[ Page 2569 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act (Bill 45) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction and first reading –– 2569

Motions and adjourned debates on motions

On Motion 9.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2570

Mrs. Wallace –– 2571

Ms. Sanford –– 2573

Mrs. Jordan –– 2574

Mr. Lauk –– 2575

Mr. Lloyd –– 2577

Mr. Stupich –– 2578

Division on motion to adjourn the debate –– 2579

On motion 9.

Mr. Gibson –– 2579

Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 2585

On Motion 9.

Mr. Gibson –– 2585

Mr. Barrett –– 2586

Mr. Wallace –– 2587

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2589

Appendix –– 2591

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this evening are the members of the Canadian senior women's basketball champions, the Home Lumber Basketball Team, and their coach, Mr. Jack Lusk. I would ask the members of the House to welcome them very warmly.

Introduction of bills.

CAPTAIN COOK BI-CENTENNIAL

COMMEMORATION ACT

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Captain Cook Bi-centennial Commemoration Act.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move Motion 9.

Leave not granted.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House proceed with Motion 9 in the name of the Hon. J.J. Hewitt.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 9 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the House did not give leave to move out of sequence in the motions that are on the order paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: You don't have to!

MR. LAUK: Yes, you do.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would draw to your attention the fact that today is a government day and the fact that we have moved into Committee of Supply and out of Committee of Supply. It is now quite proper for the House Leader to call the motions in whatever sequence the House Leader decides.

MR. LAUK: Well, what's the matter with the Trident motion?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Wrong again!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there was no business dealt with in Committee of Supply. No vote was presented to the committee. A vote must be presented before we rise and report progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the point of order should have been taken immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! Technically, you're correct in that it could have been incumbent upon the House Leader to call an estimate and move into it and out of it. The time you have taken it would have been prior to the time that you rose on a point of order, hon. member. I'd suggest to the members of the House, for the benefit of all, that in order to follow the procedure properly and be completely within the rules of the House, in the future when the government decides to move in and out of Committee of Supply they call a motion or one of the estimates, which then can be withdrawn at the discretion of the House Leader.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, I was on my feet. Unfortunately, the lack of progress was so rapid that you didn't recognize me when I was on my feet; you recognized the House Leader. Certainly business should have been presented to the committee before we reported progress and asked leave to sit again. The fact that you didn't recognize me when I was on my feet is not the fault of the member for Alberni, but the fault of the Speaker. I think we should proceed to committee business. .

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Alberni, it is true that I did not recognize him, because I did not see him. I recognized the House Leader and, following him, the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I apologize to the hon. member for Alberni for not recognizing him in his point earlier. That does not

[ Page 2570 ]

mean that we go back to that point in the proceedings of this evening. I apologize to the hon. member for not recognizing him. Had I heard him raise a point of order, he would have been recognized.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, had my microphone been turned on, you would have heard me, but unfortunately, for some reason, the mike was turned off.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the hon. member that it is a recognized fact in this House that the mike does not go on until a member has been recognized. Perhaps that was a mistake, but I didn't hear you call a point of order, hon. member. So that was why you were overlooked at that particular moment.

MR. SKELLY: May I have a ruling from the Speaker? Is it possible to go into Committee of Supply without dealing with any business in Committee of Supply, and then to rise and report progress?

MR. SPEAKER: The practice of the House, as you have recognized and observed in years past, is to go in and out of Committee of Supply. Technically the practice followed in this House has been to put to a vote, then withdraw it and go on to other business. If it is the desire of the House that we go back to Committee of Supply, we can call a vote, have it put on the floor in the hands of the Chairman, and withdraw. We can do that. Otherwise we will move on to the motion on the order paper which is now standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SKELLY: On that point of order, I am sure our side would be willing to proceed with the business of the House, but surely it should be done in the proper sequence, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, before moving the motion, if that is in order, I would like to make some introductory remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: That is quite correct, hon. minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the motion standing on the order paper relating to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture is a lengthy motion and it covers a study that encompasses the cost of food and the use of agricultural land - the various aspects of taking the raw product through to the retail store shelf where the consumer buys it at a price. Mr. Speaker, over the past years we have had many studies done in regard to the cost of food in this province and, I guess, across Canada. But today more than ever because of the rates of inflation that we are experiencing, we seem to find that the reaction of the consumer to what they believe to be the high cost of food in this province is substantial.

We have the news media covering the concerns of the consumer in regard to the high cost of food and why that cost of food is so high. In some cases the reporting may be a little slanted in favour of the consumer and other cases in favour of the producer. So we have the reaction from the consumer. Yet I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in this province we have the reaction from the producer - the farmer who works the land, who has the investment in the land and who is not realizing a reasonable return on his investment and his labour. So we have those two problems, Mr. Speaker.

Then we have the problem of the type of marketing that is carried out in this province. One of the types of marketing that has come very much to the fore in the last few months, if not few years, is that of the marketing board concept, the quota concept and that of supply management.

With those things that have come very much to the fore in regard to press coverage and media coverage, I believe there is a good reason for us to enter into this study and a good reason for us to go via the standing committee on agriculture in order that members of the Legislative Assembly can hear concerns expressed by consumers, by producers and by commodity groups.

I can tell you that there is agreement for this study by the Federation of Agriculture, the body that speaks for the agricultural community, by the various commodity groups that supply the produce and the products to the consumer, by the marketing boards that have been brought under a considerable amount of tension in the last few months, and, of course, by the consumer. They are all prepared and very pleased to see that this study is going to be proceeded with.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just briefly that the study is in four phases, as the members can see by the resolution on the order paper. We are going to deal in this committee at the agricultural land level, the present use of that land, its capabilities and its utilization in meeting the current food requirements of this province.

We are also going to look at future development of our agricultural land - how we can better utilize it, how we can improve it, what is our forecast in the coming years in regard to meeting the demands of the growing population of the province of British Columbia and also how we can compete in world markets.

[ Page 2571 ]

We are dealing with the producer level in regard to this concept of one-desk selling - the marketing board level, what the powers of the marketing board are, the pricing practices and the operating policies of those boards. And we're going to examine, Mr. Speaker, the comparative pricing of the products and the returns to the producer. We're not just going to isolate this to British Columbia, but we're going to look at comparisons with our province to the east -Alberta - and also the Pacific Northwest and basically touching on Washington.

We're going to make comparisons over the past few years to see how the cost of food relates to the cost-of-living increases in this province or the better wages that are paid in this province: are they in relationship, is there really a problem or are we just looking at the fact that every time we go into the food market to buy food, we see a 2 or 3 cents per item increase? Therefore we think it's been a major factor in our cost of living in this province.

And yet, Mr. Speaker, the percentage of disposable income that is spent today is less than what was spent 30 years ago. I think we can probably identify how the cost of food relates to the earning power of the people of the province of British Columbia. We will relate those costs to Alberta and to the Pacific Northwest as well. We are not going to stop at that level. We are moving into the processing, the distribution and the merchandising levels to see how the mark-ups throughout the food chain affect the end consumer price. We will be dealing with the wholesaling, retailing and the distribution sectors of the food chain and we will be going through and examining the comparative prices over the past 10 years for each part of the food chain.

Mr. Speaker, the overview that we'll be looking at is the effect of labour costs on food prices, the impact of other input costs in regard to transportation and the effect of the cost of money on food. We'll look at the degree of pricing competition in this province in regard to the retail chains when they get to the consumer level, and whether or not there is good and fair competition. We will look at the impact of food imports on our province and the cost of franchises and possible vertical integration on food prices.

Mr. Speaker, this committee will have considerable powers. It has the ability to hire research staff to investigate and to prepare statistical and analytical work papers so that the committee can look at all these factors that I've mentioned previously. It will have the ability to hold public hearings around this province where the consumer, the producer and the marketing board commodity group can speak their piece and get a fair hearing, in an attempt to show the committee some of the problems that each of those groups encounters in trying to provide food for the consumer.

We will be able to hold meetings in camera if that is the wish of the committee, and we will be able to call witnesses to the committee under oath so that the committee will have all the facts placed before it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a timetable involved in this. We are hopeful that the first phase of the four-phase study will be available by August 31,1977. The report would be submitted with recommendations to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and to my ministry in order that we can analyse the report. The recommendations would be submitted in order that we can look at ways in which our ministries can assist in getting a fair return for the producer, as well as giving a fair deal to the consumer at the market level. Phase II would also be available as of August 31 and Phase III would be available on December 31,1977.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the record I should just mention what they are. Phase I is the agricultural land, present and future requirements, due by August 31,1977. Phase II is the producer and marketing board level, with the interim report due by August 31,1977. Phase III deals with the processing, distribution and merchandising levels and that phase would be due by December 31,1977. Phase IV is the overview, Mr. Speaker, looking at the total package and the effect of many things on the cost of food in this province. It would be due as of March 31,1978.

Out of those reports, Mr. Speaker, the input of the MLAs who sit on that committee and the input of the producer, the commodity groups, the retailer, the wholesaler and the consumer, I am hopeful that recommendations will be brought forward in order that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, my ministry and this government can ensure that our farmers get a fair deal and a fair return for their labours and that our consumers get a fair deal in the marketplace.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move i lotion 9 standing in my name on the order paper.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): First, I would like to assure the House and the minister that the official opposition is certainly in support of this motion. We welcome an opportunity to review not just the food production, but the overall food chain as it relates to British Columbia, both at the producer and the marketing-re tail distribution levels - the whole scope of food as has been outlined very completely by the minister. I am very pleased to hear the minister indicate the breadth which he hopes this committee will be able to encompass during its activities.

I have some reservations as to whether, within the scope of the provincial jurisdiction, the committee can effectively get at all of the problems which go into making the cost of food as high as it is in British Columbia. We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we

[ Page 2572 ]

are not dealing strictly with British Columbia concerns. In fact, we are, in the course of this committee, going to - if we are to do a job, Mr. Speaker - pit ourselves against national and multinational corporations which do operate within our province and cover not just the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Speaker, but cover, in fact, the entire globe.

I think it has to be recognized, Mr. Speaker, that much of our food today is being grown and/or processed in the so-called undeveloped countries, and those foods are coming into our country today in competition with the foods being produced here. They are being grown and processed at wage rates that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) would not condone in the province of British Columbia - wages like $3 a day, Mr. Speaker, if they're lucky. Those kinds of wages are not part and parcel of our concept of the good life that we lead in British Columbia.

So I am suggesting to the House and to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the terms of this committee may not be operable, inasmuch as it is far more encompassing than simply British Columbia or Alberta or the Pacific Northwest.

I am also concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the timetable. The Premier told us the other day that this was going to be the longest sitting in the history of the Legislature. If that's true, we can expect that we will be here at least until the end of June. If I read the motion correctly, there is no intent that this committee will become actively operative until such time as the House adjourns. If that happens, Mr. Speaker, and we do not actually get to any of the traveling involved until July, I do not see, despite the very efforts that we might be prepared to put out, how we can encompass the things which the Land Commission has been involved in for the last four years and still hasn't completed. And really, that seems to be what stage one is all about. Are we going to review all the agricultural land in the province - its present use, its future use, its possible use, its rightful use? It's a terrific field, and whether we can do that, plus the Milk Board, plus 10 marketing boards, plus their processing plants and subsidiaries in a matter of two months and do a job, leaves me some grave misgivings as to the timetabling.

I would hope that the minister will retain an open mind as far as that particular facet of this motion goes. If it becomes necessary that timetable should be extended. To me, it is more important that this committee does a full and adequate job than that it meets any specific timetable.

One other comment I would like to make on the motion is the makeup of the committee. The opposition, through our leader (Mr. Barrett) , the other day expressed our feelings relative to the right of the minority to have an opportunity to express their opinions. I would hope that the minister could see his way to enlarging the committee to include two more government members and one more official opposition member, and to allow the other two opposition groups to sit on the committee as well. I think we all agree, whether we agree with their political point of view or not, that they are both hard-working and sincere members of this House with a great deal to contribute. I would like to see them have the opportunity to participate in the work of this committee.

I think those remarks basically cover my thoughts on the committee, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I am pleased to see that we are going to have, this review. And if we are going to have it, I am pleased to see that it is as all -encompassing as it appears to be. As I indicated, I have some concern as to whether, within the provincial jurisdiction, we will be able to get at the complete and total picture relative to present and future food costs and food requirements here within the province of British Columbia.

We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a very unusual position here in British Columbia at this point in time as far as food production is concerned. We are able to produce within the province of British Columbia far more local-grown food than the consumer in British Columbia is prepared to purchase because of the import situation where the dollar and cent impact is very grave, and rightly so, because people are on limited budgets. It's very hard to encourage people to spend a few cents more for a product than they can get an import product for when they can get that imported product for a few cents less than they pay for the local-grown. This is very difficult; it's against human nature.

I know the minister is committed to a very strong marketing programme. He has indicated this on different occasions. Whether or not he's going to be successful in that programme, I'm not so sure because human nature is a strange thing. I hope he is because I know that he has the interest of the producer and the local B.C. farm population very much at heart, as have 1. But it's a difficult thing when you have that ability to produce more than the consumer is prepared to buy and still are trying to maintain those farm units so they will be there against the time in the not-too-distant future when they will be very badly needed to produce the food that will no longer be available as imports.

Those are some of the problems that this committee is going to have to look at, because it must, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, be a long-range approach. We can't just look at this year or next year. We have to look at the next 10 years and what's going to be happening here in British Columbia. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, we have to look not just at British Columbia but at the entire international picture as far as food production and food consumption is

[ Page 2573 ]

concerned.

We're part of this world, Mr. Speaker. We can't put international boundaries around our province; we can't isolate ourselves. We are part of the international community; we are part of the global society. We must work towards becoming a meaningful and participating force in that society. One of the greatest ways that we can contribute to that Third World development is through some of our agricultural programmes, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion. I would like to see that international aspect go hand-in-hand with any thoughts that we may have relative to food production and consumption within the province of British Columbia.

I submit that all of those things, Mr. Speaker, relate to the overall cost of food to the consumer here in British Columbia. Very probably there is a need for government to participate very actively during the next 10 years in assuring that both the production levels are maintained and the production potential is maintained. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, there is a very grave need to assure that the consumer has affordable food available to him - not only affordable in cost, but food that is of the best possible quality.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add just two or three points to the ones made by my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and pose a couple of questions to the minister in the process which I hope that he will answer before we actually take a vote on this particular resolution.

One question relates to the sequence in which the four phases have been outlined to the House. One of my concerns relates to the new assessment bill which is still to be discussed before the Legislature. If the committee is going to be looking at land use, its present classification and its utilization for farm production, then one of the factors that must be considered is how the new assessment procedure in this province will affect farmland, because it could very well, if there are any major changes made here, Mr. Speaker, affect future utilization of that land in terms of production of food.

I think that I would ask the minister if he could, based on that issue alone, consider putting the question that deals with land at the end of the phases so that we can have a look, first of all, to see how that new assessment bill is going to affect the farmers of this province before we deal with utilization of farmland. I think that it would be easy enough, Mr. Speaker, to amend that so that Phase I becomes, in fact, Phase IV, so that we can see what happens with assessments and taxation as applied to farmland.

The other point that I would like to make, with respect to agricultural land - that is, Phase I, of the study - relates to foreign ownership. Now, Mr. Speaker, there's no reference made under Phase I to future foreign ownership of farmland. I know that the prairie provinces have been very concerned about major corporations, many of them international -non-Canadian - purchasing large tracts of farmland in those provinces. I would like to suggest to the minister that the question of foreign ownership of farmland be included under Phase I because I think that could have a major impact on the use of farmland in this province for future food production.

The other question I would like to pose to the minister relates to the intentions of the government. Does the government intend to implement any of the suggestions made by the committee following its first, second and third reports before the total picture has been presented through the report of the committee under Phase IV? In other words, I think it would be a mistake, Mr. Speaker, to have the government initiate any changes that relate to Phase 1, Phase II or Phase III until you have seen the total, overall picture. I would like to know if the minister would give us the assurance that no action whatsoever will be taken until we know the total picture.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just interrupt the hon. member for one moment and bring to her attention the fact that we're debating the matter of a motion, which is an instruction to the committee with specific terms of reference. That does not include a full-scale debate on the things you would have liked to have seen in the motion, and it does not, in itself, allow a reply by the minister, because the procedure within debate on a motion to a select standing committee of the House is different from that in the debate on a motion of a bill in that there is no right of reply to the minister.

MS. SANFORD: He does not have the opportunity to close debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Only with leave.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, well, we certainly would grant him leave, Mr. Speaker. The other point, it seems to me. . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Could I continue, please?

If you'll take the trouble to check the standing orders of our House - standing order 42 (2) - you'll find that there is no right of reply except by leave.

The other thing I wish to draw to the hon. member's attention is that the debate takes place strictly on the terms of reference to the committee. I'd ask you to restrict yourself to that, please.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, section 42 (2) notes quite clearly that a reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive

[ Page 2574 ]

motion, which of course this is.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I continue and read the rest of standing order 42 (2) ? It says: ". . . but not to the mover of an amendment, the previous question, or an instruction to a committee."

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat confused by this because it seems to me that when motions like this are being discussed, it gives the opposition an opportunity to attempt to make constructive criticisms with respect to procedures that are going to be adopted under this motion. It's the only time the opposition will have to put forward suggestions as to how the motion may be varied in some way - either in order, as I have already suggested, or in the number of members on that committee - and it seems to me that if we are raising concerns and would like assurances from the minister with respect to how the motion is going to be carried forward, then the minister should have the opportunity to respond to us and give us that assurance.

All right, I'm not going to argue about the rules, but what I'm saying is that we are making suggestions and I do hope the minister will agree, with leave, to respond to some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: What I'm bringing to the hon. member's attention is the type of debate that takes place on an instruction to a committee, which is quite different from the debate in second reading on a bill. The debate that takes place really must be limited mostly to the actual instructions to the committee, either in favour of it or not in favour of it. I don't think it would be out of order to suggest, as you have been doing, certain things you would have liked to have seen included, but that cannot be the main subject of your debate on this type of a motion. It can be referred to, as quite often happens in this House, but you should devote your main debate to the motion which is before us and the instruction to the committee, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate your guidance on this and will attempt to stay within the rules of the House as they apply to motions.

I do have those concerns with respect to foreign ownership, with respect to the order in which the duties of the committee are going to be carried out. I'm hoping that the minister will consider a very minor amendment which would simply change the order of the work of this committee. In other words, make Phase I Phase III. Just reverse those two. That would be fine; that would solve the problem so it would give us an opportunity to see how that new assessment bill is going to affect agricultural land.

I have to add, too, Mr. Speaker, my disappointment at the fact that the government has not seen fit to change the makeup of the particular committee involved so that the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) can also be included on this particular committee. Mr. Speaker, they do represent a different viewpoint. Right now we have the two political parties that are represented on the committee, but the province has four recognized parties. Even though there is only one representative from each of the Liberal and the Conservative voting populations in the province, I feel they do represent differing viewpoints. The government should certainly consider altering the makeup of this committee to enable those two members to be added to the committee, even if it means expanding to add more government members or more members from the official opposition as well. I think it is an oversight by the government. In fact, I think they're being petty on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I really feel they should reconsider their position on this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Okanagan.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of a debate, hon. member, which includes members on all sides of the House.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It's WASP night tonight - didn't you know?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be glad to defer to the hon. member after I've spoken.

I would just like to say that I'm very pleased to see this committee being struck. Indeed, its terms of reference are very extensive. I personally believe that this must be if we are to truly understand ourselves and help the public understand the reasons for the unique position that agriculture finds itself in in British Columbia, and if we're to pinpoint the problems of this unique position not in isolation, as has frequently been done in the past, but in the context of the whole land-producer-distribution-consumer cycle. It should also encompass management, labour and consumer roles and responsibilities. By this broad overview, it will hopefully bring forward some new ideas and some new approaches to what probably have become traditional patterns and reactions, perhaps more out of frustration or insecurity or habit than what is in fact in the best interests of the industry itself and the

[ Page 2575 ]

consumers in British Columbia.

I believe that we all hope that this committee and its work will lead in the end to a better understanding and a better feeling of confidence, a stronger feeling of confidence, between the consumer and the producer and labour, and a greater feeling of partnership among these three. None of the three can survive without the other.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the extensive terms of reference won't put the whole department and industry in a deep freeze. We are going into a productive season and decisions must be made. Some of them will likely have to transgress the terms of reference of the committee, but this will be necessary; and obviously others will have to be limited. But it's hoped that the greatest of understanding when those limitations are in effect will be shown by all,

I feel pleased at the extensive powers which this committee has been given. We have seen many studies done in the food industry and the distribution industry at all levels of government. But I believe one of the weaknesses in the findings of those committees has been that they haven't had or haven't used the powers open to them. I believe that you have to have the opportunity to go into camera as a committee with people under oath in order to truly understand or be able to receive answers for some of the question that you want to pose.

It's been my experience on committees that at times the answers are limited because the people are not under oath and because there is more of the feeling not that they don't want to tell the truth or say what the situation is, but that their competitors are looking over their shoulder. This opportunity to go in camera will allow the committee to call individual companies or individual people without this fear of their competitors looking over their shoulder. Also, because they are under oath, this will offer protection to the public that in fact the facts are being brought out, as well as, I believe, a protection to those who will be testifying from criticism of their peers or their neighbours, or perhaps other forms of inhibiting discipline.

It's been said, Mr. Speaker, that the only promotional department in government is tourism. While it is indeed a promotional department, I believe that Agriculture itself should have been and should be in the future not only a department of responsibility in terms of guidance, research and solution-solving in the industry, but also should have a major responsibility to promote this industry and to promote the products of this industry as well as an understanding between the consumers and the industry.

I would hope that the committee itself will come up and will have the opportunity to hear of new and imaginative approaches which might be taken by the government in co-operation with the industry, not as a takeover approach. I hope also, as we all do, that we will see a thorough review of the marketing approaches, and that we might again hear some new, practical and more imaginative approaches than we have been able to take in the past.

I would, Mr. Speaker, in closing just wish the minister and his committee every success. It's an awesome task, but I don't believe there is one member on that committee who isn't capable of meeting that challenge.

MR. LAUK: I want to welcome back the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , who I understand was in Columbia River. He reports that the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in grave danger there indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in worse danger here.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, just before getting to Motion 9, I'm disappointed that the Premier is not in the House today. He seldom is. He only comes in to make announcements on various minor things. But he was out jogging tonight. Yes, the Premier was out jogging tonight and a young man ran past the Premier on a three-and-a-half mile jog and defeated the Premier by an entire mile. The hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) was a mile ahead of the Premier, which symbolizes the political situation in the province of British Columbia today.

MR. SPEAKER: Now I'm sure you'll get down to debating Motion 9.

MR. LAUK: Now you're wondering, Mr. Speaker, how I'm going to relate this to Motion 9.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm waiting patiently.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Show us how!

MR. LAUK: The Premier is behind, Mr. Speaker, because he's the leader of this government. He's behind because he doesn't understand what the British parliamentary system is all about. Motion 9 emphasizes that lack of understanding. There were 145,000 British Columbians who voted for either the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party in this province. Although we in the New Democratic Party do not agree with the philosophy of either of those two parties, and many of the times we disagree with the two gentlemen who represent those two political parties, we find it an indescribable attack on the British parliamentary system for this government to avoid the appointment of those two hard-working MLAs to the committee for agriculture.

[ Page 2576 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: They had an option.

MR. LAUK: The hon. Minister of Mines says: "They had an option."

HON. MR. CHABOT: And they turned it down.

MR. LAUK: This is typical deceit, Mr. Speaker, because when that committee was formed....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon., first member for Vancouver Centre knows as well as anyone in this House that it is an improper parliamentary term to suggest "typical deceit" on the part of....

MR. LAUK: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. It was unusual deceit for any government....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member also knows, as an honourable and learned member, that he cannot use substitute words that in effect say the same thing. It is quite improper, and I'd ask you to withdraw the remark unconditionally.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that phrase unconditionally. I will describe the situation where the committee that was established to select the agricultural committee was chaired by the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . It wasn't unusual deceit and it wasn't typical deceit. It was advertent confusion because what happened was the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. leader of the Tory Party (Mr. Wallace) ....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon member, the insistence by yourself that you use a term in relation to members of this House which is unparliamentary is not in the best interests of the parliamentary tradition, as you well know.

MR. LAUK: Well, I withdrew the remark about....

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, and then quite quickly repeated it.

MR. LAUK: No, no. I said that it was not unusual deceit and it was not typical deceit. I said it was "advertent confusion."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is well aware of the rules of debate in this House and when you are cautioned to refrain from using a term which is unparliamentary, I would think that you would respect the rules of this House enough to refrain from doing so, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The other thing that I would like to draw to your attention, while we are on the matter, is that the terms of reference of this committee do not happen to include discussion or any relation or any reference to the number of members, the composition of the committee or who should be on that committee. That was determined by a vote in this House some time ago - that the standing committees of the House would be set up. So I would caution you to be temperate in your remarks in that respect, because it's not really part of the terms of reference that we are discussing in this motion.

MR. LAUK: Is this coming out of my time? Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on the makeup of the agricultural committee or the number of people on that committee, pursuant to Your Honour's direction.

But I do think it's relevant in this debate to discuss which committee this motion should be referred to. I don't think that a committee which does not have two of the political parties legitimately recognized in this province on that committee should be the committee to which this motion is referred.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, at the time that there was a discussion about whether there were going to be some committees active and some committees not so active, it was indicated to the Provincial Secretary that the two sole representatives of their parties - the Tory and the Liberal - should be allowed the flexibility to change committees when and if certain committees were made active, because 145,000 British Columbians voted for those two parties. God knows why!

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: They should have voted New Democrat. But everybody is entitled to make a mistake. But, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, those 145,000 voters are being disenfranchised, particularly because of the gravity and the importance of the motion that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has placed on the table today, and particularly because of the wide-ranging inquiry that is going to be carried on into one of the most important industries in this province. Representation should be there on a committee making that inquiry, and if the agriculture committee does not include the

[ Page 2577 ]

Tory and the Liberal, then we should refer it to a committee that does include those two.

Interruption.

MR. LAUK: I didn't know that I had that kind of an impact on the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . I am most pleased that I am impressing him with my argument.

MR. G. KERSTER (Coquitlam): On a point of order, I was assisted in that manoeuvre, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure what the point of order was. Will the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre continue?

MR. LAUK: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Coquitlam was not sure.

In any event, I don't understand quite how the Minister of Agriculture can proceed with this motion without seriously considering the appointment of the Tory and the Liberal to a committee that would investigate under the terms of reference of this motion.

I would ask, in all fairness and in the democratic tradition, that he intercede and ensure representation from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on such a committee. I do wish to impress upon him the importance of that issue. Why make an issue of that? Why not put them on the committee and have them represented? They are hard-working, they contribute a great deal, and I think it would be an avoidance of the minister's democratic responsibility not to bring whatever good offices he has to bear upon this important point.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I am pleased to see the minister set this committee up as well. I think we're well overdue for a review of the agricultural industry in the province, particularly the first phase of it there - the land that's already in the agricultural land reserve, what else should be in there and what the highest uses for that land are.

Up in my own area of the country, we've had quite a bit of property placed in the agricultural reserve that has served over the past generations as a site for the forestry base of our part of the country. Now we are seeing quite a bit of it cleared off where it is really only very marginal for grazing or some other light agricultural pursuit.

I certainly welcome this review and I hope they will look into this context. I can understand the committee probably won't be able to go all that deeply into whether it should be single use or multiple use, or what is the highest use, but certainly I think it's time we really evaluated what is in the agricultural reserve, what is out of it, and why some of the property is in it.

Some of the other areas of concern to me are in the larger boundaries of the municipality. We have quite a bit of prime agricultural land that has been left out of the reserve when the reserve was first set up. I think we were a little bit too general. A broad-brush approach was taken. I think a little more fine tuning would be appropriate, and perhaps the agricultural committee will be able to look into that while they are doing their review and their report.

The other part, Mr. Speaker, that is of primary concern to me is the study and the review of the marketing boards and, in this respect, particularly the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board. I think there were a lot of inequities when the marketing board was first established. I think the Fraser Valley producers got a lot of advantages over some of the outside areas of the province, and while there has been ongoing criticism and battles ever since on where the egg production should be in the province, it has never been rectified. At this late date it is a pretty difficult situation to straighten out. Some of the producers in the Fraser Valley have changed hands. They've gained their financing on the basis of the way the B.C. Egg Marketing Board was originally established, so it is a difficult thing to rectify at this stage.

I find it particularly disturbing and particularly alarming when CEMA, in all its wisdom, decided to take off the freight subsidy on ungraded eggs to the interior as of the first of this year, I believe it was. They decided, at the same time, to set up a two-tier price for eggs with the thought that perhaps that would be an encouragement to move more production out of the lower Fraser Valley. I don't really think that two-tier price could serve the purpose they expected it to. Certainly the majority of the producers in the outside area weren't looking for it and didn't welcome it. But taking the freight subsidy off ungraded eggs imposed a real hardship on any of the producers in the outside area that had grading operations. But more than just on the producers, Mr. Speaker, it also imposed a real hardship on the consumers in all the outside area.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just draw to your attention that in debating the resolution or the motion that's before us, it would be improper to engage in a full-scale debate on egg marketing boards - as to whether you are in favour or not in favour of egg marketing boards. This is part and parcel of the investigation which will take place by the committee appointed - the agricultural committee. So to give your point of view, or to draw conclusions, would be improper in the debate on this motion. Certainly, as you well know, the opportunity for all members of the Legislature to present their views to that

[ Page 2578 ]

committee will be given to them at some time in the future, as well as many other people in the province. I just suggest that in debating a motion of this type you do not debate in detail the terms of reference of the committee.

MR. LLOYD: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Speaker. I'm not all that certain if I quite follow what you're referring to there. Specifically, in Phase II, under part (a) , it says the British Columbia Milk Board will be one of the particular boards that are reviewed, and of course the egg board is mentioned further on again.

MR. SPEAKER: May I clarify for you then? It is proper to reflect on the terms of reference of the committee as to the fact of whether you're in favour of them or not in favour of them and reflect briefly upon all of the terms of reference. But it is improper to engage in a full-scale debate on one particular small segment of the terms of reference which happens to apply to egg marketing boards.

This is the type of investigation that the committee itself will be doing if, in fact, you are in favour of this particular motion to refer these matters to the committee.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand your parameters now. I certainly wasn't trying to tell the committee what it should look for before it begins. But it is a particular area of concern in my riding, and I believe also the British Columbia Milk Board is an area of concern. It seems rather odd that we had more production from the outside areas before these boards were ever established than we have at the present time, yet our population has quadrupled.

As I said earlier, I particularly welcome the set-up of this committee. I think it will be very interesting to see what they can come up with on the pricing of the various commodities and why the farmer isn't getting more out of them, particularly the beef producer. So I certainly welcome seeing it set up. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could refer my further remarks on the egg board under the minister's estimates, because I feel it has been a real inequity at this time to remove that particular freight subsidy. But perhaps that is better debated under the minister's estimates.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, every member who has spoken on this resolution before has expressed his concerns about concerns that exist in the community about, I suppose, when it comes right down to it, the price of food mainly, but certainly about all of the phases to be included in this report.

In particular, there are two, concerns I would like to mention. One is the particular committee to which this is being referred, and the shortcomings of that committee have, I think, already been mentioned. The other point that has struck me in particular is the timetable. I intend to ask the minister whether, on behalf of the government, he would accept a motion to adjourn this debate until the next sitting. I'd like him to consider that seriously, at least for a few minutes.

During the course of his remarks he did say that in some cases he believes that reporting has been slanted in favour of the producer. I know there are many people in the community who believe that to be the case. I've been in politics for some 30 years now and I can't recall it happening in that time, but it could have happened prior to that. I know there are people who believe that the farmers, in some cases, are getting a reasonable return and even more than a reasonable return. But certainly I can't recall any instances of the farming group that has had more than a reasonable return for its efforts. But I do know there is that concern in the community. There are people who do feel that in some instances producers of some products are making a rake-off at the expense of consumers.

I do know there are questions; the minister mentioned this. There are questions about the type of marketing, the marketing controls, if you like, and the marketing boards; there are some real questions in the mind of the community about this. I do think it is a subject worthy of some serious consideration by a select standing committee.

The minister mentioned as well the matter of comparison pricing. I think it is not simply a matter of comparing what the prices are in Victoria compared to Vancouver, or Vancouver compared to Edmonton, or Vancouver compared to Regina or anywhere else, or Vancouver compared to Seattle, Washington. I believe if we are going to look at comparison pricing, either at the retail level or the wholesale level, or indeed at the producer level, we have to look beyond the actual prices and the actual jurisdictions and look into such things as subsidies that are offered by other governments, and perhaps even assistance that is given to our own producers or whatever level in the food chain people work at. I think there has to be a real serious study of that kind of comparison before any committee can come to any conclusions that are going to be accepted by the community.

My point really is, Mr. Speaker, that if we are embarking on this kind of a study, on which the members of the House have already expressed real concern that there be some real understanding, if we are embarking on a study that will bring a report in that may be the basis of some legislative action, I think it is extremely important that that study, that work done by that committee, be accepted not only

[ Page 2579 ]

within this House but in the whole community. My concern is that if it is not a broader committee than the presenting Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, there will be some questions in the minds of some people reading that report, hearing that report or seeing action emanate from this report. There will be concerns as to whether the work was properly done or whether it was rushed through just in order to say: "Well, we did it. It doesn't really mean anything, but we did it." I think there will be that concern.

We are stuck with the very fixed, very inflexible timetable in front of us to look into the whole question of land reserves alone by August 31, without knowing on what date the committee can actually start working on this. I appreciate that the committee can meet while the House is sitting, but before the committee can really start serious work on any of these questions, I would think the House has to have adjourned its sittings for some time. To say, without knowing exactly what date we can start the effective work, regardless of when we start, regardless of how much time there is between that date and August 31, that the committee must bring in its first report by August 31, as I read it, Mr. Speaker, is quite inflexible. I believe there should be some flexibility allowed under "Overview" in section 5 with respect to the timetable.

I agree that it's important that we get this done. I believe it's important that the committee do work at it seriously and that they do try to bring in reports promptly. But simply with a view to giving the government some opportunity to allow some flexibility in No. 5, and also with a view to giving the government one opportunity to consider whether or not it should be a committee somewhat different from the present Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.... I believe the agriculture committee would do a good job of it. I think it was the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) who said that she has faith in the present members of the committee, as do 1.

Unfortunately, I don't speak for every one of the public who may have some reservations about the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture going out into the community and coming back and saying that the consumers are paying a fair price, or less than a fair price, or that the producers aren't getting enough. I believe there might be some serious questions, some serious reservations about what, I think, can be an extremely important job.

It's with those two things in mind - I believe there should be some flexibility, I believe there should be some further consideration given to the nature of this committee - that I would like to ask the minister at this point, on behalf of this government, to accept a motion. Since he can't move it - he can't speak without leave - and since as one of the persons replying to his motion, I do have the opportunity at this time, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 18

NAYS - 28

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

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): You know, Mr. Speaker, of all of those who just voted, I think I was perhaps most puzzled by my three former colleagues who went into the Social Credit Party to reform it. I'm surprised at that. They haven't reformed the Social Credit Party; the Social Credit Party has deformed them.

When I think of the days when we used to sit in this House more or less in this vicinity and we used to look across at the government of the day, which wasn't perfect any more than the government of today is perfect, but they had the views of people who were concerned about the rights of the opposition in a democratic process....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Stand up and talk, Mr. Member, when you're ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, can I just draw to your attention briefly two things? The first is that it is improper to reflect upon a vote of the House which has been decided by a majority of the members in the House, as you know. Secondly, we are debating Motion 9.

[ Page 2580 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly adhere to that injunction. In technical detail I was reflecting on the members rather than the vote, but I'll get on to the question of the resolution.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I think you've made a very good point.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You would.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, we just heard from an hon. member who was the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) . He was a good one. He cautioned the present minister and he cautioned this House that there were some problems with this resolution. The basic idea is a good one - to refer the subject matter to a legislative committee. But the deadlines, Mr. Speaker, are almost impossible. I suggest that one of the early things the committee will want to do is to review those deadlines with its staff and consider to what extent they may be possible and make an early report to the House to suggest a variation. That's a technicality.

The question of staff is far more important. The staff of this committee will be doing most of the work; that's inevitable, as this is a highly involved and technical business. Talking about music - if you choose the right composer you can get anything from John Cage to Lawrence Welk. That's what the question of staff of this committee will be all about. I think it's important that the minister should give some kind of public assurance that the staff which is eventually chosen will be acceptable to all the members of that committee and not just to the government side. It is critical that the committee not be construed as purely a creature of the government set up to get a result that the government wants. I will recall to the attention of the House and to Hansard that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) applauded that statement; one day I will ask him to stand up and deliver on that.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriateness of this committee is an important subject for this debate. This is an agricultural problem, but it is a good deal more than an agricultural problem. It is, as the member for Nanaimo suggested, a resource problem in its broadest sense, and the terms of reference indicate that. We are to look at the land of the province, which is our basic resource. It's a consumer problem, in every dimension of that statement. There is nothing that more pervasively affects the interests of the consumers of this province than the price of food, the variety that is available and the point of sale.

To my mind, it is questionable whether this is the appropriate committee to send this resolution to. I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, the composition of this committee. It includes: the hon. member for

Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) , who is the chairman; the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) ; the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) ; the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) ; the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) , who is the only clearly urban member on that committee; the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ; the former Minister of Agriculture and now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ; the former Minister of Agriculture, who is now the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) ...

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's what I'm talking about. That's right. The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was a Minister of Agriculture.

... the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) ; and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace.)

They're all fine and honourable members, Mr. Speaker, but the majority of those members have a close and enduring and proper connection with the agricultural interests of this province, and it is only right that that connection should be recognized on this committee. But on this committee there should also be recognized an approximate balance - a strong representation of people from the urban areas of this province who would logically represent the consuming interests of this province. There should be a balance on that committee.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Of course, Madam Member, you consume. There is no question about that. But as the member for Nanaimo said, and he is a former Minister of Agriculture - he understands the political sensitivity of this thing, and he understands the political difficulties of this - the people. . . .

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pit region against region, Go ahead.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Partisanship to the end.

MR. GIBSON: Listen to the Minister of Education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't look for one of your former turncoat friends?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty of that member is not that he does not understand partisanship. 'Me 'difficulty of that member is that he does not understand loyalty; that's the simple difficulty of that member. It's interesting, is it not, Mr. Member, that they cry loudest who jump

[ Page 2581 ]

farthest?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: You know, Mr. Speaker, I can have no objection to the hard line taken by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . He's been a good Social Crediter since he ran federally in 1957. If I understand rightly, would that be the first technical move? Anybody who has been a Social Crediter that long has my admiration for tenacity and other adjectives that might not be parliamentary. But he's certainly consistent.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Listen to the Lone Ranger.

MR. GIBSON: So we have this reference to a committee which, in my view, ought to have more urban members on it. So I question whether this is the right committee to send it to. I think that the government, if it wants the consumers of this province to agree with the conclusion which this committee comes to, ought to bear that very carefully in mind. There's something else they ought to bear carefully in mind and that is that there are a lot of backbenchers in that party who could make some contribution to this kind of inquiry, beyond the hon. members for Shuswap, Chilliwack, Delta, Skeena, and Vancouver South, and the Ministers of Agriculture and Economic Development.

There are others there who have farmland in their ridings and there are others there who have consumers of food in their ridings who don't have enough to do. The Premier is always telling us that MLAs don't have enough to do. It would be a nice thing if they had a chance to contribute on this committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you put your name down?

MR. GIBSON: That doesn't seem to be possible. But that's their problem, Mr. Speaker; they can work that out within the caucus, I presume. I want to talk about something that can't be worked out inside the Social Credit caucus - it has to be worked out in the crucible of public opinion - and that's the question as to whether it is proper to have a committee of this kind with the denial of the right to speak of two of the political parties of British Columbia thereon.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You had your choice.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. Minister of Mines, who's a hard-line politician - and I admire him for that -says: "You had your choice." That's like the old story: you have your choice and you go through one door or the other.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You just want to flit around....

MR. GIBSON: Behind one door are the goodies and behind the other door is the dragon, and you're not given any clues as to which door is which. I'll tell you who is the keeper of those doors in this chamber. It's the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) .

So we meet in a committee of selection, Mr. Speaker, when these committees are being formed, and the Provincial Secretary says to us: "You can go on four committees." Now there are eight committees, but the Provincial Secretary says: "You can go on four."

MR. KAHL: Do you want to be on them all?

MR. GIBSON: Yes. I have a duty to represent 93,000 votes in this province. The hon. member for Oak Bay has a duty to represent 5 0,000 votes in this province. Yes, I want to be on every committee. You stand up and talk when you're ready to talk, Mr. Member, and you just refute that point. But in the meantime, I insist on the right to represent the people who voted for my political party in this province.

MR. LLOYD: You're not in the House half the time. How can you be on all the committees?

MR. GIBSON: The trouble with that member who just interjected is I never know whether to think of him as Howard Lloyd or Harold Lloyd. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, he is not supposed to identify people by name. Also some of the other speakers were already told that the makeup of the committee isn't up for debate. You've been rambling on and on and on here. These super-members want to be on everything.

MR. SPEAKER: It is, as the hon. member knows, improper to refer to another member by name in the House.

MR. GIBSON: That's absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw any mention of that member. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: While you're at it, hon. member, would you now return to the motion which is before the House, which is No. 9? I've cautioned a number of other members about the remarks that they seem to wish to engage upon, and that is to debate the membership of the committee and not the motion.

[ Page 2582 ]

I'd ask you to debate the motion which is before the House now, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm endeavouring to do so. One of the things that this motion does is refer a matter to a particular committee, and I'm just wondering whether that's the right committee. I mentioned that the basic resource of this province is concerned, and that's land. Maybe the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources might be a better committee to send this to. I for one would not object to that. But I was attempting to reply to some untimely Interjections from across the floor.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Well, if the minister says they're timely, then he'll support my right to reply to them. They were interjections which suggested that my political party did not have a right to have its voice represented on any committee doing important work in this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. GIBSON: That's what that member suggested. Mr. Speaker, that to me is unacceptable, be that committee agriculture, be it municipal affairs, be it anything you might say, because it's representing the voices of 93,000 British Columbians who in rather adverse and difficult circumstances nevertheless chose this particular road. That's their business and I intend to represent them.

MR. KAHL: Why didn't you get on the committee?

MR. GIBSON: The member chirps out again, Mr. Speaker. I just finished telling him that the gatekeeper said: "You're only allowed on four committees."

MR. KAHL: Why didn't you put your name on the committee?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. members quit the interjections which are not required in the debate of this motion and allow the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano to continue debating Motion 9, which is before the House at the moment?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At that time, as a matter of history, I said to the chairman of the selection committee: "This is very difficult. Could you tell us which committees are going to be sitting?"

The Provincial Secretary said: "No, I cannot."

I said: "Would you undertake to reconsider the composition of committees if any may be activated that are not anticipated at this time?"

The Provincial Secretary said: "Yes."

AN HON. MEMBER: Secret police all over again.

MR. GIBSON: Yesterday I sent a note to the Provincial Secretary, I sent a copy to the Premier, and I sent a copy to the Minister of Health, who's also on that committee, and I reminded them of this statement.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I knew what your answer would be, Mr. Minister.

I have received no answer to that - no answer to a pretty basic undertaking in advance of a pretty fundamental debate. It's another indication of what this government thinks about the democratic process in this province.

I want to pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to the generous remarks of the official opposition in this debate, because whatever else I may have thought of them when they were government, they are democrats, and I pay tribute to them for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've been more than patient with the line of debate you have taken with respect to this motion. I think you've certainly had an ample opportunity to express your point of view concerning the makeup of committees of the House. Now I'd ask you, if you would, to return to the subject matter of Motion 9 and debate on the basis of the vote that is before us, and the motion that is before us, not upon the composition of committees of the House.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to recount the history of the approach to me by the Minister of Agriculture on Friday when he came to suggest that such a committee might be formed and might be instructed.

The minister came by, as a courtesy, I thought, to ask leave - and that was very good of him - for the moving of that motion on Friday. I said: "There's a problem with the membership of the committee. Could you endeavour to work it out?" He courteously agreed to that. In due course, he came back and he said: "I'm sorry, but the committee's structured."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've cautioned you before, and I caution you again, that the line of debate which you are now taking has nothing to do with the subject matter of the motion that's on the

[ Page 2583 ]

floor. Would you please return to debate on the motion that is before us?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion, among other things, is the legitimacy of this committee to consider the subject matter before us. I demand the right to debate that!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm not in any way suggesting to you that I wish to impair or interfere with your right to debate the motion which is before us, as long as the remarks that you make are related to the motion which is presently on the floor of the House. That is not to be construed as an invitation to debate the composition of all committees of the House as to your particular opinion on whether they're competent, large enough, small enough, or whatever. It is a matter that you must debate the motion within the rules of the House, hon. member. That's all I'm trying to point out to you at the present time.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must express the opinion that your comments in restricting the member in this debate are bordering on harassment and lecturing. I express this opinion, Mr. Speaker, because I believe . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the point of order is this, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. McGEER: Don't lecture the Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: The Speaker is lecturing the House and your interruptions....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'm on a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Well, if they'd shut up for a minute and listen....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: If there's any cheapness it's because of you more than anything else.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition please take his seat?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm prepared, hon. member, to listen to a legitimate point of order. That is part of the duty of the Chair. If, on occasion, the Chair finds it necessary to lecture a member because of a repeated refusal to follow the rules of the House, I'm sorry, but that has to be done in order to keep order in the House and bring to the member's attention the rules of debate. That is part of the duty of the Speaker at times in this House, unfortunately.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that this member is being relevant. The member is talking about the structure of the committee and can, in order, discuss any structure of any committee in terms of a motion that's in front of this House. I know of no ruling, either in Beauchesne, or May, or any other order, that indicates the member cannot speak of the composition of the committee or make a request to the government for him to be on the committee. If we cannot discuss that in terms of discussing the committee, what in the world... ?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Why are you clucking? Are you so guilty because you're being petty? Are you being petty?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: The motion was to adjourn, not on the structure of the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the committees were set up by a motion of the House.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

[ Page 2584 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members please allow the hon. Leader of the Opposition to make a point of order?

MR. BARRETT: But certainly a member can speak about his opinion on whether or not he wants to be on that committee and ask the government to consider his point of view about the membership of that committee. I cannot see how in any debate of referring any matter to any committee why a member cannot stand up in this House and express his opinion that he would like to be on that committee that is being discussed. Surely I would like, before you make a ruling, for you to bring to this House some examples from May or Beauchesne that clearly state, a member cannot express his opinion about being on that committee once a committee is being discussed. If I have examples in front of me, I would be less inclined to question your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is the duty of the Chair to keep the debate within the rules of the House, and within the subject matter that's before the House, and without interjections when I'm replying, hon. member. That is all that I'm attempting to do. I believe that the Chair has been more than lenient in allowing debate to take place on this particular motion which is before us, which, if we were to define it and narrow it, is certainly outside of the type of debate that should be allowed. As long as the debate is relevant to the subject matter that's before us, I'm prepared to listen to it.

MR. BARRETT: I must express my point of order that it's relevant for a member to speak of his or her own competence to become a member of that committee. Surely that is the responsibility of every elected member to express that in a motion of this kind, If, however, your ruling is contrary, it would make it much easier in this specific example if you could show us any precedent for the ruling that you're making.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd be quite happy to do so, hon. member, but it is clear in both May and Beauchesne that in dealing with standing committees of the House either adding or discharging a member may only be done by a motion on the order paper on notice.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I recognize you saying that, and there is no motion....

MR. SPEAKER: The 17th edition at page 640.

MR. BARRETT: Of course it deals with the motion. That is fine, but that does not stop a member from adding his opinion as to his own worth to that committee. There's no ruling against that in this kind of debate, none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. I have to disagree with the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I would like a ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You've had it, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Are you ruling that he is out of order to discuss whether or not he should be on that committee?

MR. SPEAKER: I've listened with great patience to the hon. member and pointed out to him when I felt he was transgressing the rules of the House and when he was not.

MR. BARRETT: Is your ruling, sir, to make it clear in my mind, that you are saying that he does not have the right under this motion to discuss whether or not he can add something to that committee?

MR. SPEAKER: He has the right to debate the subject matter of the motion, hon. member. If it's a matter of adding or discharging members of the committee - and in this case it's adding them - it would be by substantive motion on the order paper.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a ruling; it's a matter of speaking to your point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if it's not a ruling, then I ask for a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to your point of order, I've given you the reference, and that

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he does so. He just made a ruling. Well, then, Mr. Speaker, I asked you for a ruling. You just gave me a ruling. . . .

MR. SPEAKER: I've given you the references that we must refer to in dealing with a matter of this kind.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you are giving an order that restricts debate. Therefore you're giving a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, occasionally the

[ Page 2585 ]

Chair has to make a rule or decisions, and discretionary decisions, I admit ...

MR. BARRETT: Very good, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: ... to keep the members of the House within the rules of the House. That is what I have done.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. You've made a ruling and I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you've made a ruling. I challenge it. It's a matter of a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: You raised a point of order. I've given you the references ...

MR. BARRETT: And you've made a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: .. . which you need to be given with respect to why we debate matters in the manner that we do and how we debate a motion when it's before the House.

MR. BARRETT: I asked you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling in this instance; you did. That's the only instruction we can take is to make a ruling. If you're not making a ruling, he's free to express his opinion and so are you free to express yours. But if you're giving a ruling to this House, then we have a right to challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as I understand it, you are questioning the fact that when I have suggested to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano the relevancy of his remarks it was improper for the Chair to do so, and you challenge the ruling that I have made.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's then a matter that there's no debate or no discussion. Obviously the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to challenge a ruling of the Chair. It's a matter of putting the question,

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

YEAS - 29

NAYS - 19

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

MR. BARRETT: A little bit of democracy died tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I was addressing the issue as to which is the proper committee to send this reference to. In my view, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture has certain deficiencies in terms of its makeup. I was relating to you, sir, my attempt to discuss with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , when he came to advise of his intention to move the resolution, the possibility that there might conceivably be other fora in which to better ventilate the matter, or perhaps, more precisely, an amendment of the one that he was suggesting.

I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, although I will not put words in the minister's mouth, that he thought that suggestion fair. I am equally satisfied that the person who issued the instructions that no changes were to be made was the Premier of this province. I will not go into my reasons for that but I am satisfied. If he wishes to stand up and deny that, I will, of course, accept his word. But I am satisfied.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is another representation of the attitude that the Premier of this province bears towards the democratic process in this province. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government has the power to put through this resolution tonight or tomorrow or whenever it comes

[ Page 2586 ]

to a vote. I will not question that. Our system, as long as there is a majority government, provides for a four-or five- or three-year elected dictatorship, and that's it. They make the rules and they pass them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want the government to remember after tonight that there are some powers left with the opposition. I want the government to remember that if appropriate action is not taken with respect to this committee - and I won't speak for my colleague; he can speak for himself - as far as my party is concerned and the status of my party in this House, this is a declaration of war on the Liberal Party. If that's what the minister wants and if that's what the Premier wants, it's war from here on.

MR. BARRETT: That's what he wants! He doesn't want co-operation; he wants war.

MR. GIBSON: I heard one of the members opposite say: "That's okay." That's right. They don't want co-operation; they want confrontation. They want the House to run that way.

But leaving that in passing, I'm just saying this. This House will reassemble after its presumed recess tomorrow in a matter of days or weeks - whatever it may be. The government has the power eventually to do what it wants, but the opposition has certain powers left.

Those routine powers and such imaginative powers as I can conjure up will be used to their fullest, because when war is declared, when there is an attempt at the extermination of a species that is inconvenient, that species fights back.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Shame on you!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, between the two parties - the Liberal Party and Conservative Party in this province - 145,000 actual voters at the last election have a right to be represented on the committee investigating food costs in this province. The failure to accede not to that request, not to that privilege, but to that right, will stand as a declaration of war in this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few comments to make. I believe that the committee should do its work, and would be assisted by a staff that are very, very competent and have shown a great deal of co-operation in the past.

We have had extensive experience of committees moving from the House throughout various parts of this province. The only other time that I recall that a refusal was made for a change of committee members was when Phil Gaglardi was in the glue on the highways inquiry, and Mr. Bonner of the day blocked a change of committee members.

He wouldn't let the hon. member for Vancouver East on that committee at that time, and the vilification Mr. Bonner took from the Liberal Party of the day was a highlight of the session. Desks were pounded, applause was made and attacks were made by Liberals who said that Mr. Bonner was blocking the change of committee members. Gaglardi was protected by the old Socreds - they never changed the committee. That member is asking for his right to sit on a committee. You've blocked it and you display a level of pettiness and arrogance that borders on the same level of Bonner and the old Socred gang. There's no question about it.

Sure a government has to govern; sure a government has to make decisions. But at no time did we ever say to any committee member, if they wanted to change or switch, that we were too stubborn or petty that they couldn't change or switch. Of course they have that right! They’re elected not only as party members, but our own rules tell us they're elected without recognition of the party once they're in here. They have full rights as individual MLAs, and those rights should be respected on all sides of the House.

A switch! At no time did our government ever interfere with any member who wanted to switch on any committee - at no time! It is pettiness, arrogance and, frankly, stupidity, in my opinion!

You impair the natural working of the democratic process. That member said he may not agree with our philosophy but admits that at least we're democratic. We proved that when we were in government. Oh, you mocked it and you laughed and you sneered and you said things. Now when you've got power. . . .. Those three former Liberals - the smugness with which they sit there and hear these words tonight! They were sanctimonious when they were Liberals. I don't know if you'll sleep well tonight or not, but that's on your conscience. You are full of hate. You hate the system; you hate the opposition; you hate everything.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: You are full of hate, pettiness and arrogance.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, please refrain from attacking the members of the House and debate the motion that's before the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am attacking the government for not showing flexibility in allowing freely elected members to have a free choice of committees that they wish to serve on in this House. If that's asking for too much, then what the heck is democracy all about?

Those great freedom fighters went around this province, saying they were going to protect the rights

[ Page 2587 ]

of the legislators. The Premier insults unnamed MLAs by saying they won't work. Members who want to work are being blocked from committee. You make a ruling, which I've already challenged, that a member can't stand and make that appeal. What has this House come to?

You sneer and you mock, but you sit there in arrogance, pettiness and in shame. Mr. Speaker, I think this is disgraceful.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, please debate the motion.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you, of all people. Of all people, you - you turncoat....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition please obey the rules of the House and debate the motion before the House, which is a motion to refer certain matters to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the committee, this House and the people in this province can be better served if they allow flexibility and if two members who represent other political parties are allowed to sit on that committee. Is that asking the end of the world? Is it asking the defeat of a government?

If you're that insecure, then fair enough. I'll sit down by saying it plain and simple: pettiness and arrogance unequalled since the time you blocked on the Gaglardi committee. It's the same gang with three Liberals who have, as that member said, been deformed in their principles.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I certainly believe that the purpose for which this motion has been brought before the House is well worthwhile and perhaps long overdue. The areas of human concern in the province relate very much to the basic essentials of food and shelter and heat. The previous government showed a sensitivity in some of these areas, particularly in the area of trying to modify rent increases in the case of accommodations. And now this government is....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor. Would the hon. members please refrain from interrupting the hon. member for

Oak Bay?

MR. WALLACE: And so this government's attempt to....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As soon as we get some order, hon. member, I'll ask you to continue.

MR. WALLACE: I see this government initiative as being very worthwhile in trying to deal with something which is a very serious concern to the people in the province, particularly senior citizens and those on fixed incomes, namely the cost of food. When citizens have to give such primary consideration to one of the basic elements in their budget, then it perhaps, as I said a moment ago, is overdue that a committee of this House should try to carry out an in-depth study of all the factors that impinge upon the ultimate cost that the consumer pays.

I would commend the government in this regard that the study proposed is wide-ranging. In the motion the study is described as involving all segments of the food industry and involving considerations in British Columbia, Alberta and the Pacific Northwest. The study is destined to last at least a year. On that basis it would seem to be one which carries the basic purpose of being thorough and detailed. That would bring me to ask a question as to whether the job that is being asked to be done in the motion can be done by this committee under the circumstances which have been outlined.

In the first place I see this as being a traveling committee. From experiences in the past, traveling committees are not noted for good attendance at public hearings for a variety of reasons: the reasons of distance, conflicting commitments, the time of the year and many other factors. I consider that a committee with 10 members, including two cabinet ministers, which is to sit for one year, simply will not be able in a responsible and efficient way to carry out the very extensive responsibilities which have been placed upon it in this motion. So regardless of who is on the committee, the committee, being of the nature of a traveling committee holding office for at least a year with two cabinet members sitting among the 10 members, is simply not large enough. That is just a simple fact regardless of all the politicking or whatever we might call the kind of debate we've had tonight.

The former government initiated the concept of traveling committees which would try to visit as many different regions of the province as possible so that there could be the widest and most diverse expression of interested parties on the subject being considered. In one case, it was the needs of senior citizens in the home; in another committee it was to

[ Page 2588 ]

discuss regional bargaining for teachers. In both these cases there were frequent absences, for the reasons I've mentioned, and the hearings were less effective than were intended simply because only some of the members could attend. Neither of these issues, Mr. Speaker, has anything of the breadth of impact and interest that this particular motion focuses upon for the simple reason that there are few issues in British Columbia today that are of such concern to such a large percentage of the population as food prices.

Some of the specifics which are mentioned in the motion are matters which one hears almost every day, either in the media, the newspapers, or by public comments, such as a critical examination of markups. There is a high level of suspicion among the residents of British Columbia that somewhere along the line somebody is taking an unfair share and an excessive and unjustified mark-up.

The resolution talks about the Pacific Northwest, and I'm not sure just how far the motion intends that phrase to be interpreted, but once again, whatever its precise meaning, it just emphasizes the intention of the government to have a very extensive, far-reaching and detailed inquiry that involves a great deal of traveling and a wide diversity of people and groups coming before the committee.

Nobody has to ask justification for such an inquiry, Mr. Speaker, when we realize that literally hundreds of B.C. residents cross the American border every weekend to buy their food in the United States which, after paying duty, is still cheaper than it can be purchased in British Columbia. One might quite reasonably ask the question, since this committee is to sit for at least a year and then presumably have its recommendations considered by this House, whether the prices of some of the basic commodities which are right now causing problems to those on fixed incomes, such as milk, poultry and eggs, presumably will still continue to rise in the course of the year and a half or so before this committee's recommendations can be considered by the House.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I feel the terms of reference, however well motivated and well intended, being imposed on this particular committee of 10 members means the work which will be done will fall far short of what I'm sure this minister would like to see take place. Somewhere in the course of that year there will probably be some face-saving manoeuvre forced on the government by the poor attendance of committee members over a period of one year. We will then probably have the incredible situation where this government will want to - and will have to -increase the membership of that committee.

Governments are not noted for acknowledging their errors when it means losing face in public. I understand that one of the cabinet ministers chose to use language on the radio which I know he would not be permitted to use in this House about me and the

Liberal leader. I certainly cherish freedom of speech and I don't really care what that minister thinks of me personally or how he chooses to insult me in public. That is irrelevant to me. But I think the interesting fact, Mr. Speaker, was the immediate public response to that kind of behaviour by that particular minister.

This government, in large measure, was elected on a commitment to be an open government, to use the established democratic methods of governing and to respect the rights of minorities. In that respect, the government has failed miserably on this issue. I don't even present my argument on the basis of just my own conviction that 1, as a duly elected democratic member of this House, am entitled to serve on this committee; I do it on the basis of the government's failure to meet its commitment to all of the people of British Columbia. It isn't a question of the government meeting its commitment to the Conservative Party or to the Liberal Party. It's a matter of the government following tradition and meeting its commitment in a democratic fashion to all the people of British Columbia. Whether it's me or the Liberal leader, who happen to be the personalities involved, the principle is one which I think should not be so lightly tossed aside, as has been done by this government.

Despite these reservations, I do hope that the committee will function well and that the members will be able to give it the amount of time and attention which it inevitably demands. The intent, I think, is excellent in that the motion does not try to simply zero in on the price of one commodity or one marketing-board function or one specific area. It does most genuinely attempt to outline the way in which all aspects of the food industry should be studied.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that many things have been said in this debate in the heat of the moment. When I rose to speak, my greatest concern was that I would allow my anger to get the better of me. But I find as I listen to the debate tonight and watch the completely unreasonable response of the government to the reasonable proposals as to how this committee could be enhanced and be given a greater chance to do the job which I know the government wants it to do, I stand here more with a sense of pity for British Columbia - not even pity for this government.

The majority of voters chose this government in the hope that there would be the most open, democratic and wide view of the governing process brought to bear upon all the problems that face British Columbians at this time. On an issue where the government had such a golden opportunity to meet its commitment and its pledge to the voters, I'm just disappointed, regardless of my personal involvement.

I'm deeply disappointed in the Premier in particular. He has taken this churlish and

[ Page 2589 ]

unreasonable and undemocratic approach on the most important issue of trying to provide food at the most reasonable prices to all the people of the province. In trying to bring that about through an in-depth inquiry, he chooses to leave out two legitimate, democratically elected parties to this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) suggested that if I disagreed with his assumption that we had blocked his membership on the committee, I should rise and deny it. I do so now. He has arrived at a false assumption.

The members themselves, through dealing with the select standing committee, either include themselves or exclude themselves from committees of this House. I had never thought that the committees were any more than an opportunity for all members of the House to represent and deal with very important issues. To attack the committee and say it doesn't have the competence to deal with this important question is to attack those members already appointed to the committee. It's to attack the competence of those members, in advance, to deal with this very important subject.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's absolute nonsense!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have confidence in all of the members that were negotiated on to this committee, whether they're from the opposition or whether they're from the government. There is an opportunity for members to switch.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , who suggested there was no opportunity for members to switch. There is an opportunity for the official opposition to make representation for their members making room for other opposition members, That's within their competence. That is part of the negotiation that took place some months ago in which the allocation between government and opposition. . . . When we were in opposition in this Legislature, under which was the ability to negotiate between opposition and government representation in advance of committees. . . .

At that time there was discussion among opposition parties under the official opposition. As such, they have the ability to make the type of switch of members in opposition membership. I'm sure such would not be denied, although I do remember, when we were in opposition, trying to get the present Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to take the place of one of our other members on committee. That was denied by the former Attorney-General, who is now the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . I remember that very well, and I don't remember any of the members who speak so eloquently about members' rights tonight rising to support us on that occasion. I don't remember any support at all, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Did you raise it in the House? It's the first I've heard of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe the hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't remember the voices.

What I suggest is that those who attack this committee in advance by saying it will not be able to do the job, in fact, bring into question the very ability of those members who are on the committee. I say shame! Shame on those members who suggest that!

To suggest in advance that members of committees should represent the sum collection of their parties' votes in an election is also wrong. Each member in this House was elected by a majority in their constituency and as such has the support of a large section of the voting public. On legislative committees it is expected that politics will be left aside and the public good done. When recommendations from those committees can be translated into government action, then the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party will have their opportunity to debate in this House.

It is well within their rights to suggest that they would bring politics to any standing committee that is out dealing with such a serious problem as this. But I suggest that committees of the House have a higher purpose than representing political parties, but representing the membership of this House.

Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity during this year and next year for many of the committees to be activated, and those members who wish to serve on active committees will have their opportunity. But to suggest that this committee can't function because they are not on it is to attack those members who are on that committee.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this review

[ Page 2590 ]

could have well been dealt with in an inquiry in another way or a study by the various departments without bringing it to the Legislature. The fact that we consider the members of this Legislature have a function and a responsibility to deal with this important topic indicates this government's concern for the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that their strict definition within the terms of this committee meeting is that they shall report to the Legislature and bring in a report. I know that in the past when committees traveled, reports have never been presented to the Legislature.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll be glad to deal with that in the record after the House has risen.

Mr. Speaker, this House has an opportunity, and the members on this committee, for this to be the first activated committee to deal with a very important public duty and public responsibility. Politics should not enter this committee. There'll be room for the politics of debate when the recommendations from this committee come before the House. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked and amazed that some members suggest that this committee should deal in politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11: 01 p.m.

[ Page 2591 ]

APPENDIX

9 The Hon. J. J. Hewitt moved-

1. That this House instructs the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to examine, in four separate phases, all segments of the British Columbia food industry and to conduct this examination within the following parameters:

Phase I-Agricultural Land, Present and Future Requirements

(a\) Evaluate the amount of agricultural land currently in production within the agricultural land reserves, its present classifications and utilization in meeting current food requirements of the Province.

(b\) Determine the need for further development and improvement of those lands to both safeguard the Province's future food requirements as well as to provide for exports where such activity can be accomplished on an economically sound basis.

Phase II-Producer and Marketing Board Level

(a) Examine the powers, pricing practices and operating policies of the British Columbia Milk Board and of all commodity marketing boards established under the British Columbia Natural Products Marketing Act to determine their relative influence on retail prices of food commodities under their respective jurisdictions.

(b) Examine comparative producer returns and changes in those returns at producer level over the past ten years of a selected list of food items in British Columbia, Alberta, and other areas of the Pacific Northwest. The list of food items shall include some commodities under marketing board control (e.g., apples, potatoes, tomatoes, broiler chickens, turkeys, milk, eggs, and mushrooms) and some which are not under marketing board control (e.g., salmon, beef, lamb, bread, bacon, oranges, breakfast cereals, and raspberries) . The Committee shall be free to expand this list of items as it feels appropriate.

(c) Examine the comparative costs of producing these food commodities in

British Columbia, Alberta, and other areas of the Pacific Northwest.

Phase III-Processing, Distribution, and Merchandising Level

(a) Examine pricing practices and merchandising methods of food merchandisers in the Province including those involved in the processing, distribution, brokerage, wholesaling, and retailing of food. Undertake a critical examination of markups in food prices at the various levels.

(b) Examine comparative prices and price changes over the past ten years in British Columbia, Alberta, and other areas of the Pacific Northwest at processor and retail levels of the food items examined in Phase 1.

(c) Examine comparative costs of processing, distribution, and merchandising food in British Columbia, Alberta, and other areas of the Pacific Northwest.

Phase IV--Overview

Develop a general overview of the food price situation as it is influenced by factors which the committee considers important. Included in these considerations will be

(a) the impact of labour costs on food prices;

(b) the impact of other input costs on food prices (e.g., the cost of money, transportation, packaging, labelling, additives, farm inputs, quotas, etc.) ;

(c) examination of average weekly incomes in British Columbia and other areas over the past ten years, and the relationship of these to food prices in the same period;

(d) examination of the degree of pricing competition between retailers in British Columbia;

[ Page 2592 ]

APPENDIX

(e) the impact of food imports, franchises, and vertical integration on food prices;

examination of any other factors considered by the Committee to be significant in determining food prices.

2. That the Committee shall consider any changes in the present food marketing system which may be beneficial to consumers, producers, and merchandisers, and shall recommend methods whereby Government may influence the adoption of such changes.

3. That the Committee be authorized to engage the services of such research staff as it considers necessary to collect and compile the required information.

4. That the Committee shall have authority to send for persons, papers, and records, and to hear presentations from such organizations and individuals at public hearings or in camera as may, at the discretion of the Committee, appear necessary and, pursuant to section 80 of the Constitution Act, examine witnesses upon oath. The Committee shall have the authority to conduct hearings in any part of the Province.

5. That the Committee shall file its reports with recommendations to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture on the following schedule: Phase I-not later than August 31,1977. Phase II-not later than August 31,1977. Phase III-not later than December 31,1977. Phase IV-not later than March 31,1978.

6. And the Committee may sit

(a) during a period in which the Legislative Assembly is adjourned and during a sitting of the House, and

(b) during the recess after prorogation until the next following session, and shall report to the Legislative assembly on the matters referred to it following the adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be.