the question.

For the second part of the question take eggs for an example. During the war I know that we survived in the United Kingdom because of egg powder. It didn't taste very good but it was calories and it was very much appreciated. I wonder, for example, if there is any world relief programme that we could contribute to when we have a surplus of eggs. We could make the eggs available either in this country to be converted to powder and sent as powder or at least find some mechanism to use the eggs so somebody could eat the eggs.

It just seems incredible to me that in such a highly sophisticated world that we claim to be living in, certainly in the western world, and we talk about the trials and tribulations of the Third World, we somehow destroy 26 million eggs or whatever it was.

I'm not trying to be smart and criticize the marketing boards or CEMA or anybody else. I'm just saying in a non-partisan way that surely there has to be some way, if we're serious in our intentions about world food relief, that this kind of thing shouldn't happen, regardless of which government is in in this province or in Ontario or in Ottawa or anywhere else. I just feel that in debating world food relief, we have tended to think purely in terms of dollars and in the formula that might or might not be used to determine how many dollars we will make available. I am much more concerned that it's a combination of both dollars and some more judicious use of surpluses, which perhaps sometimes are unpredictable.

I've heard so many times in this session of the Legislature in different parts of different debates the tremendously difficult problem it is to have orderly marketing. By orderly marketing we mean the right amount of product and the right kind of return to the producer and a fair deal to the consumer. That seems to be like chasing the Holy Grail. You just never really get it and it's something beyond our reach. But one of the side effects is surpluses. I just feel very unhappy that in talking about world food relief we just seem to be talking about dollars. I think the real challenge is to convert these dollars more effectively into the judicious use of surpluses we seem to have all around us. I wonder if the Minister could perhaps clarify my confusion.

HON. MR. STUPICH: With respect to the $4 million, I'm not concerned about the hypothetical question that perhaps the community won't raise this. I'm quite satisfied that the community will. The community right now in the Province of British Columbia is probably raising that amount and even more.

It is just a matter of tying in the projects that are currently going in the community with a programme that the provincial government is prepared to be identified with. I think this is part of it: getting the publicity as this money is raised to make the whole community aware of what is going on and to make the whole community feel that it is aware of the total programme and the good it is doing.

Beyond that, to the extent that we raise money in the province by putting in provincial government revenues and getting the communities to match it, it is likely then that we can get the federal government to match our total contributions, which multiplies the dollars available for the total programme again.

I think the suggestion of the $4 million that would be something that would be available and would be matched will simply give more publicity to the total programme and will mean more money under this programme, under the federal government, and probably will mean even more money than that, because the organizations out in the community are not likely to stop on the day they reach their target as part of this $4 million. I am hoping that this will be, by the time we get through the year, a very large and very worthwhile programme.

With respect to surpluses, I don't think you really meant that. The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) on an earlier vote was talking about the surpluses that we currently have on some agricultural products, and blamed the marketing boards to some extent. I agree with him. The marketing boards are here to work for supply management. Whenever we

[ Page 2201 ]

have a surplus that is an embarrassing surplus — and certainly the 18 million eggs that were destroyed was a surplus that reached embarrassing proportions — we should not look on this particular programme as a way of bailing ourselves out of something that has happened because somebody has mismanaged something in the community. Certainly the previous programme of world food relief was used in some cases for emergency food programmes, and the new programme will as well. But we don't want to plan to raise money so that when we happen to have overproduced something — that is overproduced to the extent that the marketing board have not done their job properly — we don't want to plan a financial programme that will bail ourselves out of conditions like that and encourage these sorts of things to happen. I'm sure you weren't thinking of that.

MR. WALLACE: No, I didn't mean that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Certainly it will be used for emergency food programmes, but the emphasis will still be on helping those nations that need it to develop their own food supplies.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I would like, too, to comment on the aid programme. I am very much concerned, as is the Member for Oak Bay, about how the aid programme is going to be carried out. I am pleased to hear the Minister suggest that there will be a very large community input. I think this is very important to develop that kind of emphasis in the community so people really feel they are part of this programme and are able to participate in it thoroughly. I think that the community will be able to come forward and raise the $4 million to match our money. Then we could get the funds from the federal government. But I am hopeful that if they aren't able to, we will be able to keep any additional of the $4 million over for next year so that the money would still be available when it was matched by the community at large.

I would like, however, to comment on one aspect of it, and this is that this grant, as I understand it, is not to have any strings attached. I hope that this will be borne out by the Minister, because in Alberta and other areas aid programmes have had little riders in them that the aid must have so much machinery or so much agricultural produce from Alberta. I am hoping that this won't be the case with this aid project from B.C. — that, in effect, we will sponsor redevelopment projects initiated from within the receiving countries and would try to say: okay, we are selling so much of B.C. produce, and that's a rider in it. I don't think this is the case, and I hope that it will not be.

The main thing that I wanted to get up tonight to question the Minister on is the status in my own riding and in Delta Riding of the request from the B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op for a grant and assistance from the government in building a plant for manufacturing potato chips.

On December 23 of last year, the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) and I met with the farmers from Delta and Richmond and the lower Fraser Valley area who grow potatoes for chips. When they outlined a programme to help gain them some economic independence in the processing of potatoes, they also felt that if they could build this potato chipping plant, they eventually could encourage a number of secondary agricultural industries to relocate along with them. They were looking into sites in the Delta area whereby eventually the waste materials from the processing of potatoes could be fed to beef cattle; then the waste material from the beef cattle could be returned to the land in fertilizers. Then, of course, you would be totally recycling your agricultural production because the fertilized fields would then produce more potatoes and so on. You get a complete cycle without any waste materials going into the river.

I think it is a very good idea. However, the plant is going to cost them about $9 million to get off the ground. I understand they have asked for assistance. One of the reasons they need this assistance — and they are looking for independence — is because right now, under the vertically integrated agricultural industry, under agribusiness, if you don't have a contract to grow potato chipping potatoes, while it is not too bad in B.C. yet, in other parts of Canada some monopolies have taken over the potato chipping industry and the farmers are tied to whatever they can get from them.

I'll give you an example of what has happened recently in New Brunswick. McCain's Foods, which does potato chipping there and is also a major chip manufacturer in B.C., has a virtual monopoly in New Brunswick. Recently they offered the farmers $2.40 a cwt for chipping potatoes when, to break even, they needed $3.00 a cwt.

Not only that, but with 350,000 tons of potatoes in storage as of February 1 of this year, they were actually importing potatoes — first 11,000 tons October 9 last year and later 8,000 tons January 31 this year. The local farmers were told not to bother bringing their potatoes into the factory while the American potatoes were coming in. So when I talk about vertical integration, this is what the farmers are faced with.

The farmers in B.C. who are producing potatoes in the Fraser Valley are much concerned that they want to be able to be independent and they want to be able to go on producing chipping potatoes. They feel there is a greater market available than what is being provided for at the present time. I know that they have been making some market analysis to see if they can get into the business. They feel they can. I

[ Page 2202 ]

think the Minister was going to look into this and see what market was available. So I would like to know exactly what the status is at the present time, how we are making out in encouraging the co-op to get started with the processing of potatoes in the Fraser Valley.

MRS. JORDAN: Entering this part of the debate later than the other speakers, I certainly would like to reaffirm our interest and confidence in world food relief. I don't want to be repetitive in terms of what other Members have said, because I think we all feel very deeply, as I am sure most British Columbians do, even if they don't act on it all the time, of the need in this day and age to solve this problem of international bureaucracy and political walls that have to be broken down in order to get food from a country that is overproducing into the hands of the people who need it.

I am sure the Minister is concerned. I would suggest that it has to be a paramount thought of every Agriculture Minister in Canada, and in the States as well, that in this day and age when we can put people on the moon, when we can accomplish all sorts of miracles, surely we can find a way to put overproduction of food in one country into the hands of those who are starving to death in another country.

It always amazes me that with this type of barrier, in terms of political barriers and in terms of transportation barriers, more hasn't been done by all wealthy countries to break them down. I think when we see a world food conference...and I don't wish to be unduly critical, but when we see them sitting around gourmet meals discussing this problem and yielding to political pressures, I think our priorities are in the wrong place.

I would hope that the day would come when in British Columbia, for example, we are encouraging more and more production in basic food commodities — milk, meat, eggs — simply because we have been able to break down the barriers that exist now between the lands of plenty and the lands of nothing. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I could bring to this Minister's attention anything in relation to his remarks on this World Relief Fund that I would first be most disturbed if the words of the Member for Mission and Haney were taken too seriously. I would hate to see a great deal of this fund spent on advertising. This party would like to feel this $5 million is being transferred into food for people, not into advertising and promotional programmes. While we certainly appreciate the Minister's multiplicity factor in terms of getting public funds and federal funds, let's not let the mechanics of multiplicity defeat and overshadow the needs of these people — Biafra, for example.

Mr. Minister, when this programme was announced in the budget — and it has been in existence for some time and the Minister spoke in this debate in glowing terms about it — I feel most concerned that there have been no real regulations laid down. I am sure other MLAs are. I certainly am getting a lot of correspondence from church groups and interested citizens who want to get on with the job and they are being stymied at this time by the Minister's own department because there appears to be a lack of co-ordination in terms of bringing into effect this programme. They need application forms, Mr. Minister; they need direction now. How can they meet your criteria? How can they take the money they have in their hands now and put it into food for people today? — not next month or six months or eight months from now. I certainly don't expect the Minister to work miracles, but I do believe, knowing what was going on, that the Minister should have had directions available for people so that they can know what to do.

When I think back to the war, as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) did in terms of eggs, there was an experiment done in the Okanagan of compressing apples. They turned out to be very, very fine sheets of compressed apples that had excellent keeping qualities, were highly nutritious, could be transported in bulk and could be distributed very easily. I wonder if this isn't an area we should be investigating for the future. I also wonder if the Minister would advise the House of what research is going on in British Columbia, along or jointly with the federal government, as to foods that could be rendered easily transportable to these countries.

I'd like to mention the income assurance programme for a moment in relation to my colleague's comments and the Minister's comments to suggest that one of the concerns of the producer is that there has been a shifting of ground rules in these negotiations.

The Minister mentioned that it seemed very long and, indeed, that's very true. In the cattlemen's association, for example, the Minister's department was phoning bankers around the province to extend credit to producers. The producers were borrowing money on the strength of the fact that the department had indicated the money would be available. At that time the amount available appeared to be common knowledge and the banks loaned this money on this basis.

In the meantime, the producers were compounding their debt loads in light of the difficult market conditions and also in light of the fact that the Minister was indicating that there would be assistance coming and that they shouldn't be trying to push their cattle on to the market.

Indeed, there were negotiations and it was understood that the two negotiating groups, the cattlemen's negotiating group from the association

[ Page 2203 ]

and the government negotiating group, had almost come together with one or two minor differences as to whether the 1974 plan should be paid on the basis of heads to market or pounds.

Mr. Minister, the shock came on Friday, April 11 in Vancouver. The Deputy Minister made it very clear to the negotiating committee from the cattlemen's association that the ground rules for the whole negotiations would be changed and that there would not be the amount of money for 1974 available that had been initially indicated. If I am correct, I understand that some of the changes that were to be made and were indicated at that time would be that there was no management fee, no return on investment and no cost of labour for 1974 under the income assurance programme.

What concerned them was that the negotiations had been taking place on the basis of the government's own formula and that this change was a very direct change in the formula. I'm not speaking of the change in the model because I think this is something that hasn't really been of too much concern. But the whole formula was changed and it was changed without mutual consent of the two parties.

This brings to light another concern. When the original agreement was signed by the commodity groups or signed by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on behalf of the commodity groups, they and the commodity groups understood that there could be no major changes in the agreement without mutual consent. It was during the prolonged periods of negotiation that it became evident that they had misunderstood and that the Minister did take upon himself the prerogative of changing basic ground rules and basic concepts of the agreement without mutual consent. This concerned them.

Now, Mr. Minister, much to everyone's delight, just two weeks ago now, I believe it is, all of a sudden the whole set of ground rules changed again. As I say, the producers came out absolutely delighted because the negotiating picture is back to the original amount, approximately $22 million for 1974 and 1975. But they are quite stunned by this, and everyone wants to know why the Minister delayed the negotiations, why orders were given and acted upon to completely change the ground rules. This put the producers to tremendous anxiety. The negotiating committees had a great deal of difficulty in explaining the situation to their own Members, and then all of a sudden the Minister has switched back again. As I say, I am very pleased he has, but there have been so many conflicting statements in these negotiations made by the Minister — for example, in Keremeos — which didn't gybe with statements made in Victoria. It has been this soft-shoe shuffle that has concerned them.

My colleague mentioned the situation with the milk producers were the programme was really very rich to begin with and is now being cut back. Our party certainly believes that there should be equity with all commodity groups. But, again, the producers are asking if that was just a carrot to get everyone to accept this programme. When are the ground rules going to be changed again? The producers believe they are entering into a five-year contract with room for certain negotiations by mutual consent. They are very concerned as to what the Minister's next step is going to be.

I think the Minister could make clear to this House tonight why there developed such a negative attitude with so many conflicting statements, and all of a sudden again the coffers were full. It would appear that there is going to be the money needed to meet the original commitment to the producers.

I have specific questions on income assurance. I would ask the Minister: what is the deficit position of these funds for the fruit growers for 1973? Will there be an excess for 1974? Will that balance the deficit for 1973? What does he believe is his estimate for income assurance for the year 1974?

Is the Minister relying on any benefits from the federal government to help meet the overall commitment?

Could the Minister advise the House whether income assurance will affect the eligibility of hog producers and dairy producers in British Columbia for any support programmes brought in by the federal government? I understand that the Minister had predicated — and I mentioned this in one of my earlier presentations on this subject — some of the meeting of the commitment of an overall programme to, for example, cattle producers on the federal government bringing in a beef support programme. This is, I understand, not to take place. Even if it did take place, British Columbia producers would be ineligible because of the income assurance programme, if they accept it. So would the Minister advise if he anticipates a shortfall over the next 1974-75 fiscal year for income assurance, and what that shortfall will be on the basis of his overall present estimates?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) asked about the food aid programme and whether or not there would be the sort of strings on it that other provinces have seen fit to place — that is, that they must use produce grown in that province and must use equipment manufactured in that province. The programme previously has run without any strings. I anticipate no change in that respect. There will be no such strings on the B.C. programme, not as....

MR. WALLACE: Legislation?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it's not legislation. We

[ Page 2204 ]

are voting on it; as we pass this vote, we pass that $5 million. The regulations, as I said, are currently being drawn up and are being discussed with the various groups that have cooperated with us in the past — CUSO, for example, and organizations that have come to us with projects which in the past have been funded out of the interest from the $5 million perpetual fund that was there previously. These same groups have been coming to our department and making their suggestions as to how they feel the new regulations should be drafted and how they might best fit into it.

I appreciate the concern the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has that the regulations are not ready yet. I know this is a problem. However, I will be quite frank now and say that it was not intended, when we first thought of increasing the amount of money for this programme, that there would be something in estimates.

The pressure on us in correspondence late in 1974 and early in 1975, almost right up until the time budget went to print, was for an increase in the perpetual funds. The figures suggested each time in most of these letters was that we double the perpetual fund, from $5 million up to $10 million, which would have meant, instead of having something like $400,000 available annually, that we would have $800,000 available annually. That was the suggestion we were getting from all sides.

It was almost at the last moment that the Premier and Minister of Finance, in looking at the volume of correspondence we were getting and measuring the public opinion on this, felt that perhaps the public would be prepared to do something much more bold than simply add to that perpetual fund, and would be prepared to participate in a programme such as this. There was no preliminary work done on this. It was almost a last-minute decision to do something much more than was anticipated up until that time. So, sorry the regulations aren't ready. They are not ready in part because we didn't start soon enough, because of a last-minute decision, and in part because we are getting information and advice from Members in the House and from people outside in the community who are talking to us and who want to get their ideas into this programme.

With respect to the facility being planned by the Lower Mainland Vegetable Marketing Board, it was an exciting prospect and one that I would like to have supported. It called for production of something like 50,000 tons of potatoes for potato chips, which was just about three times what my marketing branch could see being sold in the Province of British Columbia. We weren't quite ready. We had to make the decision within days, I think something like 10 days, when it was first presented to us. We had to approve the project and get it rolling right away because it was time to order their seed. We just weren't ready to commit in total $11 million in investment in this plant on such short notice.

We are working now with various farmer groups trying to get them all together in one project rather than having several trying to get the Lower Mainland Vegetable Marketing Board working with the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board, working with the Cloverdale Lettuce Co-op, working with the Lower Mainland Farmers Co-op — all of these into one plan. That way we think we can get going, hopefully, by next spring.

With respect to the advertising and publicity for the world food programme, when I was thinking of publicity — and I think this is one place where we might count upon the news media — what I meant was news releases rather than advertising such a programme. I think if we are able to announce through a news release from time to time the extent to which the community is participating in this programme, that is really all the publicity we will need. I am hoping that there won't by any money spent on advertising this particular programme.

The beef income assurance plan. From the beginning, the amount of money available, within the context of the money that we are considering right now, $27 million for income assurance, was from $7 million to $8 million. That amount has never changed in these figures before us. That was always the amount I had in mind with respect to the beef income assurance plan.

Many calculations were made as to how that amount might be spent to best advantage to assist the beef producers in a meaningful income assurance plan rather than a straight subsidy or straight assistance programme. Many proposals were made by both sides. Positions were taken by both sides from time to time. Positions were changed during the course of negotiations which are still going on. I make no apologies for any positions that were changed by anyone in my department. I think the cattlemen on their part would not apologize or try to explain any of the various positions that they took. We have been negotiating, and it's been hard negotiation, trying to make that figure fit a programme that we can live with from then on. I think we're very close to agreeing on a programme that both parties will feel is a good programme for the industry.

The deficit for the fruit industry for 1973 covered only apples. The Member put a question on the order paper and received an answer. I believe something in excess of $2.8 million was the total cost to the government of the apple income assurance programme. We don't have the figures yet because apples are still being sold. We don't know what the price will be; we can't work it out. As far as the soft fruits are concerned that have been completed — the pears aren't yet — they are in a break-even position. The apples, we are optimistic, will be very close to a

[ Page 2205 ]

break-even position for the 1974 crop.

I believe that answers all the questions that were asked.

MR. PHILLIPS: With regard to the $100,000 for tax payments of lease lands, is this going to cover all of the land that the Land Commission owns, whether it's leased or whether you haven't got it leased out? And on what basis will these taxes be paid to various communities?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I guess the government policy over the years has been and still is that the amount paid will be comparable to the local tax situation. But we're not leaving ourselves open to special assessments that we're afraid some taxing authorities might place on us. So if we feel the tax levy imposed is a fair one, then the amount paid will be the same as is being levied on similar landowners in that community.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Premier controls the assessment authority now, so how could you be open to unilateral assessment? You have 8,000 acres that the Land Commission has purchased, and if you take the 8,000 acres into the $100,000, you're coming up with approximate taxes of $12.50 an acre;

HON. MR. STUPICH: About $6,000 of that is the community pasture — very low-value land up in the Prince George area, in unorganized territory. There's very low tax on that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is assuring me that the taxes paid on this lease land will be equitable and that none of the communities in which you have purchased land will suffer any loss of revenue because the land is owned by the government. Is the Minister assuring me that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That they'll suffer no loss of revenue by virtue of the fact that the ownership has changed from private to government?

MR. PHILLIPS: Right.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as the Land Commission land, the land that they own — yes, I'll assure you of that.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about school taxes on this land?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There'll be no loss of revenue by virtue of the fact that ownership has changed from private ownership to Land Commission ownership.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just another point that I'd like to ask the Minister about with regard to agriculture and rural development. You have $5,172,787. Just what phase of your operation does this cover? Is this money for community pastures, or is it to help with assistance for rural electrification, changing over from...?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are you asking if the community pasture programme is included in the ARDA vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you mind explaining to me exactly what that $5 million is for?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the general ARDA programme as opposed to special ARDA. The general ARDA programme is a co — operative, provincial-federal programme. It's used for irrigation, for land acquisition and improvement for community pasture development.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has the change-over of community pastures, grazing lands taken...? The Department of Agriculture's taken that over from the Department of Forests, has it not? Are you not taking over community pastures? Are you not taking over the operation of community pastures?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Yes, but not from Forests. They never had the operation of community pastures.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it was under the Department of Forests.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Community pastures?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Community pastures are a relatively new development. There haven't been that many in the past. There are quite a few more now, and we are doing more. But as far as the management of community pastures is concerned, the Department of Agriculture is managing those and is turning over the management of them to local cattlemen committees in the various areas concerned.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there are just a couple of words that I wanted to say about this world food relief fund. Mr. Chairman, it involves a campaign promise of the New Democratic Party. You know, there's an old saying that charity should begin at home. I've had some correspondence with the Minister over this particular programme, and it involves schools. I notice a smile coming over the Minister's face. It involves fresh milk for school children.

[ Page 2206 ]

As I say, it was a campaign promise of the New Democratic Party. The Minister says: "Well, it's a little hard to set up and we haven't worked it out, and we're working with the Department of Education and...." I don't know whether the Minister's afraid of the cost of this, but when I look at some of the money that is wasted by that government on advertising and various other campaigns, I think it's a matter of priorities.

Some of the programmes that the government has instigated were not campaign promises, and I'd like the Minister to advise me again.... It's been a few months since we've corresponded on this. There was a resolution put through the school trustees convention in Vancouver with regard to this, and maybe the Minister would bring me up to date as to how his campaign promise is progressing. Pretty soon it'll be ready for another campaign. Is that going to be a continuing promise or are you going to do something to implement it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if we're going to start doing something like that, we'd be following the footsteps of the previous administration — never really doing anything about a promise so you can save it and use it in the next election. It's quite possible that some of the things we promised in our election programme in 1972 may not be achieved, or may not be achieved completely in our first term of office, but I fully expect the voters will give us another opportunity to make good completely on the promises that have not been completely fulfilled.

With respect to the school milk programme, today, at this hour of whatever date it is right now, I cannot give the Member the assurance that this will be done in this fiscal period. Money has not been provided in this particular vote. I expect that we'll be raising it again next year and that I'll be presenting that in the House next spring.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee further reports that divisions took place and asks that these be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon when the Speaker was commenting on the cut-off switch on the microphones, the Speaker said: "The Hon. Members passed a resolution in this House that whenever the Speaker or Chairman stands, the microphones in the House go dead except for that of the Chair. This is a resolution you passed unanimously."

I would like to correct the Speaker, because this motion was part of the report that restricted debate in this Legislature to 135 hours, a restriction that none of the opposition agreed with and on which the official opposition walked out. When the vote was taken, it was not unanimous. I go to the Journals of the House, page 276, and the vote was not unanimous.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member may be correct but I think one must remember — and I am trying to recall the occasion — that these matters were taken seriatim and dealt with separately by the House.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll quote from the report of the committee:

"Your committee further recommends that the Hansard operators in the chamber be instructed by Mr. Speaker to cut off all voice amplification other than that of the Speaker or Chairman when the Speaker or Chairman rises. When the Speaker or Chairman has risen, no words spoken other than by the Speaker or Chairman shall be recorded or transcribed by Hansard."

This is in reference to the report of the committee. That vote was taken on page 276 and it's report No. 4. I bring it to your attention that it was not a unanimous vote.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, thank you. I must apologize to the House.

MR. BENNETT: The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that by implication....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. leader hasn't finished yet.

MR. BENNETT: Your statement, by implication, indicated that there was agreement from the opposition in the type of closure brought in by that government, both with the microphones and with the 135 hours, with which we do not agree.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.