[ Page 1439 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Glendale hospital budget cut. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers — 1439

Appointment of N. Sharpe to Department of Public Works. Mr. Lea — 1439

Lighthouse Communications. Mr. Gibson — 1440

Administering of secrecy oaths. Mr. King — 1440

Problems with student summer-employment programme. Mr. Wallace — 1440

Increase in Executive Council administration vote. Mr. Lockstead — 1441

Food price increases. Hon. Mr. Mair answers — 1441

Department of Education special grants. Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 1441

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 3

Mr. Davidson — 1442 

Mr. Lauk — 1443 

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1444 

Mr. Wallace — 1445

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1447

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1448

Mr. Wallace — 1449

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1450

Mr. King — 1450

Mr. Nicolson — 1451

Mr. Gibson — 1452

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1452

Mr. Wallace — 1453

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1454

Mr. Nicolson — 1455

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1455

Mr. Lauk — 1455

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1457

Mr. Nicolson — 1459

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1460

Mr. Lauk — 1461

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1461

Mr. Lauk — 1463

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 1463

Mr. Wallace — 1464

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1466

Mr. Macdonald — 1468

Mr. Stupich — 1469

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1473

Mr. Gibson — 1474

Mr. Wallace — 1474

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1475

Mr. Lea — 1476

Appendix — 1477

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the galleries...Is it a man? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It's the rentalsman, Barrie Clark!

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, in the House with us today are Mrs. Douglas and Mrs. Everett and eight young ladies visiting us from Surrey. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): In the galleries today we have a group of students from Sir Winston Churchill High School in the constituency of Vancouver South, and I would ask this House to welcome them.

Oral questions.

GLENDALE HOSPITAL BUDGET CUT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an answer to a question which was placed on the floor yesterday by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Contrary to the statements made by this member, the budgetary estimates for the Glendale Hospital have not been decreased below the 1975-76 estimates but have in fact been increased in our efforts to provide services where they are needed.

Unfortunately, the fact that the question was placed without the information then being available has undoubtedly caused some anguish to the parents involved. But the majority of independent operative facilities using government funds to cover their programmes submit their budgets in amounts which they feel are necessary for their operation.

The responsibility of government, of course, is to assess these estimates and then, on the basis of what is equitable and what funds are available, to allocate the moneys. In 1975-76 the budgetary estimate for Glendale was $6,041,000 and our estimates for the 1976-77 fiscal year project an increase to $6,091,000. I would like to point out, however, that the 1976-77 estimate does not reflect substantial amounts of services rendered by other government departments.

I was certainly shocked when I was advised — I read about this in the media, because I understand that the remarks were made by the member outside of the House — that notices had been sent out to people suggesting that there would not be any beds available to them. There has been no attempt by the department to cut back on the services, and if such notices have gone out, they have gone out without our knowledge, and this is certainly regrettable.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I made some substantial inquiries on this issue. Could the minister confirm that the budget presented by the board of trustees for Glendale Hospital was in fact $8.6 million for 1976-77 and that, in fact, their budget has been approved at $6.91 million? How is the hospital to cope with this shortfall of $2 million?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not consider it a shortfall when we do not approve an amount requested. Certainly, as I mentioned, there are other costs which will be paid or picked up through other areas, so the whole amount of $6.91 million doesn't necessarily cover all the costs. But they are getting more this year than they did last year.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since this indeed has caused concern and phone calls from parents and so on — and I agree that they would be concerned — can the minister confirm that he's received a letter from the board of trustees expressing their deep concern that the figures appear, at least without today's explanation by the minister, to suggest that the board feels it needs $8.6 million to sustain the increased overhead costs compared to last year and that the budget does, in fact, represent a committed amount much less than $8 million? Could he reassure the parents that the service will be maintained from funding from other departments?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the service will be maintained. Yes, I can confirm there was a letter. Yes, I can appreciate where there may have been some confusion and, unfortunately, certain conclusions were drawn from what might have appeared confusing, but the confusion certainly wasn't our fault.

APPOINTMENT OF N. SHARPE TO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Highways: order-in-council 633, dated February 19, 1976, appointed Norman Sharpe as an administrative assistant in the Department of Public Works, effective February 3, 1976. The order-in-council orders that "the position of administrative assistant in the Department of Public Works be designated as one requiring special professional, technical or administrative qualifications." I wonder if the minister could tell me what the duties of Mr. Sharpe are.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr.

[ Page 1440 ]

Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MR. LEA: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The question has been taken as notice by the minister, and that would end the pursuit of that particular question and that matter for this moment until the minister answers on the floor of the House, unless you have a suggestion to make to the minister about something else you would like him to look into at the same time.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like some clarification from you, then. If it's obvious that the minister does know the answer but is only taking it as a stalling device, then I would....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR' LEA: Obviously he knows what the duties of his administrative assistant are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That remark is out of order in the question period.

LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNICATIONS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. I would ask the Provincial Secretary if her meeting this morning with the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and Mr. Ian Fothergill had occasion to discuss government work for Lighthouse Communications, past, present or future, and if so, which?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this morning I was asked to meet with the Minister of Mines, and I had a meeting with him. In answer as to what was discussed with Mr. Fothergill, who was in my office at the same time, it was the question that was brought up in this House, the publicity emanating from that and surrounding Mr. Fothergill's firm.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Provincial Secretary in her capacity as acting Premier whether she reached any conclusion as to whether there is any potential conflict of interest in the government contract being given without tender to a ministerial staff relative.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member is suggesting that I had reached a conclusion about something that was discussed in this House and an answer given by another minister. This morning I did receive the information by Mr. Fothergill telling his side of the story. He was upset at the press surrounding the question, and was giving his side of the story.

I did not ask for his side of the story. He did not have an appointment with me, and I made time for him this morning because he expressed his concern. I would make time for any citizen of British Columbia who has a concern, a public concern.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary to the Provincial Secretary and acting Premier: I would ask if Lighthouse Communications, or any member of that group, did any work for the Social Credit Party during the last election?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes, and I only have knowledge of that because, as you know, I was associated at that time as their president.

ADMINISTERING OF SECRECY OATHS

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On April 14, which is over 20 days ago, I asked the Provincial Secretary which minister was responsible for ensuring that public service oaths are taken and administered in compliance with order-in-council 103, passed in 1976. I've received no answer. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would answer now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Secretary took the question as notice, I believe, and now that it's been brought back to your attention, hon. member, I presume you'll look after it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, and I will today.

PROBLEMS WITH STUDENT
SUMMER-EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. WALLACE: I'd also like to ask the Provincial Secretary a question with regard to government proposals for summer employment of students. I know I haven't had much success with my questions to date. The dispute exists over a rate of pay between the government and the union. The minister's reported statement was that the union position means that young people in this province will face one of the worst summers they have ever faced. Did the minister receive a telegram on the weekend from the B.C. Government Employees' Union requesting a meeting with the minister responsible for government employees to discuss the dispute over rates of pay and attempt to find a solution?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you just repeat the last part of your question. The Provincial Secretary did not get it.

[ Page 1441 ]

MR. WALLACE: Did the minister receive a telegram at the weekend from the B.C. Government Employees' Union requesting a meeting with the minister responsible for government employees — namely, the lady minister — to discuss the dispute over the rates of pay for summer students and attempt to find a solution?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telegram from the executive director and there is going to be a reply going out to the executive director today. I will give the contents of that reply to the House as soon as I can, in answer to your question.

MR. WALLACE: May I ask a supplementary? In an attempt to prevent problems before they arise, could I ask the minister whether she is aware that some students are about to commence employment as summer relief workers at standard rates of pay, particularly at the motor-vehicle testing station in Vancouver, and that the union has made clear its intention to take the matter to the Labour Relations Board immediately these students report for work?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. WALLACE: A final, quick supplementary: might I suggest to the minister that this apparently is about to happen and if it could be prevented it might make her meeting with the executive more successful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

INCREASE IN EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION VOTE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): This is a question to the Deputy Premier. Approximately one month ago I asked the minister regarding order-in-council 1175, 1976, about increases in the establishment for the executive council administration vote by one position. The question was: has anyone been appointed to this position and if so, what are their duties and salaries? This was about one month ago and you took the question as notice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll have to bring the information back to the House on that question, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I was asked a question by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) yesterday concerning food prices in the last month. I might say for clarification that these run generally about a month behind because it takes some time to get the information and to compile it. The most recent information is for the week beginning April 21, which indicates the Vancouver food basket had inched upwards again to $46.79. This is a 0.43 per cent increase from the previous month when the food basket stood at $46.59 for the week beginning March 24.

The April 21 basket price is still 1 per cent below that of October 24, 1975. Vancouver residents have therefore six months now where the price of food — at least insofar as this basket of 80 items is concerned — has been 1 per cent or more below the price of the same food basket at the beginning of the price freeze. The increase over the past month has been due principally to the general increases on beef prices in some stores and increases on canned fish — that's salmon and tuna — and also fresh produce.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I thank the minister for the information today. The increase in the price of food, though, is one of the major concerns of the people in this province and I see again it's up 0.4, which is a significant increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

MS. SANFORD: The federal government is able to provide figures through their monitoring system at a much faster rate, and I'm wondering if there's any way the minister can improve the efficiency with respect to monitoring within his department so that we'll have information that is more up to date.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my mathematics were not quite correct when I said about a month. It appears to take two to three weeks. I suppose if we spent a great deal more money on this we might get a little bit faster. However, I have watched the operation, and I invite the member to come up with me and watch how the operation works. I think she will see that there is an enormous amount of work which does take a great deal of time to compile, and it is done very efficiently and very quickly under all those circumstances.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SPECIAL GRANTS

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, last week I took as notice a question with regard to the criteria that were used by the Department of Education in awarding special grants, and said that the increase in school population was the main criterion. I find there are two others, and for the benefit of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), I would like to say what these are.

The second is if there is a change in the assessment value of a particular school district.

[ Page 1442 ]

The third criterion, which I think would be of most interest to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, is the unfavourable impact on the mill rate in an average school district of those school districts that have a highly enriched programme, as in North Vancouver–Capilano.

Mr. Speaker, the basic education programme is equal in the following year to the total operating costs of all the school districts in the previous year. While a district like North Vancouver–Capilano should be very proud of its enriched programme, that enrichment should not have an undue impact on other school districts in the ensuing year. That's why these special grants, some of them have been given to compensate for this unfavourable impact, but in no instance is this over half a mill.

MR. WALLACE: What about the severance pay of $41,000? Have you got that answer yet?

HON. MR. McGEER: I took that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I did have a letter, the week of April 21, saying that it would be arriving almost immediately. It still hasn't arrived and I'm continuing to nag them. I'm as anxious as the member for Oak Bay to get the answers to that particular question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take the opportunity now, in view of the question which was answered earlier, to impress upon the House the importance of taking questions that might, through the very nature of them being place in the House, have an effect on those that are concerned by what the answer to the question might be — that we be given notice of these questions in advance so we can come prepared with the necessary material and answers when the question comes on the floor of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Minister.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the members of the opposition, when a question appears which it will take a good deal of research for answering, quite frequently do give notice.

I would just like to make a request to the government, too, while I'm on my feet, that perhaps they could take the question period a bit more seriously than it is. I appreciate that certain ministers have to be away at different times, but it becomes very difficult, when there are six ministers out of the House, to engage in a well-organized question period.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think that the government side of the House has been particularly good at attending question period since this new parliament. May I say that the only time they are out of the House during question period is on essential service elsewhere. At this point in time we have four ministers of the Crown who are out of the province, and it is difficult for them to be here at the same time as they're doing business for the government outside of the province.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

MR. KING: If I may make the point, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate that the ministers have to be out of the province, and it would be helpful to have some notice so we will know who is absent and can organize our questions accordingly — in the same type of cooperation the Minister of Human Resources asks from the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, may I suggest that the matter which has just been discussed is something that is generally dealt with between the Whips of the parties, and that is where the matter should lie; that is where the action should originate, between the Whips of the parties to advise back and forth of absences or anything of this nature.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
(continued)

On vote 3: minister's office, $50,728 — continued.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, yesterday I spent some time speaking on the critical situation facing the agricultural industry, not only in my own riding but throughout this province. Of particular concern to the potato farmers in my own riding is the construction of a processing plant which will allow for an additional 3,000 acres of that crop — and will generate an additional $2.5 million into that industry.

Serious questions were raised by the member for Vancouver Centre regarding alleged improprieties in the application, allegations which were totally groundless, were without any foundation whatsoever, and cast a shadow on the reputation of a respected member of the agricultural community, namely Mr. George Spetifore.

As a result of political opposition to the entire

[ Page 1443 ]

processing proposal, many members of the farming community were beginning to doubt that the processing plant would come into being this year, if at all. Mr. Chairman, the existing location has been scrapped, but the facility itself will be relocated in an industrial site. The exact location will be made known within the next few days. Farmers may rest assured that the increased production will come about, and that a market will be provided for their product.

I would further add, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Spetifore, who is totally financing this venture, had reached his decision prior to misleading suggestions by the member opposite. His decision was based solely on the opposition to the location of this plant within his own community. Not only had he and his family been subjected to harassing phone calls, but they have also received threatening calls as well.

Mr. Spetifore's determination to comply with the wishes of the community once again illustrates his total corporate and personal responsibility to his community.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, the member for Delta has indicated to the committee that I made misleading statements. I ask that gentleman to withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the hon. member for Delta: were you impugning any motive to the member for Vancouver Centre?

MR. DAVIDSON: My comment was, as I have it right here: "allegations which were totally groundless, and were without any foundation whatsoever."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, Hon. Member, if the word misleading was used, it's a borderline suggestion. Would you withdraw the word misleading?

MR. DAVIDSON: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Order, please. The member for Delta has the floor.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Spetifore's determination to comply with the wishes of the community once again illustrates his total corporate and personal responsibility to his community, and, I trust, will totally dispel any implication of impropriety implied from the member for Vancouver Centre.

While it is regrettable that the Delta municipality will lose 80 jobs and a substantial tax base, I am sure that the area accepting him will welcome him warmly. It is encouraging also, Mr. Chairman, to note that this facility, which is being totally financed by an individual, will be an asset to our entire agricultural industry. I am pleased also that this turn of events so clearly demonstrates the total irresponsibility of the remarks inferred by the member for Vancouver Centre yesterday.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw none of the remarks I made with respect to the fact that this individual, whose democratic right it was to contribute to the hon. member for Delta's election campaign, did so. Those allegations, as they're called, are not allegations. Those are facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you keep your remarks close to the vote, please?

MR. LAUK: Now dealing with the Minister of Agriculture's vote, the member for Delta....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: The member for Delta got up yesterday without comment from the opposition side and gave a statement that sounded very much like he was more than just the MLA for Delta, but an advocate for Mr. Spetifore.

MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.

MR. LAUK: The member says yes. Has the member for Delta received any monetary recompense for this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: He said he was an advocate.

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

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Did you hear what that minister said? It's a deceitful remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we can only have one member on the floor. We have recognized the first member for Vancouver Centre. Will you please take your chair for just a moment until we try to bring order to the House?

The vote before us is the minister's salary vote, the Minister of Agriculture. The Chair has allowed some wide-ranging debate under this vote, which perhaps could more readily be debated under the "Minister of

[ Page 1444 ]

Delta," if there were such a position. However, I must insist that we now contain the scope to vote 3, which is the minister's salary vote.

The member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. DAVIDSON: On a point of order, I would ask that the member for Vancouver Centre withdraw the remark alleging that I had received any kind of compensation whatsoever in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre impugning any improper motive to the member for Delta? Not so? The member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I suggested that if he admits being an advocate....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Order, please! I hear some noises in the corner.

If he admits being an advocate for Mr. Spetifore, he should indicate if there is any contractual arrangement between them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, with that statement we will have to conclude that subject, because it is not applicable under vote 3.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll direct some questions to the Minister of Agriculture, who has not, regretfully, answered any of the questions as Minister of Agriculture during the current committee study of his estimates. He has merely stood in his place and given us the old routine — the old double-shuffle.

Do you know that that government is full of double talk? They are full of double talk, Mr. Chairman: they double the taxes, double the medicare premiums, double ferry rates. Boy, if there was ever a minister that was good at double talk it is the Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development!

But I will ask him this question. We're discussing farmland here that was described by the Land Commission as class 2 and class 3 farmland.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that Mr. Spetifore has put some sand covering and fill on his land which may be very damaging to the land, whether he would investigate the situation and see if that land can't be reclaimed. Maybe Mr. Spetifore could use some assistance from the Department of Agriculture. Would the minister be willing to assist Mr. Spetifore in reclaiming this valuable farmland? Will the sand itself — I'm sure the deputy could advise the minister — destroy that farmland? If so, for how long?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 3 pass?

MR. LAUK: I can see that the hon. minister is not rising to answer any of my questions, so I'll press on. Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to deal with the Minister of Agriculture's estimates if he's not going to answer any questions. I hope that the public of British Columbia realize that we are not delaying this minister's estimates. What we want to know is what his answers are. It's not just the opposition that require them, it's the public of British Columbia.

Is he going to hide behind the throne? He has recently been described as the power behind the throne, the Cardinal Richelieu of the coalition government, Mr. Chairman — the eminence grise. (Laughter.) That member for Dawson Creek is now the.... Little did they know in Dawson Creek when he was first elected that he would become the eminence grise, the power behind the throne. We're asking him, a man with all this power, to just answer a few simple questions with respect to his estimates.

Perhaps he would like to answer one of these — he won't answer the others. Has there been an offer of $3 million for Panco Poultry?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Pinko Panco.

MR. LAUK: Have there been actually two offers — one for $3 million from an individual and another for $6 million from a group of individuals? Why the difference, Mr. Minister?

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): One of them is NDP.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to inform the second member....

MR. LAUK: First! Emery and I flipped a coin.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First? Oh, I tell the first member for Vancouver Centre that I have not visited the Spetifore farm and that I am not aware that there was sand on the land. I would suggest that if the member was as intelligent as he would like everybody to believe, he would know that any land reclamation or item of this nature would come under the Department of Environment and under the Land Commission. So the minister, of course, is always going to preserve farmland in this great British Columbia — because this government cares about the environment, Mr. Chairman! That's why we have a separate Department of Environment, because we care — not just idle words, but a minister to look

[ Page 1445 ]

after the environment.

I will have to check into the matter of Panco Poultry. We are always open to offers at any time. We will negotiate with people when the time comes. Right now I am not aware of any hard and fast offers. I haven't seen any cheques attached to any letters which would make an offer binding or at least legitimate. But I'd be quite happy to inform the member, if he wishes me to, when such an offer does come.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, that was an interesting comment of the minister's, bragging about the government's separate Department of Environment, with which I happen to agree. There has been a fair amount of comment that what we need in British Columbia is a separate Department of Agriculture.

I won't take the time of the House to quote the various reports that have appeared from different sources saying that it is difficult for representative groups to meet with the minister because of his multiple responsibilities — he is also Minister of Economic Development.

I'll just take the liberty of looking at one report which appeared as a profile of the minister, in the Times of March 2, entitled: "He's a Political Salesman with Ambitious Plans." This is an article by Ab Kent of the Times staff. The article certainly emphasizes the minister's primary responsibility as being toward economic development in the province.

From the budget debate, and others, it's clear that the coal development in the Dawson Creek area, which happens by coincidence to be the minister's riding.... Various other statements by the minister, and this kind of appraisal of the minister's function in the government by a neutral journalist, makes it very plain that the minister is handling Agriculture as the secondary responsibility in his total function as a cabinet minister.

Although we don't expect the minister to be able to respond to all the invitations he receives to speak at various groups and so on — and since I want to refer back to the egg-production problems in British Columbia — I understand that the interior egg producers held their annual convention on April 9 and the minister stated that he was unable to attend. But he did appear very much in the same geographical region, looking at Afton Mines and the Kamore property in conjunction.... I'm interested to see the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) prick up his ears, because it was with the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services that the minister inspected that area, with particular reference to Afton Mines and the Kamore property.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): That's not true.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister will have lots of opportunity to correct anything he considers incorrect that I've stated.

HON. MR. MAIR: I just wanted you to know that, Scott.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One member at a time. The member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's even confusing with one member at a time. (Laughter.) The point is quite clear that the voices of agricultural groups that are distressed that the Minister of Agriculture has two distinct portfolios, and is also a director of B.C. Railway, for it means that the attention of the designated Minister of Agriculture is diluted at the present time. It is no surprise to me that various producer groups have expressed, both privately to me, in public and in press reports, that they find it difficult to meet with the minister. They feel that not only can they not get the message through, but some of the commitments made on the election platform have not been maintained by this government.

So, in the first instance, I would like to have the minister respond to that criticism, which is a serious one in light of the fact that many members of the House have made it quite plain that the agricultural industry is not vital just because it produces the food we eat, or a lot of the food we eat, but because it provides a great deal of employment and other secondary benefits to the province.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) interjects that it is 2,500 people in terms of secondary jobs.

The fact that our population growth continues to increase by about 3 per cent per year should surely convince any objective person that agriculture, indeed, is a vital industry that requires a minister to serve that function only and give agriculture his undivided attention.

Now yesterday I asked some questions which the minister chose not to answer. I just want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that until I get these answers we'll be here, if we have to be here till a certain hot spot freezes over. These questions are very legitimate questions; they are the direct responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, and they are related very specifically to the Egg Marketing Board.

The whole question of marketing boards and the principle underlying them — namely that the producer should receive a fair price for his product and the cost of his labour, and that the consumer should be afforded an adequate supply at the most

[ Page 1446 ]

reasonable price that can be achieved — is a very logical and commendable motive. But the question is exactly that one that the minister himself outlined in an answer to someone's question from this side of the House yesterday, that the government was planning to take a look at marketing boards to see if they were achieving the goals for which they were set up.

Now that's not my question; that was a statement yesterday by the minister which explained the government's decision to take a look at marketing boards. That leads to one or two very simple questions: when and in what manner is the government following that path? When will the second look, or the new look, be taken, under what circumstances, and by whom? Or perhaps more specifically: have these decisions been taken, or it is just that the minister is trying to stall the opposition through this debate with vague assurances that he recognizes certain problems, and that the government will investigate?

But it is certainly a fair question for the opposition to ask: if the government isn't sure that the marketing boards are achieving the goals for which they were set up and require investigation or inspection, when and in what manner does the government propose to carry out that review?

With regard to the so-called "superboard" that was set up to help co-ordinate and in some way supervise the function of marketing boards, and to be a body to which marketing boards could appeal in relation to various problems, I understand that although there is the legislation which permits 10 members, that present superboard has five members.

I would recall again, Mr. Chairman, that in that debate on November 14, 1974, the minister moved an amendment. I think it is important, for completeness sake, just to quote that amendment — it's on the order paper as proposed amendments to bills on November 14: "Mr. Phillips to move in Committee of the Whole on Bill 165, intituled Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, to amend as follows:...." I won't read all the amendment because all of it is not relevant, but section 3 was to be amended by inserting after subsection (6) of section 3 a further subsection, being 3(7), and reading as follows, and I will just read the last part to save time.

The last sentence says: "At least one-third thereof shall be representatives of recognized British Columbia consumer groups, associations or organizations."

This was the present Minister of Agriculture's proposed amendment as to how the superboard should be constituted in terms of its membership — that at least one-third shall be representatives of recognized British Columbia consumer groups, associations or organizations.

I would ask the minister two simple questions: if the board was intended to have 10 members, why does it still only have five? There may be a good reason; I'm just asking for an explanation. Secondly, has the minister, who obviously believes in having consumer representation on marketing boards, taken any action, or is there any action pending in the near future, to implement the principles included in his amendment to the legislation?

On a more specific problem of the marketing board issue, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions about the lengthy and, I'm sure, confusing publicity which citizens of British Columbia have read over the last year or more on the egg-marketing situation in British Columbia. In deference to the very sound principle that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) outlined in this House today, I have taken a fair amount of trouble and time to speak to various people who are concerned in this particular problem. To the best of my ability, the facts that I have uncovered represent at least part of the problem that afflicts the egg-marketing situation.

The problem appears to be that the overall situation has changed considerably since the Egg Marketing Board was first set up, which I believe was around 1966 or 1967. At that time there is no doubt that 80 per cent or more of the egg producers carried out their production of eggs on the lower mainland. The board was set up in such a way that there were five main regions in the province, and as the population of the province has grown and the distribution has shifted, particularly in relation to areas such as Prince George, egg producers in that area have wished to play a realistic and logical role in producing some of the eggs for the consumer in the region where they live. That was one of the basis, of course.

The minister's having such a good time laughing and talking to other people in the House that I assume that he's not about to answer these questions any more today than he did yesterday. So I would just repeat, Mr. Chairman, that as a responsible member of the opposition I'm prepared to stand here for the next hundred years and ask these questions, if I have to — and I expect answers.

MR. G.S. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Hear, hear! I've got some quotes for you, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: But the question I want answered is this: is my information correct that when the Egg Marketing Board was set up, a basic concept was that regional producers would produce eggs to meet the requirements in their particular regions? And is it not correct that we do have egg producers in the lower mainland shipping eggs all the many hundreds of miles, let us say, to the northern and northwestern parts of this province when there is every facility to produce the eggs locally, not only at

[ Page 1447 ]

the same cost as in other regions but so that the consumer has the advantage of fresh eggs compared to the less-than-fresh eggs that are shipped from many hundreds of miles away? The answer seems self-obvious.

Now there may be very legitimate problems because certain persons have reacted in an irritated or less-than-calm way because they have been subject to censures, or because they face the possibility of financial censure. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear if you pay any attention to the reflection of public opinion through the newspapers and the kind of editorial that appears almost regularly in different newspapers in the province. One of the editorials that was very interesting was in The Vancouver Sun on April 21, 1976. It is about the Egg Marketing Board. It says: "This is a marketing board run by producers like a private club." It goes on to say: "It has no real accountability to consumers even though its cartel is protected by government. It is the cookie-jar unguarded." It also raises a very interesting point that it's not a marketing board at all. The choice of the word "marketing" is misleading for a start, but it says that "the public quite often gets the impression that all it does is keep prices up and production down."

Mr. Chairman, these may be completely inaccurate and unjustified criticisms of the system, but all I'm asking the minister to do is tell the House and tell the public and the consumer in particular that these are false accusations. Tell us why they're false and tell us what the facts of the issue really are. There is such a tendency by ministers and governments — and I'm not talking just about this minister or this government, but about elected people in government — to attempt to tell only the minimal amount of information which they feel will keep the public with their mouth shut.

When members of this House or members of the public continue to ask for more and more information, I think it would often strengthen rather than weaken a minister's position if he would just put the whole story out on the table and tell us exactly what the situation is, and that's what I'm asking the minister to do today in this confused and very adversarial situation that the Egg Marketing Board has been in.

I understand that the management of the board itself in years past has not been all that it might be in terms of administrative competency and other matters, and that is one area that has been improved. But if that isn't the case perhaps the minister again could confirm or correct some of these facts.

The consumer in British Columbia is entitled to know that the Egg Marketing Board is not run by producers like a private club. If the consequence appears to be just to put up prices and keep down production then I think we as opposition members in the House have a very legitimate right to ask this kind of question. If we're all wrong with our information or if there is not the kind of confusion and the problem that we deduce from all the research I've done, then I want to know where the truth lies. But regardless of the controversy and the personalities involved, and whether or not rules have been broken, could I not ask the minister if there is not a time for a change in the rules and a review of the legislation or the Egg Marketing Board's performance in relation to changing circumstances — namely the kind of increase of population growth and the shifting distribution of population since the board was set up? Some of these are very relevant questions that I have asked, particularly the function of the superboard as a superior body to ensure that these other marketing boards are functioning according to the goals for which they were set up, to quote the minister.

There are many other questions I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to ask the minister if he would be kind enough to give us some of the basic facts in answer to my questions. If some of them cannot be answered because it relates to the recent supreme court case, I'll accept that as an explanation. But if we cannot be specific and relate to specific individual producers and so on, I do hope the minister can at least give us something in general terms as to when and in what manner the government will be carrying out the kind of review that he referred to at least twice in this House, during the budget debate and again yesterday.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay made reference to a trip which the Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development and myself took in Kamloops about four or five weeks ago. I think it fair that the House know, in the context of today's discussion, what did take place. It was a Saturday. We worked from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Among the places we visited was, indeed, the Kaymor property to look at a proposed stockyard and, unless I am mistaken, stockyards fall well within agriculture. We, in fact, visited the stockyards that do exist and we spent two hours at lunch with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, all of which was because of his position as Minister of Agriculture. I think the House ought to know that the Minister of Agriculture has gone the length and breadth of this province doing the very same as he did in Kamloops on that day, and I think he ought to be commended for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let me just take this minute to explain that whenever there is a correction to be made, it is wise to do as the minister has just done. Wait till the conclusion of the speech. Then it is the practice of the House to allow that correction to be made, but that correction needs to be made as briefly as possible.

[ Page 1448 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, now there seems to be again today a lot of criticism — maybe some of it is founded and maybe some of it isn't about the amount of time that I am spending on the portfolio of Agriculture. I have been called "2 per cent." But that's grandstanding in politics, and I appreciate it, coming from the opposition. I would say that approximately 50 per cent of my time is spent with Agriculture. I'd like to again state to the House, for those who were either not here yesterday or who did not care to listen, that I have met with numerous groups. I don't think I have ever closed the door or refused to meet with any group of agricultural people. I have stated, as I stated before, that I can't always get out to attend all the luncheons and banquets. I know the previous Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) will appreciate the situation there.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many have you been to, Don? Have you been to the second one yet?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't possibly attend all of them, but I will endeavour to do my best. There will be times when I am attending a certain place in the province where I have maybe made a previous commitment and somebody else asks me to go somewhere in the same vicinity when I can't possibly be two places at once.

I want to tell the House, Mr. Chairman, the dual portfolio will, in the long term, have great benefits for agriculture in British Columbia because the Minister of Economic Development may be taking a little different view of the agricultural industry in this province. Maybe he is looking on it as an industry and not necessarily through the eyes of a farmer, as previous ministers have done. I have mentioned this to many farm groups and they seem to think that there might be some benefits. The Premier has made statements that there will be another minister appointed within 12 months of the day of the appointment, but the opposition wants to twist things around and ask for a separate portfolio. They understand the situation, and statements have been made. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that whether I remain as Minister of Agriculture or I remain as Minister of Economic Development, I want to say that....

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be equally disastrous.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say that it will be of great benefit to the agricultural industry in British Columbia, because then you may have the possibility of more ministers knowing all of the benefits and understanding the department. I think in the long run it will be of great benefit to the department because the Department of Economic Development will assist the Department of Agriculture to aggressively merchandise those farm products we have in British Columbia and which are surplus to the needs of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. So there are many advantages to what is taking place in British Columbia today. Although I don't really anticipate that the opposition would be looking for any advantages in anything that this government does, I did feel it necessary to take a little time in the House and explain to them, Mr. Chairman.

Now the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) wants to drag me again into the chicken-and-egg war. I want to tell him, if he stands and asks questions for the next hundred years, that I have made my statements with regard to the court case and the decisions made. I've made statements as to the position of the government, and if he wishes to question in this House for the next hundred years, well, I'm prepared to sit and listen to him. But I have made my statements and I am standing my ground. I want the member to know that, and I won't tolerate, Mr. Chairman, any member grandstanding in a case which is very ticklish and a case which I have stated very emphatically was before the courts. The law is the law. The law will be obeyed. The decisions have been made. Maybe I should just read to that member for Oak Bay a part of a brief that was recently submitted by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to the Social Credit caucus. It states emphatically....

MR. STUPICH: Were you there?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I was down, as I explained, Mr. Chairman — pardon the interruption, but I'll handle that right now while it's fresh on my mind — fighting for agricultural industry as it pertains to the agricultural industry in western Canada, with the other Ministers of Agriculture in the great city of Medicine Hat where we were discussing the future of agriculture not only in British Columbia but in western Canada. I was away fighting for agriculture in British Columbia, and that, Mr. Chairman, was why I was unable to attend that caucus meeting. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture know that and they understand that.

Now I just want to read this: "The complete operations of producer boards and any activities undertaken by them are financed by the producers themselves." Then there's a very profound statement in this submission to the Social Credit caucus. It says that all producers must share equitably in the burdens as well as the benefits of the system. That is by a very large group of farmers — as a matter of fact it represents the agricultural industry in British Columbia. They themselves have said that in backing up the producer boards all the government has done

[ Page 1449 ]

is provided the legislation.

As I said, decisions have been made in this case and the more grandstanding, the more we try and tear it apart, the more harm is going to be done to those numerous egg producers who have conscientiously over the years, through their producer groups, paid their levies. Dragging this into the area of politics is not going to help those producers in the north who have recently paid their levies.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) can carry on. As I've said before, I've made my statement and it stands.

MR. WALLACE: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the minister in the preliminary part of his recent statement a moment ago accused me of twisting things around. I would ask the minister to withdraw that statement.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If I accused the member for Oak Bay of twisting things around, I will withdraw, absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Unequivocally.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry that I have to try and explain what I'm asking again, because the minister's reply, either by design or otherwise, avoided the question I'm asking. I did not ask the minister — nor am I asking the minister at this moment — to get into the pros and cons of the issue that went to the court, because I can't agree more with the minister that the law must be obeyed. But the question is: should maybe the law be changed? You're the one that does all the shouting here, so don't get annoyed when I do a little bit. I've taken a lot of shouting from you, Mr. Minister, over the last several years and I think I'm entitled to an answer to some of these legitimate questions.

I'm not disagreeing for a moment that the law has to be obeyed, and if the egg producers have broken the law then they have to suffer a penalty. But, Mr. Chairman, very many honourable people very often find that in order to draw attention to something that is wrong in society, they are often left with little option but to break the law. In breaking the law they have the opportunity to point out that the law needs to be changed. This is the evolution of society: that if something needs to be changed it may well involve the breach of some law or other in order to focus the attention of the legislators on the need for law reform. It does seem to me as an observer on this issue, and not a professional, that the tenacity and the persistence and much of the argument which these egg producers have demonstrated make it very likely that at least they have some virtue on their side, or that they have some logic and reasoning on their side.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being repetitious, but the minister in his speech to this House just the other day did say that the government wanted to take a look at marketing boards so that we could find out if they are achieving the goals they were set up to achieve. Without saying anything about offenders or court cases or anything else, I just say that the behaviour of certain people in the industry — not just one and not just two, but several — suggests that all is not what it might be in the manner in which the Egg Marketing Board is functioning.

I've taken the trouble to meet privately with individual egg producers who do not figure in this hassle over the Prince George group. I talked to an egg producer right here in Saanich, and I've talked on the phone with an egg producer in Kamloops. I've not just zeroed in on the two or three individuals who have figured in demonstrations of one kind or another or who have been giving away chickens because they are overproducing eggs. I am simply saying, Mr. Chairman, both in respect to some of the incidents I have quoted and in response to the minister's own comments in this House this session, that there is some reason to have a review of the present system. Again, I just ask the question: when and in what manner is the minister planning to recommend to the cabinet that the kind of turmoil and dissension and public disturbance of the peace, you might call it — how is that to be investigated to find out if, in fact, the present structure and functioning of the board is in keeping with 1976?

Again, I make the point that if the minister has this sense of conviction about the efficiency and the worthwhile nature of the Egg Marketing Board, it would seem to me he can only gain. If he feels so convinced, as he obviously does, that it is a good system and it is working well and the reason there have been troubles is that there are troublemakers, we don't have justification for the position they have presented. If that is the minister's argument — and I assume that it largely is that — why not, in fact, tell us that he is going to carry out a certain type of review at a certain time by a certain number of people, or whatever manner he plans to do it, so that all this can come out in the open? If the minister's argument is just and based on accurate facts, then not only will we clarify a lot of the questions we are asking from this side of the House but I would think that the consumer in British Columbia, who is buying the eggs in the final analysis, would be able to say that The Vancouver Sun is talking nonsense when it says that it is run by producers like a private club.

We have a recent addition to government in the form of a Department of Consumer Services. The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) is obviously working very closely with the Minister of

[ Page 1450 ]

Agriculture, judging by his description of the weekend visit they had to the Kamloops area on April 9. If I left any inference that the minister wasn't in that area on business, I certainly withdraw such an inference. I had no intention of leaving that inference. I was merely making the point that in declining an invitation to the annual meeting of the interior egg producers, they were not informed that the minister was doing some other business in the Kamloops area.

These questions, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister can answer: namely, when and in what manner will his commitment to a review of the Egg Marketing Board be carried out? Can he give us some kind of commitment that if, indeed, the passage of the years has made some of the practices and the method of functioning inappropriate or archaic or out of date, we can expect to see some legislation coming before the House to give the Egg Marketing Board a more modern and more appropriate administrative structure, or whatever other changes might have go be made?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I really would like to explain to the member again that I have made a very definite statement that the government will be taking a look at marketing-board legislation. I really feel that to go on and say more than that at this time, where we are just about to the point.... Before we do anything, I want to tell you that all the producers are going to be on an equal footing because if any announcement is made at this time it could upset the whole deal. It's not going to do anything until that situation is solved and all the producers are on an equal footing; then we will take a look. For me to make any statement to the member today, Mr. Chairman, any different from that could bring this whole situation back into an area where it has been for the last four years now.

It was announced yesterday afternoon by the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) that the egg producers in that area are going to be having a meeting on May 13 with the producer board. That's very encouraging after four years. I think that one of the reasons that this is coming about, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, is because the Minister of Agriculture and the government have stayed out of this conflict between producers. They have the law; they must sort out their own problems. What we are saying, and I will state it again, is that we will take a look at the legislation. If we find it isn't functioning, then there may have to be amendments or changes made. We will take a look. I'm not going to say how here today, I'm not going to say when, I'm not going to say in what form, because anything that I say today may have a bearing on the situation that has existed and has done nobody any good in the province of British Columbia, particularly the egg producers.

Many of the statements that have been made during the last four years have cast reflections on individuals, on other marketing boards other than the marketing board that is involved. It has really been sad that this has come about.

I realize that all those boards must be open to public scrutiny. All legislation that exists in this province must, indeed, at all times be open and subject to criticism by the opposition and, indeed, by the general population of British Columbia, because that is the function of our system.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has, as have I, sat in this House for many, many hours and listened to the chicken-and-egg war rage in one of the past sessions of this Legislature. Some of the things that were said, some of the accusations on individuals — indeed on members of this House, on producers, on the whole situation — really did nobody any good. I don't want to see a recurrence of that.

This situation is just about the point where those involved are going to settle their own dispute. When that is done, and everybody is on an equal basis, an equal footing, then the government will take a look.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of brief questions for the minister. Yesterday I raised the matter regarding programmes within the Department of Agriculture to accommodate student employment over the coming year. The minister did answer me, but I'm not sure he understood the scope of my question.

I appreciate that there is a student summer-employment programme related to work on farms, but what I was interested in learning is whether or not there is a special employment opportunity directly within the department over the coming year and, if so, the number of jobs that might be available, and what kind of specific programmes might they be. Is it simply summer-relief hiring for those people in the department who might be on holiday, or, indeed, is there a special programme to develop work for students, both university and high school, over the coming year? I'd appreciate it if the minister could expand somewhat on those points for me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would be happy to endeavour to answer. We have at the present time approximately 130 college students on summer employment employed within the department. I believe my figures are correct. I'd be quite happy to check out the details. Now that employment situation on the farms is being handled by the Department of Labour. If you have any questions with regard to that, I suggest you ask the question to the Minister of Labour.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I indicated at the

[ Page 1451 ]

outset that I'm aware that there is a programme of employment on farms, and that is not my question. I am asking whether or not there is a programme within the Department of Agriculture for students working in government, in effect. Is there a special programme, or is there a programme of hiring students for temporary summer relief for those employees of the Department of Agriculture who might be on holiday and so on? It's quite dissimilar and quite separate from the programme of students working on farms, and that is what I am eliciting information on.

HON. "MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there is an employment programme; there are approximately 130 students employed at the present time.

MR. KING: Within the department?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I hope I won't be ruled out of order if I call attention to the members of the House that visiting with us is a member who was a former member of the Nelson School District No. 7 School Board, and is once again a member of School District No. 7. I'd like the members to welcome Mrs. Rose Bradshaw.

Speaking to the estimates, I'm glad to see that some information has been forthcoming on the last question, and maybe a new trend is going to sweep the estimates with the Minister of Agriculture.

I've been asking the minister about other duties that he might have in addition to being a minister with a dual portfolio, being on the board of directors of the B.C. Development Corp. and the board of directors of B.C. Rail. I don't know if the minister is aware that there is sort of an industrial development branch, so to speak, within the agricultural industry, a branch within his department, and that in some cases it involves equity position, in other cases loan guarantees and in other instances, direct loans.

For instance, in the case of Chef-Ready Foods Ltd., a Vancouver firm, there is a loan guarantee and, as well, there is an equity position held by the Crown. I would wonder if the minister might be a director on the board of Chef-Ready. Oh, he says he's not — okay.

Another instance would be IOK Poultry Ltd. We have a loan guarantee and also an equity position in IOK Poultry Ltd., as I understand and as I'm informed. Does the minister hold a directorship on IOK Poultry? He might nod his head, or shake it.

Going down alphabetically, Kootenay Dehy Ltd., an alfalfa dehydration plant: loan guarantee plus some equity position of the Crown. Is the minister monitoring directly the activities of those who are perhaps participating on the board of directors?

Panco Poultry Ltd: I believe there's a direct loan, a loan guarantee plus an equity position. There were some questions asked about offers, about a $3 million offer and a $6 million offer for Panco Poultry. Is the minister participating on this board of directors?

Pan-Ready Poultry in Coquitlam: again, a direct loan, Mr. Chairman, a loan guarantee from private funds and an equity position.

In his own riding in Dawson Creek there's South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. There is, again, a loan guarantee and an equity position. Is the minister a member of the board of directors of South Peace Dehy Products Ltd?

Swan Valley Foods: a direct loan, loan guarantee and an equity. Is the minister a director of Swan Valley Foods Ltd.?

There are others, in the alphabetical order I've listed, such as Cloverdale Lettuce and Vegetable Corp., Creston Co-operative Packers, Fraser Valley Organics, which, I understand, is an industry for dehydrating manure. These are loan guarantees not involving an equity position or a direct loan. Top Shelf Feeds in Duncan, Tree Fresh Storage Ltd., Kelowna. One wouldn't really expect that the minister would be on the boards of those, but I might ask if he is on the boards of directors of any of those companies.

I am led to ask this question because of some information that I have, the most current information that I can get in terms of asking, for instance, about such corporations in my riding as Kootenay Dehy. I see Mr. Lorne Uri, Mr. Art Sutcliffe, James Ferguson, Don Huscroft, Len Huscroft, Robert France, Alvin Lang and Rune Anderson are on the board of directors.

I look at South Peace Dehy, and the most current information, of course, Mr. Chairman, is that which can be obtained from the registrar of companies. It, of course, is subject to the most recent annual report. I see in South Peace Dehy, Richard Johnson, Wayne Melia, Clarence Veiner, Claude Vincent, Jack Dobbs, Vic Nobbs, Robert Coutts and Don Pederson.

Panco Poultry: Theodore Cohen, F. Rex Werts and Barry Creelman. One of the reasons I would ask this question is because of a precedent which was perhaps set, and there was a lot of discussion about whether or not ministers should be on Crown corporations or not.

Swan Valley Foods: the directors listed from the registrar of companies are William Piper, Gordon Leversage, Jack Wiggin, Clarence Christianson, William Powril, Sig Pederson and David Stupich.

Mr. Chairman, I would assume that the information is not up to date. I would ask if the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is still a member of the board of directors, or has his name been deleted? Was there a vacancy, or vacancies and is the minister a director on Swan Valley Foods Ltd.? Obviously, I would think, there is a vacancy left. I

[ Page 1452 ]

don't think that the former Minister of Agriculture is still filling in in that capacity, although I understand he's still being invited to agricultural banquets, even though he's a former minister, sometimes when the present minister maybe can't keep up.

MR. LAUK: It's because he's got the answers and the present minister doesn't.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I am asking: was there a vacancy or vacancies? Is the minister now on that board, or are they changing the policy of the government and is there no ministerial representative on that board of directors?

Of course, all of this information on Panco, Swan Valley, South Peace Dehy, Kootenay Dehy, Empire Orchards Ltd., and others that I do have is from the registrar of companies and would not be completely up to date.

That is the question that I'm asking. I hope the little streak of luck that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) had in getting some answers will rub off on me and them maybe we can get on to the Department of Economic Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to get the member a list of all of the companies under the Department of Agriculture with who is....

MR. NICOLSON: All the current directors.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be quite happy to provide you with that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just a very simple little question to the minister. Hopefully he will start out by saying that he will answer a couple of the questions I asked him yesterday. I heard him over the loudspeaker earlier on today talking about the promotion of British Columbia food products and I asked him quite specifically yesterday if there was a new promotional campaign being planned. I'd be glad if he'd tell me that.

I'd also be glad if he would tell us in some detail about the disposition of the world food assistance which is in the budget, which I asked him to do, because I think that's very important.

I'd like to ask one more question. He's had representation from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, I think, and others for renaming his department the Department of Food and Agriculture. The idea is that under this department should be groups such as, for example, the shellfish and fish-farming industry — all of those products of the sea as well as the land that are essentially husbandry activities as opposed to the catch of the wild.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aquaculture.

MR. GIBSON: Aquaculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gary started it.

MR. LAUK: That's right, I did. I start everything good in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Some people in those industries would like to be able to take advantage of the services of the minister's department and particularly, I think, the income assurance features of his department. I'd ask the minister what he thinks of those representations and if he is inclined favourably in that direction.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll answer the last question first. I think if you wish to go through the Hansard of the agricultural committee when they were touring the province in the summer of 1973, you will see where I've stated that the name should be changed from "agriculture" to "food production."

AN HON. MEMBER: A pet project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, not a pet project, just a feeling that I have. I want to tell the member, Mr. Chairman, through you, that this involves a lot of change of legislation. We have to go through and change all our Acts. I'm not even saying it's going to happen, but it could — all things are possible. We'll have to leave the word "agriculture" in there because there are a lot of other things like horses and orchids and flowers and things that still come under agriculture. Under "food production" we could take in oyster beds and fishing and things like that.

With regard to the member's question, Mr. Chairman, with regard to food promotion, I want to tell him that this Department of Agriculture is always looking at new ways to promote food in British Columbia — B.C.-grown to keep our agricultural industry healthy.

With regard to the world food assistance, I did make a lengthy statement in the House — and it's in Hansard — answering all of your questions. It was a two-page statement which was prepared to alleviate any fears that the members of the opposition might have with regard to this very important aspect of agriculture. There were no changes, basically; everything remains the same. We're still going to support the education programmes. The whole statement is in Hansard. I'd be quite happy to have a copy dug up for the member, but it's all in there.

[ Page 1453 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister has satisfactorily answered questions in regard to the egg-marketing issue. I wasn't wishing to go into a lengthy debate, but I think that there's something about this minister's particular attitude in avoiding dealing with matters that he would rather not deal with that is similar to his attitude on questions on the B.C. Railway. He puts the onus on the opposition that if they ask certain questions they're going to endanger settlements. When I asked about the financial statement on the BCR, I couldn't have it from the minister because it might endanger negotiations going on with the unions. Now I can't get the answers — because the minister says there are some very highly sensitive meetings or discussions going on and that if one MLA in the House asks a question and gets answered, the whole thing will fall apart. Mr. Chairman, surely that absolutely justifies the nature of my questions or the questions of any opposition member. If the whole system's in such a mess and so fragile that by asking a question and having the minister answer this will somehow or other destroy or....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. WALLACE: "Come on," he says. I'm only quoting the minister's answer of about 10 minutes ago, that he can't tell us any more because if he gives a specific answer to some of these questions....

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): We've been debating that for four years.

MR. WALLACE: There again, the chirpy voice from Fort George also justifies my arguments completely. He says we've been debating this for four years, and we're no further forward. That's exactly the point. I'm asking questions.

MR. LLOYD: Are you afraid it's going to get resolved? Is that what's bothering you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Fort George, who is a new member to the House, reminds me that we've been talking about this issue for four or five years. I think the fact that it comes up repetitively by one or other or more members of the opposition points out the fact that we are not solving a problem. To make the gratuitous suggestion that any member of this House doesn't want a solution and that we're debating it so that we can prevent or distort a solution, I think, really doesn't do the House any credit.

I feel that the consumer in British Columbia wants to know just why this is a repetitive recurring, acrimonious issue which does, in fact, come up year after year after year in the Legislature. It's a little bit like the aspects I mentioned earlier, that certain people who are concerned finish up breaking the law. It is very often because they feel in their conscience that the way in which things are being done are not sensible or appropriate or reasonable and their only way of drawing attention to the deficiencies is to take certain actions which might bring them into conflict with the law.

If we haven't learned in our society by 1976 that demonstrations of one kind or another, whether they be in the farmyard or on the Legislature steps, mean that some groups in society feel that they're not getting fair play, if we haven't learned that, then indeed out society has learned very little in the post-war years.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister, in making the point that he will not say any more about what he intends to do, or to enlarge the degree and manner in which he wants to look at marketing boards — to give me that answer on the pretext that by answering he would endanger to a very great degree some agreement which he insists is only two weeks away — is just asking the opposition to be really rather naive after four years of debates when neither government, the last one or this one, seems to have really solved the accusations of discrimination against certain producers which figures in the Garrish reports.

If you really want to go back through all that, I've got all the material here. We can go back and discuss that if you like, but it only serves to justify, Mr. Chairman, some of the comments made by the opposition back bench that this has been a continual issue year after year after year in this House. Even although the Garrish report made it quite plain that there was room for review and change in some of the functioning of the board, here we are in 1976 — and I suppose in that respect it would be fair to ask the minister to what degree he agrees with the Garrish report and what recommendations have in fact been implemented and if so..... Again I would suggest that because we have continuing turmoil in the industry, whatever reasoning was behind the recommendations hasn't worked.

Now I don't appreciate trying to do a great deal of homework and trying to ask responsible questions in this House and having this secretive response from the minister, that by answering questions honestly and factually he would do more harm than good.

MR. KERSTER: You didn't get any answers for four years, and you can't wait two weeks.

[ Page 1454 ]

MR. WALLACE: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that two weeks from now if we don't have the answers....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member interjecting knows very well — at least maybe being a newcomer he doesn't know very well — that the opposition has certain opportunities and only certain opportunities at certain times to ask questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the question period?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Mr. Chairman. The interjections become less and less justified. They're asking now if this is question period. Can you imagine a more nonsensical comment, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 3, please.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you'd stop these interjections, I wouldn't be wasting time trying to answer them because they're all stupid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I have just done that. Vote 3.

MR. WALLACE: Just in case the member feels that that was a legitimate question, the whole purpose of debating estimates — in case you really want to learn in this House — is to ask questions.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's what I'm doing. That's right. And I'm just trying to further educate the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) by pointing out that we have a certain order of business in the House and that certain items of business are called at certain times, which leaves the opposition with only certain well-defined opportunities to ask these questions. I can't get up after we get to the Minister of Transport and ask him why the questions I was promised an answer to in two weeks haven't appeared in two months.

MR. KERSTER: There's no closure on this debate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if I could get back to the vote — and I'm trying to stay in order.

This issue....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, do you want me to start at the beginning and ask it all over again?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I've asked the question several times, Mr. Chairman, and I'm only being repetitious because the minister hasn't answered it.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The minister has acknowledged on at least two occasions and it is well reported in the press....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ask me a question. I'll give you an answer to it now. That's a challenge.

MR. WALLACE: It's a challenge, but I am very doubtful about the outcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just try me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go on, try him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You ask me a question — a specific question — and I'll give you an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I am a trusting person; the question is simply this: when and in what manner does the minister plan to review the function of the Egg Marketing Board?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know when and I'm not sure, really, what form the review will take at this time. But I want to inform the member, Mr. Chairman, through you, that I have said in this House — and it has never been said in this House before by any other government, or it hasn't been said outside this House by any previous Minister of Agriculture, or by any farmer, or by anybody anywhere in the whole world — that we would take a look at marketing boards. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It hasn't happened. I have said it: we'll take a look at them.

MR. LAUK: You'll call them together and have nothing to see. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is a serious matter, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. But you'd never take

[ Page 1455 ]

agriculture seriously because you don't have any and you don't really care about agriculture. I'll accept that; you've proven that already.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We will have to take a look at the questions involved, and we will have to answer to the general public some of the questions they have thought up over a period of time. It is because of marketing boards that the price of food is high? We will have to review them; we'll have to take a look at them. I don't know at this time what form that review will take and I don't know when it will happen. But I've made a statement to an hon. member of this House, and I think we'll have to leave it at that.

I don't know. I can't answer your question further than "I don't know." I've tried to answer your question, but I can't tell you something I don't know at this time.

MR. LAUK: You don't know.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): That never stopped you before.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What other minister has ever stood in this House before and said that he didn't know? I'm being honest. When I don't know something, I don't know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a new qualification for minister?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly.

MR. LEA: That means you won't be answering any questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I do know some; I have some answers. But I want to be perfectly candid with the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's right, and I want to be truthful with the House.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given an undertaking to give me the current, up-to-date directorships of the companies. I'd just ask the minister if he would like me to send over my list, or if they have them there. When we finish your estimates under the Agriculture vote we will be dealing with Economic Development. I'd like to know if it would be ready in time when we come back to the other votes, the sub-votes and so on, of the Department of Agriculture, once we get beyond vote 3 and on to 4 and 5 and 6 and so on.

Also, I did ask the other day about the annual report. Does the minister anticipate that the annual report for the last...will it be ready, perhaps, by the time we get back from the Economic Development, your ministerial salary and so on?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the member's frustration and anger with not having the report here, because if I were in your position I'd be angry too; I really would be. It should be here; it's at the Queen's Printer. It will be done shortly.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It will be here shortly. Yes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now listen, if I'm going to provide a list, I want to make sure it's accurate. So I want to go and check to make sure that there haven't been changes that I don't know about. I'll go to the Attorney-General's department and check it out through the list of companies. You can do the same yourself. I'll be happy to do it for you, but I want to make sure it's accurate, Mr. Member. Go through the companies'.... In the office up there. I don't want to provide you with a list that isn't accurate.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister has not answered my questions, and I've noticed he hasn't answered others. But he did make some comments that give rise to further questions, I'm afraid.

Mr. Chairman, I asked: can the minister confirm that there were two offers made recently for Panco Poultry, one for $3 million and one for $6 million?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I answered that.

MR. LAUK: The minister did not answer. He said: "Well, we have various offers on my desk. There is no cheque on them; there is no written-out bank draft." That's not an answer, Mr. Chairman. He's got to take his portfolio seriously. I want an answer: are there two offers for Panco Poultry, and in what amounts? We are entitled to have that information whether he thinks that the offers are serious or not.

I have other questions — many other questions. What concerns me about the recent announcement concerning farmland, this afternoon and with respect

[ Page 1456 ]

to the Spetifore property, is something that the Minister of Agriculture should turn his mind to. He's treating this matter in a very frivolous way.

MR. LEA: Don't ask the impossible.

MR. LAUK: Prime agricultural land was taken out of the land freeze for the purported purpose of a potato factory.

Now we hear this afternoon, after I said yesterday that this gentleman had contributed substantially to the Social Credit campaign coffers, that he's withdrawn the project for a potato factory. Is this land to remain, therefore, outside the freeze? If it's going to remain outside the freeze, is the Land Commission's order going to be valid...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like you to bring the member, the Vancouver Centre lawyer, to order. He should know the Land Commission is not under my jurisdiction. He should know that the questions he's asked are completely out of order. I'd just like to inform the member, who was a minister of the Crown, who is also a lawyer and should know this, that the Land Commission is not under my jurisdiction.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the old crocodile, is in his place today. You waited for the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to come back, eh? He's waiting back there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 3.

MR. LAUK: Vote 3, yes, vote 3. Agriculture. Taking care of such species as crocodiles, who are waiting behind that poor little Premier...he's waiting for him to fall asleep and he's going to gobble him up.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, now, the minister interrupted my comments, and I was going to relate them to vote 3, Mr. Chairman, and it's this: that the Minister of Agriculture's responsible, as minister, for the preservation of farmland whether the Land Commission is under another minister or not. Now is he doing the double-shuffle here today and avoiding answering these difficult questions, answering these charges simply because of a technical matter that the Land Commission's under the administrative authority of another minister? Nonsense! He's responsible for Agriculture and the preservation of farmland. Is Mr. Spetifore going to be permitted to keep this land outside of the land freeze?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. LAUK: If so, what is the design from the beginning, to put it into housing or other forms of industry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: These are questions that should be answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe this should be discussed under the Land Commission vote. Would you proceed with vote 3, please?

MR. LAUK: Well, I want an answer from the minister with respect to Panco Poultry and I want an answer about what his position is with respect to Spetifore. Is he going to allow this kind of thing?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sit down and I'll answer.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) obviously has no control over the administration of his department and the agencies that come under him. Perhaps the Cardinal Richelieu of this government can take a hand and have a little chat with the Minister of Environment and tell him, you know, to put his comb in his pocket and pay some attention to the serious matters involved in farmland in this province.

Now, you know, one final question of the minister, Mr. Chairman. For the first time in the province since the Medicine Hat conference — where Rudyard Kipling once went through...and now another great distinction, the Minister of Agriculture was there....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He was in Medicine Hat and I think he had a little bit too much medicine because, you know, he didn't say to the press at the time that agriculture was discussed. Now he stands up in his estimates and he says that we discussed agriculture. Well, I have some questions of the minister....

MR. KERSTER: Tell us all about your questions.

MR. LAUK: This is the first time we heard about it. What was discussed with respect to agriculture? Don't tell me about the freight rates; I know all about that. You're saying that, you know, your Premier put his name on a communique that said that he deplored the idea that the user should pay the cost of the continental railroads. I wonder if the ferry patrons in British Columbia paid any attention to that. The

[ Page 1457 ]

Premier of this province — and I suppose the Minister of Agriculture — was upset that the users should pay the cost of the continental railroads, but in our own province, the users of the ferries have to pay the cost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 3.

MR. LAUK: It's very inconsistent. What's goose for the gander — or whatever it is, you know.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I want to know what was discussed in agriculture. What were British Columbia's points? What were their briefs, and was there any common ground reached? I'm sure the minister can tell us all he knows within three minutes,, but I'd like some opinion about this dreadful situation with respect to the Spetifore land and what his position is, and I'd like to know what was discussed at Medicine Hat. I'd like him to explain the inconsistency of this government with respect to the philosophy that the user should pay the cost of continental railways, but not the cost of a ferry system which is the extension of the highway. What I mean to say is, you expect the user to pay the cost of the ferry system, but you're upset that the federal government wants the user to pay the cost of the continental system. That's an inconsistent stand. Are you confused?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, but you are.

MR. LAUK: I will be after your answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, I was going to let that member be confused. I didn't want to tell the House about that member not doing his homework, not really understanding.... For the last two days he's stood in this House and made an issue about the Spetifore farm...

MR. KERSTER: He wants to build a bridge over it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and about the Land Commission, taking land from the agricultural land reserve. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that member, as usual, is away off base, hasn't done his homework, and I hate to tell this House, you know.... I should let him rest in his ignorance because he seems quite happy, but I want to tell the member, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the member and for the benefit of the House, that there was no application made by Spetifore Farm to take any land out of the agricultural land reserve. What they did, Mr. Chairman, was ask if a potato plant on agricultural land was a suitable use. It's well within the terms of the legislation, but there's this member who stood in this House for two days making accusations about everything — about the poor and about the Social Credit government which left the same directors on the Land Commission and really has no influence over them, as the member would try and intimate to this House. He talks about land that we put back in the agricultural land reserves....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, I do believe this should be discussed under Environment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not really, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, it comes under my vote. I am responsible for seeing that that great industry in British Columbia goes ahead — that great agricultural industry.

MR. LAUK: Is he challenging the Chair?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that it is perfectly legitimate to have an agricultural plant on agricultural land. That's why you fellows over there took thousands and thousands of acres of rocks...

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... and put them in the agricultural land zone. You knew that you can put a plant for pullets on rocks. That's the only justification I can see for you taking into the land reserve all those thousands and thousands of acres of gravel pits and rock piles, unless you were going to really take over the use of all land in British Columbia. Maybe that was your motive, but you did do it.

MR. LAUK: You're destroying the preservation of farmland.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We are not destroying the preservation of farmland. I'll tell you, farmland will be for agricultural use. You are a lawyer and you should know, Mr. Member, very well that you have made a farce of this whole debate — making fun of agriculture in this Legislature during the past two days! The people in this province will know what a farce he is trying to make of it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, would you withdraw the word "liar"?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't call him a liar.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw it anyway for next time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right — just in case I do.

[ Page 1458 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why you had that in mind, but I ask you to withdraw it. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that city-slicker lawyer is trying to drag up something out of the depths of that great conference in Medicine Hat, but he's having a difficult time, Mr. Chairman. There were communiques issued. The communique issued after the Medicine Hat conference stated very clearly the decisions that were reached at that great conference. I would be most happy to get the member a copy of the communication on agriculture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there was a communique issued on agriculture, but again the member doesn't pay any attention. He comes into this House ill-informed. I wish he would do his homework. I don't want to do all his homework for him. I don't mind doing some of it, but all of it — no.

MR. LAUK: Are you talking about that communique on agriculture?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about the communique on agriculture, yes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I hope when the estimates are done the member will come to my office and I'll draw him a picture. I'll be quite happy to sit down and draw him a picture — some diagrams and everything else.

MR. LAUK: Do it now. We've got lots of time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now he is trying to relate ferry use, which is subsidized.... We are not asking the users to pay all the cost of the ferries, Mr. Chairman. But again that group over there is trying so desperately to find something to grab onto to make this debate worthwhile.

MR. LAUK: Are you being arrogant?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. As a matter of fact, I am a very humble man, and the member knows it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: You've got a great deal to be humble about.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I have. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do...and the member full well knows, because he argued for British Columbia at the previous WEOC conference and he argued for western Canada.

MR. LAUK: Correct.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But there seems to be...and I am not going to get into transportation. Let's talk transportation under Economic Development.

MR. LAUK: All right.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We were trying to reach common ground on income assurance programmes. It was an honest and sincere effort on behalf of all the western provinces to say to Ottawa: "Look, you subsidize everything else and you encourage everything else. How about standing up and protecting all the people of Canada by seeing that agriculture remains a viable industry in all of western Canada so that all of the people of Canada can benefit from low prices of food with better production and better foodstuffs so that we won't be at the mercy of the world?" Instead of just looking at British Columbia we'll look at all western Canada, and we want Ottawa to look at all western Canada. That's what the conference was all about, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given an undertaking to get me the information on the various directorships. I would just caution the minister not to go to the registrar of companies, because the latest information they have is the annual report of the previous year, which lists the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) as one of the directors. He's not a director any more — he's resigned. Maybe he's been replaced and maybe he hasn't. But one question, I think, the minister can answer right here: is he on any of those 13 companies? He surely knows which companies he is director of.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not so sure.

MR. LAUK: He could give us that information today. I think it would be most helpful.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I told the member that I would provide him with an up-to-date list.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister is playing games. What is he trying to hide? What's the big stall, Mr. Minister? You certainly know if you're on a board of directors. I'm not going to say that you're misleading us if you don't give us every last one, but you must know if you're on more than just BCDC and B.C. Rail. Mr. Chairman, when I was a

[ Page 1459 ]

minister myself, I knew that I was on the board of directors of Dunhill Development, for instance. Certainly when I resigned, when we changed governments, as is the gentlemanly thing to do, although it wasn't done properly...what should have been done was that a meeting should have been called and we should have handed in our resignations at the meeting, in an orderly manner, replaced ourselves and sort of regenerated....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are relating this to vote 3, are you?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. I would point out, though, that changes in boards of directors, like that of BCDC, which is part of the Minister of Agriculture's responsibility.... When the BCDC board of directors was announced there was a press release that pointed out that people like Maurie Young, president of Finning Tractor and a person who, by the way, I tried to get the services of as a very well-respected member of the business community, but he was too busy at that time to serve...and I'm glad to see that now he's able to serve the people of British Columbia, and I'm sure he has a great deal to offer, Mr. Minister.

The minister had a press release. He pointed out that people like Mr. Blakely, former president of the Creston Brewery, were put on the board of directors. In other departments people were put on boards of directors — people like Edith Gunning, another person who, although she is a Conservative, I was very seriously considering and would have asked her to serve in one of the housing capacities, because she had served Saanich.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 3, please.

MR. NICOLSON: In a case like Swan Valley Foods where an obvious vacancy arose, as it did similarly because of an election, one of the direct responsibilities of this minister.... Just so you might know, Mr. Chairman, the reason why I've mentioned these others is that it was part of the orderly changeover of government that, naturally, ministers of a former government would not be asked to serve on — well, maybe they would, if it was a coalition or something, but certainly not under the circumstances that we saw with these two philosophies, which are sometimes not considered to be too compatible.

So there was some changeover. When I phoned the registrar of companies and I asked about Kootenay Dehy and a manure-dehydrating company and various things, it set my mind to wondering when I noticed that the member for Nanaimo, who is not only an NDP member of this House but a past president of the New Democratic Party several times over, a former Minister of Finance and former Minister of Agriculture, was still listed with the registrar of companies as being a director of Swan Valley Foods Ltd., I thought "this cannot be." There's a good reason....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe you have canvassed this.

MR. NICOLSON: You understand that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand it.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, then. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will understand this question which I am going to relate to his ministerial vote. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, surely this did not escape your notice. Surely you knew that the former Minister of Agriculture could not continue to serve in that capacity. Surely you considered that there should be some replacement. Surely he resigned, as all gentlemen would resign, and surely there's been some replacement. Are you or are you not his replacement? Are you or are you not on that board of directors?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I stated previously, Mr. Chairman, just so there is no error whatsoever, I want to make sure that the member is provided with all the information. I said previously — and I don't wish to take up the time of the House as that member is doing — that I would supply him with a complete list.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, that's been canvassed, I believe. The hon. minister has stated that he would provide you with a list.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, some of these companies that I've mentioned have experienced some difficulties. The return to the Kootenay Dehy plant, I understand, is something like $10 an acre, whereas if a person was simply to have used the normal baling methods, I think that they could achieve something in the order of $160 to $200 return per acre. Perhaps the minister's concerned about Kootenay Dehy; perhaps he's placed himself on that board. Certainly there was a schedule with Swan Valley Foods to first of all open up a Richmond plant for entrees, and then, as a second phase, to open up a plant in Creston, which is in my riding, so it does give me some cause for concern.

The people in Nelson-Creston note strange things. They note two huge bulk trucks of potatoes coming out of the plant and being dumped — dumping potatoes, Mr. Chairman. This is in a time when people around the world are starving. It's something I have to answer to, and this is my only opportunity to get answers out of that minister. If he is on that board of directors, who's replaced the Minister of Agriculture?

[ Page 1460 ]

That has to be the height of ignorance, and the minister isn't afraid to admit to ignorance and nor am I. Ignorance is no sin if you don't know about something. But it's up to him to tell me whether or not he is ignorant of who the replacement for the former Minister of Agriculture is and if he's on that board at this time or not. It's an urgent matter, Mr. Chairman. What's he trying to cover up? What's he trying to hide?

You know, I go to my riding and the things which are going on frankly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you're imputing improper motives, and I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: Imputing what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That he is covering up, hiding.

MR. NICOLSON: I withdraw anything that imputes an improper motive to the minister, without qualification.

The minister is delaying information which he has at hand, surely. For instance, he can surely tell me if he is or is not on that board of directors. I would try to stress the urgency of this by giving some other examples, Mr. Chairman, which I'm sure will alarm you as they've alarmed me.

People have come up to me and they've said that truckloads of potatoes are being dumped by Swan Valley Foods. I want to know what's wrong. They ask me what's wrong. Maybe there's a good reason; maybe there's a good explanation. Maybe it's not what it appears to be; maybe there's a very good reason why truckloads of potatoes are being dumped. Maybe there was some malfunction; maybe the controlled atmosphere storage went awry; maybe the temperature rose; maybe they raised the temperature of some potatoes for a few days. I don't want to necessarily know about the potatoes and why they're being dumped.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you asking for?

MR. NICOLSON: I really want to know what will stop me from having to ask a whole bunch of questions. If you understand that question, you'll tell me if you are on the board of directors or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair, please?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to explain the rationale then. You know, there is concern, Mr. Minister. I think there's a logical explanation for those potatoes being dumped, and I don't know that potatoes are being dumped. Maybe they're dumping rocks or something that are coming out when they're culling the potatoes. That is the kind of thing that's being said because people are not being kept informed of what's happening with Swan Valley Foods.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your facts straight.

MR. NICOLSON: I could cite other examples of concern. There is supposed to be a start-up of potato processing now that the entire plant is going. When is it going to start up? I thought it was supposed to start up this spring. You're on the board of directors and you should know, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The minister, having given this information...I can certainly continue this under the specific vote because I think it's clearly covered under one of the sub-votes of the Department of Agriculture. I'd be pleased to do that. I've had to be in this House, I guess, because the minister wanted company. He likes to look across at my shining, smiling face. He's kept me in here for his whole estimate knowing I'd have to keep asking this and keep asking it before I could give him his salary vote. And there's not even any salary in this job for you. It's only through Economic Development that you're getting paid, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

We can pursue this further, but I would like to ask the minister to consider, perhaps when he comes back after having disposed of his Economic Development ministerial vote, to come back hopefully with some information — a bit of a status report. Tell us when we're going to get on with creating jobs in the Creston Valley. People want to know. People are looking for summer employment. They're looking for the anticipated start-up of the potato-processing plant. It's a very bold undertaking, and the government has seen fit to participate in this. I think it's something we can be proud of, because there's interest being shown all over the world — in Ireland, Iran, the United States, eastern Canada, and places all over the world.

People would like to know, and I'm just serving notice to the minister that there is concern in the valley; there are questions, and I'm sure there is a lot of misinformation. That's my concern. It's the misinformation that goes on when people start to speculate. I could confide to you privately the dangers of some of that speculation and some of the things that are being said that I don't want to repeat in this House.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman regarding the immediate past comment about misinformation, I think it would be most

[ Page 1461 ]

appropriate now for the House to be apprised of a situation which was before us yesterday regarding this potato-processing plant in the municipality of Delta. Reading from yesterday's Blues, quoting the member for Vancouver Centre...

MR. LAUK: Go ahead.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ...in part it says:

"But is it his democratic right" — referring to Mr. Spetifore — "to receive the release of his land from the Land Commission Act, prime agricultural land, when we already have established an industrial assembly by the BCDC, a Crown corporation under the control and now under the chairmanship of the Minister of Agriculture?"

The truth of the matter is that the land is not released, has not been released from the agricultural land reserve. No application was received to release the land that was acted upon. The land in question onto which the plant was to go was applied under a regulation of the Act which permits agricultural process. The land remains within the agricultural land reserve. As to political pressures which were suggested previously, it may be of interest to the House that the matter was not brought before the Department of Environment for comment by the Land Commission. The application was processed by the Land Commission, by Regulation 9375, Land use Regulations, (B21a) and was handled internally by the Land Commission. But just to clarify the point, the land remains within the agricultural land reserve, contrary to the suggestion that it was released from the ALR.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Land Commission released the use of this land for industrial purposes. They may describe it as "agricultural," and this gave rise to the suspicions on the part of the opposition. It is not an agricultural processing use in a sense envisaged by that particular regulation of the Land Commission Act, unless the regulations have been changed since the coalition took office. It's class 2 primary agricultural land, and approval was granted for this use for what they called "agriculturally oriented industries." Does that mean Panco Poultry could set up a plant there? Does that mean that we can put up a textile plant? That's related to agriculture too.

What utter nonsense! It's a misuse of the Act and that minister knows it, and the charges have not been answered. Is there going to be a disclosure about how much money this man donated to the Social Credit campaign fund?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. LAUK: And why did he get this non-conforming use on agricultural land that he has since withdrawn? Is that permit for a non-conforming use going to be withdrawn by the Land Commission, and will not the minister order that withdrawal? Or is this a back door way to get a non-conforming use on agricultural land by saying you're going to put up a potato factory and when there is a little bit of heat you're going to pull back....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: That land has still got a non-conforming....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member. Are you imputing any improper motives to any member of this House?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Point of order.

Now that there is a break in the action, so to speak, the suggestion was clearly made by that member that in exchange for a campaign donation a certain right was granted to him. Nobody can deny that that was the imputation that a normal person would take from those words, and I demand that he withdraw it and I ask the Chair to enforce that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, no such imputation, no such inference is made. I said I wanted a disclosure of the amount of money paid by Spetifore to the Social Credit campaign funds.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Certainly the public of this province is entitled to know...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: ...who is dealing with the government directly on government and public affairs and...

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...how much money they paid over to campaign funds. When the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) stood in his place today, he sounded not like an MLA but an advocate for the gentleman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member. If you're imputing improper motives to any member of this House, would you kindly withdraw, please?

MR. LAUK: I withdraw any kind of inference

[ Page 1462 ]

somebody may have drawn that I may be imputing improper motives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you proceed, then?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. MAIR: Surely that's not good enough. He's clearly tied in what he alleges is a campaign donation with something received by that person who made the donation, allegedly. Now you can't just simply, Mr. Chairman, surely, stand up and say: "I deny any imputation that somebody may have taken from those words."

Those words are capable of only one meaning. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I ask that you insist that the member withdraw those words and withdraw the sense in which they were uttered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, if an implication was made, will you kindly withdraw?

MR. LAUK: I already have.

Interjections.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He already has.

MR. LAUK: You know, the Minister of Consumer Services has so little to do, Mr. Chairman. He comes in here and interrupts other ministers' estimates. He's constantly heckling and interrupting debates with inane comments, swinging back and forth in his chair. He has no mail to sign, nothing to read, nothing to do in his office....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He's sitting here anxiously during question period, hoping somebody will ask him a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order!

MR. LAUK: He has nothing to do. He's unemployed, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have a point of order, Hon. Minister? The hon. minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: It may very well be true I have time on my hands.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: One at a time.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll give you my point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: My point of order is simply this....

MR. LEA: You're not rising on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: I do. I am on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have recognized the minister. Will you kindly sit down?

MR. LEA: But he has no point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly sit down? We'll decide that in a moment.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I did attempt a light-hearted comment at the beginning of my point of order. I think that the member is, as usual, inaccurate as well as amusing, but....

MR. LEA: Not a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, that isn't, but have patience. Well, stop talking then.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the remarks that member for Vancouver Centre just made still do not in any way withdraw the remarks he made earlier. I once again ask the Chair to force him to withdraw those remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the Chair is satisfied that a withdrawal has taken place. I recognize the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this is up to the Chair's discretion entirely. I have recognized the hon. minister. Will you kindly sit down, please?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I have not

[ Page 1463 ]

recognized you yet. You can make that motion, if you wish, when I recognize you. I have recognized the hon. minister; will you please...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the Hon. Minister of Human Resources.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: the hon. minister rose in his place and you recognized him but not on a point of order. I took my seat as a result of points of order that were raised on the opposite side. When a member resumes his seat as a result of points of order, he's entitled to retake his place in the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it was my impression that you had completed your remarks.

MR. LAUK: Not at all. I took my seat as a result of points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. minister defer? Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, when anyone deals in such a manner with the Land Commission of this province, all former associations with the government must be disclosed. I'm not suggesting that there was something improper, but what I am saying is that the spectre of something being improper can be raised in the public mind unless these disclosures are made, and it is essential that they do be made.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I would suggest that the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) look over the Land Commission's order. He should look it over himself and he should pay a little bit more attention. As he claims that nothing really crosses his desk, I'm wondering what he does all day. He never heard of Halfmoon Bay; he's never heard of the Spetifore property; he doesn't know who attended the secret meetings to get the results of the Thompson River pollution study in Kamloops. He doesn't know anything.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough for the people of British Columbia. They want to know whether people are getting any special advantage, or whether everybody will be treated fairly and equally in this province at the hands of Crown agencies, boards and what have you.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Just like you did when you took the files. Just like you guys.

MR. LAUK: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture has not yet answered those questions. The Minister of Environment has intervened in this debate, intervened in the debate on the Minister of Agriculture's estimates, and he's made a statement.

I want to know: is the non-conforming use of this property going to be withdrawn by the Land Commission? I want that minister to tell this committee that he will insist that the Land Commission withdraw that non-conforming use. It was specifically granted for that use, industrial use. Although we don't even agree with that non-conforming use, we want, at least, that to be withdrawn now that Mr. Spetifore has indicated he's not proceeding with the project.

I wonder if the Minister of Environment could also stand up and answer the question whether or not this land can be reclaimed, whether the sand fill or what have you over the land has made it useless for agriculture. What kind of action can be taken against citizens who will so abuse the law as to prefill land before having proper permission and rezoning to proceed with the project? Those are the things that have to be answered in this House.

I wish the Minister of Agriculture would also answer my question on Panco Poultry. We do want to get finished with the Agriculture estimates, but it may be impossible unless he comes up with an answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I've never heard anything quite so phony from anyone as what I've just been....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, may I remind us that we are on vote 3. Perhaps if we could restrict our remarks to that vote it will help us to make progress in the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: could you ask the minister to withdraw the word "phony"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, was the word "phony" applied to the member directly?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I applied "phony" to the member, and I'll withdraw the word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Hon. Minister, to vote 3.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When the Spetifore matter was brought before the Delta council, I understand the mayor and council were very much in support of the proposal of a potato-processing plant

[ Page 1464 ]

on that particular land. I know, as the member has been told, that the land was not removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve, but the use was permitted by the commission.

However, I can recall during the time that I was mayor in Surrey the previous NDP government proceeded to allow a lettuce-processing plant in the Agricultural Land Reserve without as much as approaching that municipal council. That municipal council was very much opposed to what was proposed on that piece of land, yet that very same government went ahead with that processing plant on that piece of Agricultural Land Reserve land.

Everything that he was saying about what was wrong here had been taken up with the Delta municipal council. They, instead, did that very thing without as much as referring to the municipal council of Surrey. So, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who spoke so piously, has to say about that. He was a part of what happened; he was well aware of what was taking place, we must assume, yet he said nothing then.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He said nothing then. He has obviously forgotten.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member should do his homework. He should be aware of what took place prior to this government taking office. He should be well aware; he should remember; he should stay in his place and not speak at all.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate part of the answer which the minister gave to my former questions. There are one or two others that he, perhaps, forgot about. One in particular was my question about the composition of the super marketing board — that it has only appointed five members when it is constituted that there should be 10. I wonder if the minister would just answer the simple question: is he to be appointing more members to the superboard? Will a percentage of these members represent consumers' associations? This is a question that is frequently discussed.

When he was courteous and answered my question about the Egg Marketing Board, he did mention that producers would be put on an equal footing. That was one commitment the minister gave this afternoon, and I appreciate that. I would be grateful if he could verify more precisely what that means. If from different regions of the province the representation on the board will be changed — if that is what he meant — then I accept that as a very valid and important contribution towards solving the overall problem as it seems to afflict the egg producers.

He did say that the producers would be put on an equal footing. I would just like a very simple enlargement or clarification of that statement — if it means a more equal regional representation by producers on the board.

There were one or two other questions, Mr. Chairman, that I think it is very important to ask because I get letters from people in the industry around the province asking specific questions that, really, only the department can answer.

I am thinking particularly of the production of vegetables in British Columbia. One of my consultants in the business says that vegetable returns have produced rock-bottom prices during the past year and that the real problem — the minister has already referred to this, I think, in the budget debate — is the importing of Washington and Oregon products.

One of the inquiries I have had was written in March where the writer says that in March California asparagus and celery were already on the market, and that when our B.C. product comes on the market it would be very difficult to compete in price.

One of the very recent editions of Viewpoint, put out by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, talks in very sad terms about the future for some of these products, largely because of the low price of imports. I know that the minister isn't responsible for what can cross our national borders, but they point out that Taiwan has almost ruined the mushroom industry in British Columbia, and that we are on the verge of ruining the canned-vegetable industry.

Some of the figures, Mr. Chairman, the consumers of British Columbia should hear about, whether or not we have solutions. The production of strawberries in 1967 was 15 million pounds in British Columbia, and in 1974 it was half of that — or just over half of that — eight million pounds.

The voice of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture says that crops produced in previous years in British Columbia are virtually non-existent today: processing tomatoes, asparagus, cucumbers, carrots and beets.

The minister himself, Mr. Chairman, was quoted back in March — and the minister perhaps can correct this if it is inaccurate. He is reported to have said that people in British Columbia want to keep the farmland, they want to earn B.C. wages and pay U.S. food prices. Now I can see the problem. U.S. vegetables and other products are brought in at much reduced prices, or much reduced in comparison to B.C. prices, because of the very aspects that the minister mentioned in the House on April 8 of this session. He pointed out that farmland in British Columbia.... I'm reading from page 708 of Hansard of April 8:

Farmland in British Columbia is 43 per cent

[ Page 1465 ]

more expensive than it is in the state of Washington. Farm labour is 25 per cent more expensive in British Columbia than it is in the state of Washington.

So presumably the cost of producing agricultural products in British Columbia is that much higher.

I wonder, since this government has stated a strong commitment to better federal-provincial relations...I understand that the import duties applied against some of the Washington and Oregon products are the same as they were 35 years ago. If we have to justify putting up ferry fares because they haven't changed since 1960, I wonder if the minister could tell us again when and how he has been dealing with the federal government and what response he has received. Because if we are trying to produce our own crops at 1976 costs, when Washington and Oregon are shipping in products to British Columbia, paying import duty at a level that was appropriate 35 years ago, then it's no wonder that we're gradually losing processing industries here in British Columbia for some of these products I've mentioned.

While we joked.... Well, I wouldn't say we joked, but there was some humourous reference made to the fact that we keep debating the egg-marketing thing year after year after year. I notice that we also continue year after year to debate two basic principles — one that we all give lip service to, the importance of being self-reliant. We have a lot of good farmland and we should, to the maximum possible, produce our own agricultural products and not be at the whim or mercy of any producer outside our boundaries.

That's all very well, Mr. Chairman, but if the province is powerless to compete on honest and fair terms with these imported products, often earlier in the season before our crop is ready for market, then obviously we are not getting the kind of cooperation from the federal government which is really the only way in which the situation can be corrected.

Again, the minister was quoted around the end of March as saying: "If the federal government can subsidize eastern people, they can help us in a time of need." He was relating to the problem in the processing industry and the vegetable industry. A very lengthy article appeared in the Vancouver Province on March 29 which said that in the Fraser Valley seven processors are faced with huge inventories from last year. They include approximately 8.5 million pounds of peas, beans and corn — 8.5 million pounds inventory from last year.

So my question to the minister is, first of all: is it correct that we really depend in large measure for federal action in this field? If that isn't the whole answer, what are we trying to do provincially to support our own vegetable-processing industry?

Now that, in turn, leads to a more specific issue of supporting industry in British Columbia that I have some interest in knowing about, and that is the South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., which was an alfalfa-processing plant set up under the former government and was an industry which was not approved by the former Social Credit government when it first asked for such a plant. I notice that an order-in-council on April 15 provided South Peace Dehy Products Ltd. with another $170,000.

That isn't an exact figure down to dollars and cents, but, first of all, I wonder if the minister could briefly tell us what has been the success of that plant, or lack of success as the case may be, and if this grant of $170,000 was just a matter of paying interest carrying charges. What was that payment intended to do?

One of the people producing vegetables is also not only concerned about this matter of being unable to compete with United States imports but has asked to find out what about the use of herbicide spraying in the United States, particularly the use of parathion which, according to the information I have, is very poorly supervised in the United States. If there are to be these continuing large imports of vegetable crops, some of which have been sprayed with chemicals which are not permitted for use in British Columbia, to what degree do we monitor and screen...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's federal.

MR. WALLACE: The minister says that's federal, but I think if a consumer in British Columbia gets poisoned, he's not really concerned whether it was federal or provincial. Provincially, I am asking him: to what degree does the provincial Department of Agriculture get assurance from the federal government that this kind of screening and supervision of the use of chemicals on imported products is being carried out? That's all I'm asking. I know you're not directly responsible, but you are responsible for agriculture and agricultural products, under whatever jurisdiction, that are being consumed in British Columbia which may not be safe.

I don't want to get into the whole argument at this time on herbicides and pesticides, but I think the deputy minister sent a very interesting letter to the assistant executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation on March 29 of this year pointing out that many departments are involved in the use of herbicides and pesticides and that it would be inefficient to duplicate expertise and facilities that are already established in the Department of Agriculture. That's fine, but the Department of Agriculture surely has a responsibility to know what is being done or not done by other jurisdictions.

I understand, for example, that B.C. Hydro is still using 2-4-D to spray. Now I can't expect you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to be

[ Page 1466 ]

responsible for B.C. Hydro, but the fact is that if the sprays are still being used there's the possibility of actions of other departments in contaminating products that are eaten by people in the province. So I wonder if the minister.... To be very direct and simple: has he, in fact, discussed this with the federal body responsible, or will he, in light of the fact that I am told that some of the imported products are sprayed with parathion?

The other issue that has been raised is the question of cherry disease in the Okanagan. Perhaps the members from that area are more familiar with that than I am, but I understand that one orchard last year lost 250 trees because of this particular infection. The question has been raised since this disease doesn't develop in any rapid period of time and can be detected quite early in its development. The quality of inspection in preceding years has come under doubt, and I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not this is now under control and, if it is, how it happened that it got as far as it did before it was detected and treated.

So that I can be specific, Mr. Chairman, the kind of statement that's been brought to my attention is that the disease doesn't show in the first year of infection. It seems that the lack of inspection goes back as far as 1971 or 1972. The total control programme is weak, and only part of the Canadian background data gleaned from many years of work in the Kootenays is being used. But this apparently has seriously damaged cherry trees in the Okanagan, and I am quoting a person who is a consultant in the agricultural industry who lives in Vernon.

One of the other questions which I'm surprised has not been asked to a greater degree, Mr. Chairman, is the question of farm income assurance. I think it's well recognized that the concept of farm income assurance is very basic to the principles the minister has spelled out in the House — that we must maintain a healthy agricultural industry, and one ingredient of that goal is to ensure that the producer receives a fair return for his efforts and gets at least the cost of production.

The minister's estimates this year provide $27 million, which is exactly the same figure as last year. Now I've met with representatives of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and they're quite concerned. I can only quote the opinion of these people close to the scene and, as simply as they put it, the $27 million will be used up this year on tree fruit and beef alone, these two parts of the programme. Or, alternatively, if all seven programmes are maintained, the money will run out somewhere around October of this year. The question that they would like answered is: does the minister have any contingency plan or is there any prorating formula that he has in mind, since the actual application of the Farm Income Assurance Programme to all the components in the programme will mean that the $27 million will almost certainly be spent long before the end of the financial fiscal year?

It is my information from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture that they had a commitment from the Socred Party in the election, that the Social Credit Party supported the principle of farm income assurance and would continue to implement it. What with the rising costs that affect the agricultural industry, I think they're quite legitimately puzzled to know how the minister plans to maintain these programmes with the same amount of money this year as last year, when the number of participants and the costs of production for all of them have risen, together with some of the problems I've mentioned in the tree fruit industry.

To be specific, Mr. Chairman, one of the members of the B.C. federation told me that they were getting 3.5 cents a pound for apples, and the cost of production is 11 cents. Under these circumstances, if farm income assurance is to be applied as they have been told it would continue to be applied, then the amount of farm income assurance money from the government to deal with apples and beef would probably use up the $27 million. Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister said earlier this afternoon that he would answer straightforward applicable questions, and I think there could be nothing more applicable to debating his estimates than farm income assurance. So could I just ask these two questions: will the $27 million be used up before the year is out, or does the minister intend to prorate payments so at least all participants do receive at least part of the government funding that is put into the total amount of $27 million?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we're really covering ground that I went over yesterday. I made a statement in this House that it is a matter of opinion as to how much money is going to be required in the Farm Income Assurance Programme. So our department worked them out. I assured the House yesterday that all programmes would stay and that necessary funds would be paid out to ensure that everybody in the programme is looked after. It won't be on a pro rata basis. It will be as it occurs when it occurs. If you take the attitude that the price of beef is going to go down, then you can say we haven't got enough money. If you take the attitude it's going to come up, we might need that much money. It's a matter of opinion.

But I stated firmly, and I'll say it again for the benefit of the House, that farm income programmes stay. They will be paid. Now with regard to some of your other questions, with regard to little cherry disease, there is still a lot of research going on with that and the Department of Agriculture is monitoring. With regard to South Peace Dehy, that

[ Page 1467 ]

was interest reimbursement under the Farm Credit Act. Yes, we're trying to obtain from the federal government a report from the federal tariff board so we can determine.... We did discuss this in quite some detail at the Prime Ministers' conference when we were discussing agriculture, and we've asked Ottawa to at least give the poor B.C. farmer a break — indeed all western Canada. There is no reason why we should have imports coming across the border with no tariff, or very little tariff, and yet when we try and sell our merchandise across the border the other way, there is a high tariff. It's just not fair. We've asked Ottawa....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, we haven't as yet. But, you know, it seems ironic to me, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, that surely to goodness if British Columbians are prepared to dig into their pockets, you know, to keep agriculture here, the least Ottawa can do is give us a fair break on tariff. It doesn't cost them anything. It's ridiculous. We've got to get rid of this syndrome. I don't know what you do with Ottawa. You can't go down and hit them over the head. It's just not fair.

Tariffs on agriculture products haven't changed for years and years and years. I don't know what we can do except keep on hammering away.

The other item, as I said, was discussed down there. If they're going to leave the tariffs, let Ottawa.... Let's get going with western, indeed, all-Canada, income assurance programmes. We're not only concerned about agriculture in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman; indeed we have to be concerned about agriculture in all Canada.

MR. C. DARCY (Rossland-Trail): I'm encouraged by your efforts and that of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) to keep this debate on agriculture, and try to keep it on the present as well.

I would like to ask the minister if he has had, or is going to have, any thoughts on encouraging intensive use of land for livestock in those parts of the province, such as mine, which do not have good soils but nonetheless have excellent climates for an agricultural industry. Apart from cattle raising, much of the livestock industry in British Columbia — and I'm thinking particularly of hogs and poultry and broilers; in fact as a kind of feedlot or factory situation — does not need a lot of land and it doesn't need good land. I would hope that land in areas of the province which are good for raising crops and good for dairy cattle would not be tied up in this way, because I believe that the feedlot situation of agricultural use is every bit as much a factory situation as a manufacturing plant.

Certainly in my area — particularly from a quality and a consumers' point of view, and even from an economic development point of view, which is part of that minister's responsibility — we certainly could use some encouragement of developers who might wish to be in businesses of this nature.

I believe that somewhere in the southeastern part of British Columbia there is plenty of room for an egg-classification plant, an egg-grading station, which does not have a lot of employees, but it does have a few. Certainly the presence of this would encourage poultry producers and poultry farms to at least make a serious attempt to compete within their own markets, because, as I'm sure the minister and the deputy are aware, the Kootenays — the west Kootenay in particular — have been really the front line in the chicken-and-egg wars where a great deal of the sniping has gone on. It's where a great deal of the cheap imports and a great deal of the dumping from other provinces has taken place. A home industry in that area would alleviate the situation in a permanent way.

Speaking briefly on the matter of eggs and marketing boards, I'd like to let the House know that it is my opinion that while it may be, and undoubtedly is, a very complex problem I do believe that the question of quota and quota sales within a commodity group is one of the basic causes of controversy in this area. I would hope that in whatever solution to the problem which the minister has promised us, he takes some action to have the provincial authorities take some control over the sale of quota.

I do believe that marketing boards are a good thing. But, Mr. Chairman, the public thinks that marketing boards are some kind of provincial agency, that they are agencies like the Labour Relations Board or the Motor Carrier Commission. They don't realize that, in effect, they are cartels in a particular commodity group — producer cartels. I don't attack them on those grounds; I think marketing boards are an essential part of agriculture in British Columbia, and we might not have a dairy industry, or poultry industry, in the province if they did not exist. But just as some people might say that politics is too important to be left to the politicians, I would suggest that the issue of quota in British Columbia is too important to be left to the marketing boards, and I think that the Department of Agriculture should take some leadership in this field. I do believe that at least on a regional basis — and I'm speaking of the north and in the Kootenays — the producers in a particular commodity group should always have the right to compete, at least in their own market. If they can't stand the competition, that's fine. But they should always have the right to at least have the chance, the opportunity, to compete in their own market regardless of the historical quota pattern that

[ Page 1468 ]

exists in their particular commodity group.

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, before I finish, I would like to see some more funds available for biological control and even that nasty word "chemical" control of predators in the industry. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has mentioned the little cherry disease which has wiped out a once-thriving cherry industry in the Kootenays and threatens to do so in the Okanagan. I would suggest that the situation in the Okanagan is much more serious than the public is aware. Certainly nobody's made any money in the cherry industry in the last few years, in any event, because of market conditions. But the fact remains that the Kootenay Bay Lambert strain, which was thought by Agriculture Canada to possibly be a solution, possibly be a species which was resistant to the little cherry disease, has now been found to be in itself susceptible to that disease — and we're back to square one.

I would raise the point that while Canada Agriculture out there in Saanichton has done an excellent job, and certainly put an excellent effort in in this regard, I believe that the province has been somewhat remiss. There's been somewhat of an abdication on the part of the province in the whole field of chemical and biological control. We've tended to leave it entirely up to the federal authorities. Of course, I think that Ottawa should put a lot more money into this — but what have they to lose? I would suggest that the provincial agricultural industry has a great deal more to lose by our abdication in this field than has the federal government.

So I would hope that the minister would consider further action on the codling moth, further action on the little cherry disease and further action in developing new strains of plants and livestock that would be appropriate for British Columbia.

One of the things that has been discussed here has been the grape industry and the wine industry. I believe that if we had better species of grapes that were more suited to the Okanagan, and even species that were suited to the Kootenays which, as I've said earlier, have an excellent climate but poor soils for the growing of grapes, we possibly might have a stronger agricultural industry, a stronger wine industry, and one which would not need the kind of protection which we've come to accept as essential in British Columbia for this industry to survive, let alone to grow.

That's all my remarks on this area, Mr. Chairman, but one final point. I would ask the minister if he has any thoughts on the question of land taxes and property taxes. One of the things which has militated against, in my opinion, the agricultural industry in this province is that farmers, in many cases, are trying to work their land, they're trying to get an economic rent off their land but the price of the land goes completely sky high, completely haywire, due to development pressure around them, and which the farmer has absolutely no control over whatsoever.

It's probably not that he does not want to see residential development, or commercial or industrial development; the fact is that it puts the price of his land, and hence his property taxes and hence his operating costs, completely beyond the point where, when he initially made his capital investment and started his farm, he cannot continue to operate. This has cost the province, this factor alone, a number of viable farms over the years. I would hope that the minister had some thought in that regard of perhaps taking it easy on the farmer in the area of property taxes.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Do you want to answer now, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm changing the subject a little bit.

Mr. Chairman, one of the main costs of production to the farmer, of course, is fuel. Farms are becoming increasingly mechanized. Even when they're not using purple gas or diesel, they have greenhouses where they use fuel oil for heating. So it's an important ingredient in agriculture today, which means that it's very disappointing to everybody in this House to see that the Premier of the province of British Columbia has gone to Ottawa and has been actively supporting an increase in the crude-barrel-of-oil price, making statements in the paper and before that conference, and which will have a heavy impact upon the farmer, that surely we should see at least $ 10 a barrel, and then, going on, that oil at $13 a barrel is a bargain.

Thirteen? Bearing in mind that our oil four years ago was only about $4 a barrel, and now to go to $13 in that period of time that is contributing to inflation by an inflation fighter who hits the mat but never hits the opponent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you will relate this to vote 3.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, because it's also heavy on other consumers, but this is a heavy, additional burden that is being placed upon the costs of production on the farm as they become increasingly mechanized. That's the reason that this is of importance in this particular area.

Mr. Chairman, British Columbia produces 40 per cent of its own crude oil. The price to our companies of producing that crude oil has not gone up by any percentage point really, except for maintenance and some re-equipment of those wells.

For the Premier to go down and propose $13 crude oil is, I say, an attack not only upon the living

[ Page 1469 ]

standards of farmers, but is a capitulation to the oil companies and a response to the campaign funds that have been placed in the hands of the Social Credit Party by Imperial Oil.

When you consider that farmers in the U.S.A....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Hon. Member, I've been waiting to see the relationship of your remarks to vote 3. I must confess I've failed to have been able to do so so far.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let me say this, Mr. Chairman: farmers in, say, Texas in the United States of America, which is kind of a competitor and partner of ours, get their purple gas prices based upon $5.50 a barrel because that's the old flowing oil price in the State of Texas. Even in a great city like Chicago that price is $9.50.

I repeat that it is going to be a heavy impost on the farmers for British Columbia, as an oil-producing province, to go along in the interests of the companies, and not in the interest of the consumer, with $13 a barrel for crude oil. It is a sellout, particularly at this time of inflation.

One by one we've seen the protections to the consumer, to the farmer, to all of us eroded by that government opposite as one by one they have favoured the big international companies against the ordinary people of the province of B.C.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): I had intended not to spend any time on vote 3 and thereby devote as much interest to the Department of Agriculture as is the present minister. But I just feel that it is time I had something critical to say about the subject — not in anger but rather in sorrow.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps you will suggest that I should be discussing this under the Premier's estimates rather than under vote 3, but when the Premier first announced his cabinet and we learned who would be the Minister of Agriculture, as the former Minister of Agriculture I was asked what I thought about this particular choice. To my sorrow now, my reaction at the time was that if one looked around the Social Credit caucus it would be difficult to find someone who would do a better job as Minister of Agriculture than the one who was named. That was my reaction in December, 1975.

I had some experience with the member who holds that position as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I was thinking of that experience, Mr. Chairman, because I recall the meetings that we had — they were referred to earlier today by the minister — around the province in 1973 when we met with farmers all over the province. I didn't attend all of the meetings; I believe the present Minister of Agriculture did, to his credit. As a member of the committee on those days he worked well. He did his best to act as a partisan member of that committee, took part in the questioning of people who came before the committee with briefs, and made comments from time to time. From the nature of his contribution as a member of that committee it would have been difficult to determine any difference in his approach from almost any other member of that committee — with the exception of one other member from his own party who took advantage of every opportunity to try to turn the committee to political advantage.

The present Minister of Agriculture served very well as a member of that committee. On the basis of what I saw of him then I thought he would do an excellent job as Minister of Agriculture in the province of British Columbia. I know some of the farmers felt the same thing, Mr. Chairman. I have read newspaper articles very late in December and into January where they were looking forward to working with this new person. They did say in some of these articles that he would have some measuring up to do to keep up to the previous member in that post, but they were looking forward with optimism to seeing him doing a good job as Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read briefly from a publication called The Orchardist and the editorial in it, "Over the Grater" — "It Could Be a Blockbuster" is the subheading on this article. Reading from the first paragraph:

"When the newly appointed Minister of Agriculture, D.M. Phillips, makes what could very well be his maiden speech to the 87th annual convention of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association...."

They were looking forward to him making his first speech as Minister of Agriculture at that annual fruit growers' convention that is attended annually by Ministers of Agriculture.

"The new minister, the MLA for South Peace River, has not been particularly prominent in agriculture"

— well, that is not really being critical, Mr. Chairman —

"although he was an active and conscientious minority member of the Legislature agriculture committee."

That was my feeling as well; I've said that already. He was a conscientious member; he was a good member on that committee.

"Don Phillips is hard-nosed: he does not yield easily. He is a fighter and, we believe, perfectly capable of winning against the entire cabinet, as did Davey Stupich, if he feels he is right. It is therefore up to our industry leaders and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in particular to put the facts of agricultural life before the new minister."

They had high hopes, as I said, that they had a minister who would fight for the agricultural industry

[ Page 1470 ]

and for the farmers, that he had ability as a fighter, and that he would present the case in cabinet — this is in January of 1976.

"What we hope will be recognized by the new minister and the new government is that the farmer is seeking no more than a reasonable return on his labour and investment over and above his cost of production and on that fact will start to shape their agricultural policies."

Now that's what they hoped. They hoped that that would be the new minister's attitude towards farming and towards agriculture.

The farmers didn't seek handouts; they didn't want things handed to them. They wanted only what was coming to them as productive members of our society. They expected, as I expected, that this man would do better than any other possible appointee on the government side of the House in serving the agricultural industry in that way.

Mr. Chairman, I'll quote now from Country Life, February, 1976. They are still hoping; in February they were still hoping.

"The Hon. Don Phillips told Country Life that he wanted to get to farm meetings to meet farmers and ranchers at close hand."

This was in February.

"He did not want to be a paper-pusher and get so involved with departmental desk work that there would be no chance to get out and around the province. But"

— and this is the first sour note, Mr. Chairman —

"We're in February now and it's beginning to come through. But his batting average hasn't been too good so far. He wasn't able to attend the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board annual meeting in Vernon. He broke tradition when he sent his deputy minister to the annual BCFGA convention in Kelowna.

"Not only on that occasion did he break tradition; he didn't even bother to tell them that he wasn't coming until the morning of the meeting. When they were sitting there patiently waiting to hear him, it was announced that he wouldn't be able to make it, that the deputy would be appearing in his stead"

... on the morning of the day on which he was to speak to them.

Minutes before he was expected to be speaking, the delegates and the visitors at this convention were told that he wouldn't be able to get there. No reason as to why he couldn't get there, Mr. Chairman, but as this editorial states, "his batting average hadn't been too good."

MR. KING: They should have stood outside the House. They would have heard him all over the province.

MR. STUPICH: For many years the provincial Agriculture minister has officially opened the BCFGA convention, but he failed to appear in January. Not only did he fail to appear, but he didn't bother to tell them why he found it inconvenient to appear at this regular annual meeting.

Agriculture must let the new minister get well settled into his new duties before being too critical, but it is also up to the new Agriculture minister to back up in actions what he promised in words. Mr. Chairman, he's very good in words. He's particularly good when he is sitting in the House, not so good when he stands up to the microphone. He has little to say then and he says it very quietly, but when he's sitting in his seat making interjections, very loud, very noisy, a lot to say ... not very much to say in answer to the questions and criticisms that are raised in this debate on the minister's office.

And now we're moving into March and the situation gets progressively worse, Mr. Chairman. An article in The Province, March 10, 1976:

"Phillips admitted he has not had time to pay attention to agriculture. He is also Economic Development minister and at one point said: 'I have to plead ignorance. I haven't studied them — the insurance plans. I haven't had time. I just don't know."'

He doesn't know anything about income assurance, and this is March 10, 1976.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, when we were debating Bill 42, the Agricultural Land Act, the preservation of agricultural land, he didn't know anything about that either, but he spoke for 34 hours in second reading.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, when we were debating agricultural insurance — we debated it starting in the spring of 1973, and at every sitting after that when there was any opportunity to discuss agricultural income assurance we debated it — that member took full part in the discussions, more than his share of the time, and it didn't bother him one little bit that he didn't know anything about it. He was still able to speak at great length, taking up the time of the House, in his own words contributing nothing. Because even after he had been Minister of Agriculture for some three months he admitted that he knew nothing about it because he hadn't had time to consider it. As a member of the opposition he didn't need time. He just stood up and spoke.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. May I caution the member just briefly? If you'd just take your chair for just a minute I'd like to cite a

[ Page 1471 ]

section out of Beauchesne. I'll just read it for you in total and let all of the House learn from it.

"A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House in the person of one of its members which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and dignity of the House as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for prompt interference of the Speaker in order that any irregularity into which...."

Order, please. Order, please.

"...a member may have been betrayed in the warmth of the debate may be rectified and that any expressions which may be disrespectful to the House, or painful to the feelings of individual members, may be explained, apologized for and retracted."

I must say that the hon. member who was on his feet is staying within the boundaries, in my opinion, of this regulation, but I would wish all members to be cognizant of this particular section so that we don't fall into what the rule calls "irregularities in the House." Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your comments and I would invite the minister, if he feels he has grounds for complaining about anything that I had to say, to draw it to my attention and I'll certainly accommodate him.

The next bit of material to which I would like to refer is a brief presented by the vegetable growers dated March 12, 1976. I recall asking the minister about this some days after that, whether or not his staff was putting together any recommendations for it. He did answer and I think it was very late in March, or early in April, certainly some five or six weeks ago now, that work was proceeding on this and he would tell the House in the very near future just what were his recommendations and what was going to be happening. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, we've heard nothing from the minister since on this subject, but I would like to read from this brief to give one more indication as to how the agricultural industry — the farmers — who formerly felt that they were going to have a good minister, have changed their minds, as I did myself.

" It saddens me that I find it necessary to prepare this brief with the following comments. The vegetable growers and processors are shocked at the complete lack of interest in our industry by the Minister of Agriculture. We are facing one of the most critical periods in the history of the industry and yet we find that senior elected officials are not even interested in meeting with us. Ever since February 18 we have been attempting to set up a meeting with the Premier and Minister of Agriculture..." This is dated March 12. "...but to no avail."

Mr. Chairman, the minister said that he has been meeting with farmers. He told us on one occasion when he was supposed to be meeting with one group of farmers.

It wasn't him, as a matter of fact. It was another member who interjected in his defence and said he was having a two-hour luncheon with some cattlemen. That might be worthwhile. It was probably a very nice, social luncheon, but not when a meeting of farmers was expecting him to appear and address them, and possibly answer some questions.

Mr. Chairman, I go on reading from this statement:

"The only conclusion we can arrive at is that the government does not give a damn about agriculture in B.C. On January 15, we wrote to the Premier objecting to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture was holding two portfolios. The article in yesterday's Province which quotes the Minister of Agriculture as saying he has not had time to pay attention to agriculture proves the validity of our concerns."

Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has tried on many occasions to speak to the minister. They did present a brief to cabinet in February, 1976. Several of these questions have been asked of the minister already. I think there has not been much in the way of answers, and I don't expect any right now. But they make several main points in this brief, and I would like to just touch upon them briefly.

During the period in which I served as Minister of Agriculture, there was something new in that there was real consultation between government — between the Department of Agriculture, myself as minister, and the staff — and the farm organizations in this province. It was something new that developed in this province in that period of three years. As the federation state: "We believe that an excellent working relationship is developing. We urge that it be valued and continued."

Mr. Chairman, from everything I've read and from what I've heard talking to officers of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, they believe that the minister is giving lip service only to this idea of consultation and that any meaningful consultation stopped on December 22, when the new Minister of Agriculture was appointed. Then there's reference to the Land Commission, which should come under another vote.

The farm income assurance. Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about being at a conference of western Premiers and western Ministers of Agriculture, and he was fighting for agriculture. I'm pleased he did not read the paper they presented at that convention or he might have dissociated himself with it, because the paper he presented at that convention talked about the need for federal participation in the income assurance programme, a

[ Page 1472 ]

programme that the minister has indicated he doesn't really support. He's hung with it for the existing contracts. He has to live with them, and grudgingly he gives support. I quote from Hansard his attitude towards the farm income assurance programme in the province. Directing his remarks at me, the minister said:

I want to tell you that while I'm minister I'll not back away from those problems,

He's talking about the chicken-and-egg war here.

and I'll help the farmers of British Columbia. I'll stand up and I'll fight for the farmers of British Columbia, and I won't do it by trying to give away the international bank of Fort Worth. I'll help the farmers to help themselves. I won't do it by giving and giving and giving.

Mr. Chairman, in that statement he tells us how he feels about the agricultural income assurance programme. I'll repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, with respect to that programme. The farmers did not get one cent they didn't earn — not one cent that they didn't deserve by their efforts. The agricultural income assurance programme that was developed in this province, that has been copied by other provinces and looked at by many jurisdictions, is a programme that should be built upon, should be supported. We should have a minister who is fighting in cabinet not only to retain that programme, Mr. Chairman, but also to improve upon it, because it is something that the farmers of this province, and all farmers, deserve.

Mr. Chairman, this minister presented that paper at the conference, yet he tells us in Hansard how he really feels about income assurance. When he talked about it in the House on different occasions he has promised to live with the existing contracts but not really develop this programme in the way that it should be developed.

Property taxes. Mr. Chairman, what does the minister feel about the regular attempt by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to do something about property taxes and school taxes on productive farmland? I was, as Minister of Agriculture, preparing a brief to present to the commission on taxation. I wonder whether the present minister is proceeding with that — whether he will be supporting the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's presentation with respect to this kind of taxation on farmland or whether he is simply not going to bother and thereby renew his lack of interest in agriculture.

Time is running out for food processors. I've already covered that, Mr. Chairman, and the food processors know the lack of interest on the part of this minister.

A B.C. Federation of Agriculture press release, dated in April: "If the government is not going to allow us any increases in income" — this is talking about income assurance — "then they must make sure that our costs don't increase and they must make sure that we compete fairly with foreign imports."

Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us no indication that he is going to do any of those things; that he is going to help the farmers with their income assurance programmes; that he is going to help keep costs down; or that he is going to help in this competition with foreign imports. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about the cost of fuel, the cost of energy for farmers. What's happening there?

The federation tried to meet with the minister — tried on three occasions recently to meet with the minister. They tried unsuccessfully, Mr. Chairman. They finally met with a group from caucus. One single cabinet member showed up for part of the meeting. The Minister of Agriculture, of course, was away. That meeting was called without any notice. It was the first attempt to call a meeting, and I can understand him not being there. He was at a conference back east. But on three occasions they tried to get him to agree to meet with them. He just wasn't able to, Mr. Chairman. He has shown his lack of interest in this portfolio.

"We have too many people...." I'm quoting now from the news release issued by the president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture: "Following an emergency meeting of the federation's directors, Ralph Barichello, president, said" — and, Mr. Chairman, this is in April. We were well beyond the early period of December when they thought they were going to have a good minister, the period in January when they were still hoping, the period in March when they were losing hope fast and now the end of April.

"On April 26, following an emergency meeting of the federation's directors, Ralph Barichello, president, said: 'We have trouble meeting the minister, and there have been statements by agriculture department staff members that indicate that there will be a watering down of the income assurance scheme. We have too many people in agriculture wondering what is going on.' Barichello said: 'The federation wants to meet with Agriculture Minister Don Phillips and senior members of his department to get a clear indication how the provincial government is going to treat B.C.'s fourth largest industry.'"

Mr. Chairman, earlier in today's remarks, the minister said that he was looking at agriculture differently. Mr. Chairman, we've been debating this vote 3 — I think this is the fourth day. We have been waiting for him to tell us how he is looking at it differently. He has not told us how he's looking at it differently. He hasn't told us how he's looking at it. He hasn't even told us that he's looking at it, and if he did, we'd find it very hard to believe him in view

[ Page 1473 ]

of the evidence before us.

Mr. Chairman, it's not a case of looking for a minister whose sole responsibility is agriculture. That is not really what the farmers in this province and the farm organizations, the agricultural organizations in this province, really should be asking for. My advice to them is that they change that request.

Mr. Chairman, you'll recall, I'm sure, that when I assumed a double portfolio and I was asked to take on my duties as Minister of Finance, the request from the farm organizations then were not that I give up my post as Minister of Agriculture so that agriculture could have a full-time minister. The requests addressed to the Premier from all of the farm organizations were: "Let him keep agriculture. He can handle both, because he has interest in what is happening to farmers and in agriculture."

Mr. Chairman, what we need now is not a minister whose sole responsibility is agriculture, but a minister who has some interest in agriculture, some feeling for farmers, some desire to make the agriculture industry in this province a viable one, some feeling that the farmers in this province are pulling their weight, need some cooperation from the Minister of Agriculture if they are to succeed in doing their job of producing quality and quantity food for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I'm almost finished....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this and then I will sit down, and if the minister has anything to say, I'll be surprised. I would like to show lack of confidence in him by moving a motion that his salary be reduced, but we're paying him more than he's worth when he's getting nothing in this particular vote. The only thing I can do, Mr. Chairman, to show my concern for agriculture and for farmers in this particular vote is to vote against this vote, and I will do that when the opportunity arises.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's very easy, Mr. Chairman, for me to understand why that member for Nanaimo is so bitter. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman — as I've said before, the ex-minister doesn't seem to understand — I've met with many farm organizations. But maybe I should tell the House the number of hours I spent trying to clean up messes in this portfolio that that minister left behind, and someday this province will know about them.

I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that many of the farmers in this province realize the problems that this government had when they were sworn in on December 22. I thought they'd be bad, but I never realized that things would be in the condition they're in. This government has had to spend hour after hour after hour trying to sort out the financial mess left by that administration over there — that leaderless group over there.

I can understand the previous Minister of Agriculture being bitter and spilling out his vindictiveness in personal attacks on the Minister of Agriculture. I can understand that because he's a very bitter man. But, Mr. Chairman, I have not ever refused to meet with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

HON. MR. MAIR: Lost his job, Don.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, he lost his job. This cabinet has had to spend many, many hours, untold hours — the public of this province will never know the true number of hours the members of this executive council have had to spend — trying to unwind the financial chaos that was left in this province by that administration.

The previous Minister of Agriculture, who was Minister of Finance for a very short time...when he was given that portfolio in the mess that it was in by the previous Premier of this province, the man who is trying to be re-elected now, had left that portfolio and indeed other messes in practically every department.

I thought we'd be busy and I knew that there was a mess there, Mr. Chairman. But I never, in all my wildest dreams, ever contemplated the magnitude of the financial wasteland that we were left by that previous administration.

Those fellows over there, Mr. Chairman, who spent money like water, had no regard for the farmers of this province, no regard for the taxes they pay. They took the taxes from the farmers. They wiped out the assessment and the assessment went sky high and the taxes went sky high against the farmers of this province. Then when the money rolled in, Mr. Chairman, they wasted it in practically every department of government. So I can understand that previous Minister of Finance, that previous Minister of Agriculture being so bitter. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — because I've always had a fairly high regard for that particular member — that he would spill out his vindictiveness in personal attacks on the present member.

It doesn't matter to me but I do have regard for his reputation in this province and it grieves me that he would be so bitter and so vindictive as to spill out personal attacks.

But we've met with farm organizations and I'll meet with them again. But I'll tell you that this present government will assist the farmer to remain an independent farmer and an independent

[ Page 1474 ]

businessman in this province and we will not move to take over complete control, will not move to tell him what he can plant, when he can plant it and what will happen with it. This government will see that the agricultural industry remains as a strong, viable competitive industry and that the individual farmers have some destiny, some control over their own destiny in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Because I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if we think and we're worried about the future of being able to feed ourselves, we must keep those farmers competitive. We must see that they remain independent because that is the only way that we can preserve agriculture in this province — the only way. And those farmers realize it. And they realize how that previous administration was moving to take over control — complete control of farmlands, complete control over the destiny of all farmers in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, I haven't been able to meet with every organization, but they realize, Mr. Chairman, the farmers out there realize the mess that we had to clean up — the mess that we had to clean up, left by that previous Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, once again the minister has shown his complete inability to tell us anything at all about what he is doing or what he is going to do. He prefers, rather, to fight the battles of the last election campaign. That would seem to be all that he has to contribute to this debate in the last four days, and I expect it's all he ever will contribute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) defers to the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I will just be a very brief moment, and I thank the hon. member for Oak Bay.

Earlier on this afternoon I asked the minister about the distribution of that $5 million development and relief fund and I think the minister might, perhaps, have misunderstood the question because he referred me to a statement he had made earlier which I looked up. I found it was on April 26.

At that time, the minister did give us some detail on the distribution of the $350,000 to support development education work and he mentioned where $100,000 of it went in one instance and several other small grants. But, Mr. Chairman, he also made specific reference in that statement to the $5 million fund to support eligible development projects as is needed in the Third World, and he gave no details on that at all, Mr. Chairman. So I am just asking at this time. I know that this vote will come up later and can be reviewed separately, and I would like to ask the minister if, at that time, he would be kind enough to give us some breakdown on that $5 million.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that information available but I would be happy to prepare a report and file it with the House. Would that be suitable for the member?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to use again the minister's own statement of just a few moments ago that he wants the B.C. farmer to be independent; he wants him to be competitive. Yet we've described in the debate this afternoon the almost impossible position faced by various farmers competing with American imports.

The minister, on the one hand, is supporting strongly the right of the farmer to be independent and productive and competitive. Yet on the other hand, the minister is agreeing that the weights are so loaded against the B.C. farmer in being competitive — unless, of course, farm income assurance is the one and only method that the minister has in mind of helping the farmer. Some of the figures I quoted earlier on this afternoon — there were others I left out: irrigation costs in Washington are $5 an acre, and I am quoting from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture; Okanagan irrigations costs are anywhere between $50 and $75 an acre, 10 times what it is in Washington.

It may be more than that now. The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) interjects "maybe more than that."

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similameen): It's $37 to $39.

MR. WALLACE: Okay. Well, we'll read that into the record: in Boundary-Similkameen it's $37 an acre. The fact is it's still seven or eight times more than Washington. And the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — I can remember that she has spoken in debates before. I am just quoting these very hard financial facts of life.

Now are we just going to have this debate every year and define the problem and say: "Oh me, oh my! I don't know what we're going to do about it but we must talk to Ottawa" or some such vague generalization? The minister really hasn't stated what he will do in any specific purposeful way to ensure that this independence and competitiveness of the farmer will, in fact, be guaranteed by this

[ Page 1475 ]

government.

When I raised the issue of the $27 million for farm income assurance, the minister quite rightly stated that it isn't possible to predict exactly how much the programme will cost, particularly in relation to the fluctuating price of beef. But, again, I would just ask a simple question, Mr. Chairman. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture, in my experience, are very responsible people who bring forward a lot of data and facts and figures upon which they're trying to base their discussions and negotiations with the minister. In my discussions with them I learned that they have estimated that farm income assurance will cost around $40 million this year. Now the minister has the figure in his estimates of $27 million. I just want to be sure that I heard the minister correctly earlier on this afternoon, because at that particular time he was doing something which he very rarely does in this House — he was speaking very quietly. I'm not sure that I heard the answer, but the answer related to farm income assurance and the $27 million he has in his estimates.

I'm now saying that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture says that the figure will be close to $40 million, and that gives rise to two questions. First, is the minister saying that the Federation of Agriculture are way out of line because their estimate is 50 per cent more than the figure the minister has calculated — $40 million instead of $27 million? The second question is: Will the minister confirm the government's commitment that if, in fact, the figures put forward by the federation are correct then the minister, who has expressed a tremendous concern this afternoon to give the farmers their due, will ensure that he goes to Treasury Board and gets that other $13 million that will provide $40 million for farm income assurance rather than $27 million?

I've already referred to beef and apples as being the two most costly components in the farm income assurance programme, and I believe that the third highest is the cost of milk to the government in this programme. So I wonder if the minister could give us these assurances.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have already.

MR. WALLACE: I dealt more specifically with specific figures. I like things to be very clear-cut and specific, Mr. Chairman. The minister said he would meet the commitment, but the commitment in the eyes of the Federation of Agriculture is a good 50 per cent above the figure the minister has talked about. The minister has berated the official opposition for their inability to calculate, their overspending and various other things. He has taken great pains to create the impression that this government is much more businesslike and more precise, that it does its homework better, and that the kind of projected figures it deals with can be considered to be closer and more accurate to the realistic ones.

We're dealing here, Mr. Chairman, through you, with two figures that are $13 million apart. There's the $40 million cost that the farmers anticipate. Can I just ask this one simple question: If the cost proves to be $40 million can we have the minister's complete assurance that $40 million will be forthcoming from the government?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I will have to state again that we have a cut-and-dried contract. We have to meet those commitments and we will meet those commitments. We sat down and we discussed with department officials, analysed the situation and came up with what we figured was an amount of money that will cover these programmes. We must cover them and we will cover them. If it's more, well it's more. If the price of beef goes down it could be that we end up with a surplus. I've stated it I don't know how many times, Mr. Chairman. They wish me to state it again, but I've made that commitment. I stated again yesterday that there were new programmes, that there were new programmes that this government wanted to bring in in the Department of Agriculture in this fiscal year, but our hands were tied because of the financial situation in the province. The cupboard was bare! It grieved my heart because I came into the Department of Agriculture enthusiastic with new programmes that I wanted to bring in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were they? Name them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The cupboard was bare, Mr. Chairman. But we will meet the commitments, and hopefully next year, when we get this economy rolling again, with the taxes rolling in from the great industry in British Columbia...

MR. LEA: From the people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...we will be able to introduce new programmes. Mr. Chairman, a number of farmers have contacted me regarding the late date that they got their application in for interest reimbursement. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the House this afternoon that we will meet those commitments, even though the applications were late. We will meet those commitments. I want to tell you that this government is for the farmer, to keep him independent.

Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I've said in this House in this debate — I believe it was on the budget — that the British Columbia agricultural industry is faced with costs that do not exist elsewhere. We have to recognize that.

[ Page 1476 ]

That's what I said. We want to bring in new programmes, but we have to have the money to bring in new programmes, but we have to have the money first. Have I answered all your questions, Mr. Member?

MR. WALLACE: What are you going to do about it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We're doing better than any other province at the present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What we're trying to do is get the federal assistance into British Columbia so that all of Canada can pick up — and I said this in opposition. I pleaded while I was in opposition for income assurance programmes to be Canada-wide; otherwise every apple that somebody in Alberta or Saskatchewan eats is maybe costing the taxpayers of British Columbia a nickel or 3 cents — I haven't worked it out because of our...and it should be. Consequently, if they go into a programme in Alberta on swine, then when we eat pork in British Columbia we're eating pork subsidized by the taxpayers of Alberta. So they should be Canada-wide.

MR. LEA: One aspect that I don't believe has been canvassed during the minister's vote is another form of food production. That is the fishing industry in British Columbia, and I've always been a believer, even pre-1972, that the marine services branch is misplaced. It should not be under the Department of Recreation and Conservation — it's Recreation and Tourism now — but it should be under the Minister of Agriculture because it's also a production of foodstuff.

One of the things that I pushed for for the length of time that we were in office was that there be either a separate Department of Fisheries or that fisheries come under Agriculture, and it should be. There's no great problem. That can be done by order-in-council now.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I can't hear you.

What I would ask the minister is for his views. I'm sure he knows there's a great amount of experimentation going on in the fishing industry, the freshwater fishing industry. It probably costs less money to raise the same amount of protein in fishing as it does in beef, or any other form of protein. The fishing industry could become a very viable industry in the production of foodstuff, and it could be not only economic but a great new industry in this province. I'm sure the minister is aware of experimental work going on now.

The other aspect is that I don't believe that the fishing industry, or the fishermen, have ever been represented by the province properly in Ottawa, either by the former Social Credit government or by the former NDP government.

I just don't feel there's been enough emphasis placed on a very large industry in our province, and I don't believe there's as much expertise in the provincial civil service as there should be. When British Columbia fishermen go to Ottawa with a problem they should be able to come to the province and get the backing of the province if it's justified, and the province should be with those fishermen in Ottawa fighting for the fishing industry and the fishermen in this province.

I would hope that this new government under this new minister would give us a proper priority: that that department or branch be transferred to the Agriculture department; that it be beefed up — if I may use that term — and that the kind of expertise that is necessary to make sure that those fishermen are having the proper kind of back-up when they do go to Ottawa with problems, that that kind of back-up from the province should be available to fishermen and to the fishing industry. It hasn't been done, either by the former Social Credit or the former NDP to any great extent.

The other aspect that I talked about, of course, was that this new industry that could very well become a very large, major industry in our province, that of producing fish for not only home consumption, but on the world market. It hasn't been fully explored, and I believe that in times of food shortages, which we are going to be going into not only here in North America, but in the world, it should be explored.

It could be a very economic industry for British Columbia. We could make a lot of money. There could be new jobs, and it hasn't been explored fully.

I know that it has to be either a cabinet decision or a decision by the Premier on how the portfolios are going to break down and what new emphasis can be placed on any new branch or department, but I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture, when speaking to his colleagues in cabinet, or to the Premier, would ask that the fishing industry and the Department of Fisheries be established along with Agriculture under the same minister in charge of food production in the province.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have the minister just briefly give us his views on the subjects that I've raised, and possibly the direction he would like to see the fishing industry go within the province, and whether he agrees with me that it should be all under one umbrella, under agriculture or fisheries and agriculture, the production of foodstuff. I would really like to hear the minister's views on that before

[ Page 1477 ]

we give him his salary. 

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

APPENDIX

22 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With respect to Departmental financial assistance for students in post-secondary institutions —

1. Is the Department of Human Resources providing financial assistance to persons who attend universities, vocational schools, or colleges in the Province?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) how many students are attending universities, vocational schools or colleges with financial assistance provided by the Department of Human Resources, (b) what criteria are used when authorizing such students to receive financial assistance from the Department of Human Resources, and (c) what costs are paid by the Department for such students, e.g., books, tuition, living expenses, etc.?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) 606, (b) financial assistance is not available from another source and the upgrading or training is required for employment, and (c) the cost of tuition and books plus a training stipend of $15 per month for a single person and $25 per month for a family head, plus the regular social allowance grant to meet ordinary living costs."

35 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. Were any Pharmacare cards issued in the names of deceased persons in 1973, 1974, or 1975?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, were any prescriptions filled from these cards?

3. If the answer to No. 2 is yes, how many prescriptions were filled and what was the total cost of the prescriptions filled?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"l. Yes.

"2. No.

"3. Not applicable."

[ Page 1478 ]

38 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to Woodlands and Tranquille —

1. On what date did the Department of Human Resources assume responsibility for the mentally retarded?

2. What was the total staff employed in each facility in the fiscal years 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975?

3. What was the number of patients in each facility in the fiscal years 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975?

4. Was there a waiting list for admission in either facility in the fiscal years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and to date in 1976?

5. If the answer to No. 4 is yes, what was the number awaiting entry in each year to each facility?

The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm replied as follows:

"1. July 1, 1974.

"2.

"3.

"4. Yes.

"5.