[ Page 3067 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 70) Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 3067

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 73.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3067

Mr. Kempf –– 3068

Mr. Skelly –– 3070

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3071

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3072

Mr. Skelly –– 3073

On vote 74.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3073

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3074

On vote 75.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3074

On vote 76.

Mr. Nicolson –– 3074

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3074

Mr. Macdonald –– 3075

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3075

On vote 77.

Mr. Barnes –– 3076

Mrs. Wallace –– 3076

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3076

On vote 78.

Mr. Nicolson –– 3077

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3077

Mr. Macdonald –– 3077

Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 93.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3077

Mrs. Wallace –– 3078

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3082

Mr. Gibson –– 3083

Mr. Rogers –– 3085

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3086

Mrs. Wallace –– 3087

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3088

Mr. Shelford –– 3089

Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act (Bill 59) . Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 3091

Statement

Alleged muzzling of health officer on 2, 4-D issue. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3091

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this morning it is with great regret that we have learned of the untimely passing of Andre Gilles Fortin, leader of the national Social Credit Party.

Mr. Fortin tragically lost his life in an auto accident in his home in the province of Quebec early this morning. It was only last Tuesday that our Premier took great pride in introducing this young, vibrant Canadian to this House. His loss will be felt by all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House this morning to join in sending our condolences to Mme. Fortin and their two children.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we on the official opposition also share our regrets and would be honoured if the Provincial Secretary would include the names of all the members of the House, or show that it was by unanimous consent.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party, I would add our sincere condolences.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House this morning two members who are seated in the gallery. They're from the Quaker Western Canada meeting and they are here to urge members to support the anti-Trident motion which has been on the order paper, put there by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) The two are Ian Gibson and David Jackman, and I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In the gallery with us this morning is an old friend and resident of my home town for many years, Mrs. Lena Johnson. I would like the House to make her welcome.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor of the House today we have a famous politician from Newfoundland. He is Mr. John Crosbie, who is the federal member from St. John's West. Mr. Crosbie is the former Minister of Finance and also a Minister Mines and Energy in the Newfoundland government of Frank Moores, He is presently the chairman of the Progressive Conservative caucus of Energy, Mines and resources, and is visiting the west coast to become familiar with many of the energy and resources problems. I would ask the House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join in welcoming the Hon. John Crosbie, who was an outstanding spokesperson in the government of Newfoundland. But beyond being a fine politician he was a most gracious and exciting host. And I hope that all elected members have the opportunity of being hosted

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Wine and lobster.

MR. BARRETT: ... and lobstered by Mr. Crosbie. And on behalf of the House I also welcome his visit today to end the schizophrenic trend of the Conservative Party in this province. It allows the Tory leader (Mr. Wallace) to have a caucus meeting without having to talk to himself.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and members of our Social Credit Party, I would like to welcome the Member of Parliament to our House. I would like to also say that we're just delighted to be the other part of the bookend.

Introduction of bills.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Curtis, Bill 70, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 73: fire marshal, $745,692 - continued.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I want to follow on where my colleague from Alberni left off last night on this business of burning permits. 1, too, have had this matter brought to my attention by the volunteer fire departments in the area which I represent.

I have a letter on my desk from the chairman of the board of directors of the North Oyster Volunteer Fire Department. It reads in part:

"The North Oyster Volunteer Fire

[ Page 3068 ]

Department does not have any employees to whom this duty can be assigned, and cannot afford to hire anyone. We feel sure that the alternative of charging for the permits, in order to defray the cost of issuing them and inspecting the prospective fire sites concerned, would meet with considerable and justifiable opposition from the people of the district and would be unfair to them, since no other fire protection district that we know of is charging for fire permits.

"A further problem arises with the wording of the fire permit, which does not give the issuer of the permit the authority to revoke it."

I wonder if the hon. Attorney-General has thought of that particular aspect. The wording of the permit does not give the issuer the power to revoke it. In the event that a serious fire hazard developed, this would be a very unfortunate situation. This authority to revoke the permit is still vested firmly with the Ministry of Forests, Mr. Chairman.

Another very unfortunate aspect of this particular thing, and something that is happening in my area, is that we are encouraging people to break the law. I know of one instance in particular - and I'm sure there are many others - where people who require burning permits as it's necessary for them to burn in the clearing of their land or other activities that they're undertaking, rather than burden their neighbour, who is a volunteer community worker, with this extra duty of coming out and inspecting and issuing a fire permit, are deliberately breaking the law. They are burning without a permit. I know that a letter has been sent - I received a copy of it - to the minister in charge of forestry, asking him to reconsider his position and pointing out that the intent of this one particular individual is to burn without a permit. He gives due warning that this is what he's going to do, because he absolutely refuses to put this added burden on a volunteer community worker.

Those people, as was pointed out yesterday, give a great deal of their time, their ability and their knowledge; they take courses; they are on call 24 hours a day on a no-charge basis; there is no fee for them in this job that they do.

I know from experience. We had a very serious fire right next door to my own home. It was a fire that would have consumed some 10 or 20 residences and destroyed a very beautiful wooded area, had it not been for the prompt action of the two adjacent local fire departments.

We are now asking those people to take on an added responsibility with no remuneration, no extra funding and with really no pre-warning. The people who phone to get a permit from forestry are just simply told: "Sorry, we can't do it any longer." The first that the volunteer fire people were even aware that this was the situation was when people who had been turned down by forestry started contacting those volunteers. In one instance, I was told by one of the forestry representatives in the local area that he had had a call from a local volunteer fire chief. He had gone out, taken some of the forms out to him and explained to him the use of them. The only way that that fire chief had known that this was one of his added duties was when a local resident had called in and told him that he'd been turned down by the forestry department and told that he must get his permit from the local volunteer fire department.

I think this is a very erroneous sort of situation, and I'm particularly concerned about the fact that those people who issue the permits do not have the power to revoke them. It's putting a very unfair burden on these people, and I would urge the Attorney-General to work with his colleague and take some action to correct this point.

MR. KEMPF: I had no intention, Mr. Chairman, of rising in my place to debate the estimates of the Attorney-General, because although there are many inequities in our justice system in the province of British Columbia, we have on several occasions made the inequities, as my constituents see them, known to the Attorney-General. I'm quite confident that the Attorney-General will strive to rectify these inequities.

But, Mr. Chairman, as I sat very quietly in my seat last evening during the debate on vote 73, there came the last straw from that side of the floor. When I listened to the words of the members of the opposition, and in particular to the words from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , I was sickened and appalled and infuriated.

Mr. Chairman, for any member of this House to get up in this, the highest court in our province, and ridicule the dedicated, sincere and hard-working volunteer firefighters of this province is going too far. Far too far.

I have sat here during the last two weeks and seen that disorganized bunch of socialists over there put on their running shoes and turn their backs on the very people of British Columbia....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Alberni.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): The member is misleading the House, Mr. Chairman. I'd appreciate if if he'd point out in the Blues where I criticized volunteer fire departments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: He's got to tell the truth in this House, Mr. Chairman. He's not telling the truth. Get

[ Page 3069 ]

him to tell the truth for a change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: Quote the word! Quote the Blues!

MR. SKELLY: You're a disgrace to the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the hon. member please take his seat until we clarify the matter?

I'd like to remind the hon. member for Alberni that whenever he stands to raise a point of order, it must be a legitimate point of order. It is not permitted in this House to interrupt the gentleman while he is speaking unless it is for a real point of order.

MR. SKELLY: There must be an obligation to tell the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! On the second matter, it is not permitted in this House to accuse another member who is an hon. member of misleading the House. Therefore I must ask the hon. member for Alberni to withdraw that statement.

MR. SKELLY: If I accused an hon. member of not telling the truth in this House, I withdraw that statement.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): On a point of order, at the beginning of his address, the hon. member for Omineca said he had no intention of debating the estimates of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General and I exchanged a glance and we both heard the same thing. I thought that was a typically curious introduction to his speech, but no, it appears he's keeping his word. I wonder if you could draw him to order, Mr. Chairman. We are in fact debating the estimates of the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. I'd like to remind the hon. member for Omineca that we are on vote 73 and it is the estimates of the Attorney-General. Please proceed.

MR. KEMPF: As I was saying, that bunch of socialists over there in the last two weeks in this House have put on their running shoes and turned their backs on the very people of British Columbia that they would claim to represent - the minority groups, the people who send their children to independent schools in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. KEMPF: I have listened to this debate on the Attorney-General's....

I MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member! Please proceed on vote 73.

MR. KEMPF: I have listened in this debate on the Attorney-General's estimates and on vote 73 to them suggesting that there should be no jails and no punishment for those in our society who perpetrate a crime against our fellow citizens.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Vote 73 has to do with the fire marshal's office.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm just leading up to that. I sat here, Mr. Chairman, and listened to them suggest in this House that there should be unlimited amounts of free drugs made available to the drug addicts of this province and, indeed, to all drug addicts in North America, at the taxpayers' expense. But because the drug addict is poor and he really didn't mean to become a drug addict in the first place, then we should supply him at the expense of the taxpayer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member! Vote 73 has to do with the fire marshal's office, hon. member.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And when I listen to that bunch launch a vicious attack on the volunteer firefighters of our communities, as they did last evening, then they have gone too far.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, what transpires in the larger cities of this province, because I am a country boy, a northerner, and proud of it. But it is the volunteer, the pioneer, who built and is continuing to build the north. Without that volunteer initiative our northern communities could not survive and would not prosper.

I heard the socialists speak last evening of insurance rates. Yes, I will agree they are very high. But if it were not for the volunteer firefighters, we in the north would have no coverage at all. These are dedicated individuals working to benefit their communities, their neighbours and their families and proud to be doing it. Yes, Mr. Member for Alberni, some of them even take their pagers to bed with them, and except for a very, very few, they are very happy to do so in the service of their community.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that it is difficult for the average socialist to understand that kind of thinking because they understand only the practice of having one hand in the public purse. Mr. Chairman, the member for Alberni said last evening that the volunteer firefighters....

[ Page 3070 ]

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: It's in Hansard, Mr. Member, for all of the province to see. It's written into the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it! Quote his words!

MR. KEMPF: He said that the volunteer firefighters were inefficient. Well, I want to relate to you what could have been a tragedy ...

MR. SKELLY: Get someone to read it for you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: Can't you read without moving your lips?

MR. KEMPF: ... Mr. Member for Oak Bay, without having to go 3,000 miles across this country, but right here in British Columbia, were it not for a very efficient volunteer fire department. In the wee hours of the morning - 3 a.m. to be exact, on the morning of May 22 of this year - in my home town, an individual who had been out to the bar until 2 o'clock went home very drunk and smoked in bed.

He started a fire that could have cost him his life. In his drunken stupor, feeling that it was getting hot in the bed, he retired to the bathtub and filled it with water. When the smoke was noticed coming from the door of his apartment, the volunteer fire department was summoned. I want to tell you, hon. members, through you, Mr. Chairman, that because of the immediate response of that volunteer fire department.... They were there within three minutes of the fire alarm being rung. Had it not been for that response that individual would have been buried over one month ago.

Yes, hon. members of the opposition, volunteers are admirable people in our province. We have many very efficient and very proud volunteer fire departments in our province and 99.9 per cent of the individuals serving on those departments wouldn't have it any other way.

We also had at one time, Mr. Chairman - and I think it's worthy of mention in this debate - an equally efficient volunteer ambulance corps in this province, especially in the north, until a certain former dictatorial Minister of Health did away with that initiative.

MR. SKELLY: What's happening now? Are they volunteer again?

MR. KEMPF: They're being paid, Mr. Member, by the taxpayer of this province, when they were volunteering that work, giving of themselves to the community for nothing, at no cost to the taxpayer.

They're now being paid, thanks to that former Minister of Health; they now have their handout!

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, poor millionaires!

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I was a mayor on July 1,1974, when that programme went into effect into this province. I would just like to relate for one moment what happened to a very, very efficient ambulance corps in my home town because of that type of situation. Over half of the members of that volunteer ambulance corps came before the municipal council and said: "No way. We were giving of our time in our effort to this community and we will not serve on an ambulance corps on which we will be paid." That's service, Mr. Chairman, to the community. Those are dedicated people in the volunteer ambulance corps and volunteer fire departments of our province.

I take my hat off, hon. members, to our volunteer firefighters - in fact, to all volunteers in this great province of British Columbia, in whatever capacity they serve.

MR. SKELLY: Volunteer MLAs.

MR. KEMPF: They are the backbone and the salvation of our very individual enterprise system. Mr. Chairman, that is why the opposition members would like to see yet another volunteer group done away with in British Columbia. It is their philosophy: take away the law and order, creating chaos; take away the land; take away the freedom of speech by limiting debate in this Legislature ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. KEMPF: ... take away initiative by removing the volunteer firefighter. I beg of you, Mr. Attorney-General, do not make moves either in the area of our volunteer firefighters, or in any other area in this province, that will diminish the volunteer spirit among the people of British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: I've never seen a more shameful demonstration on behalf of any member in this House than I've heard from that member on the other side today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. SKELLY: Whether intentionally or unintentionally, he has distorted the debate as it appears in Hansard.

MR. KEMPF: It's in Hansard. Read it!

MR. SKELLY: He hasn't chosen to read the

[ Page 3071 ]

debate as it appeared in Hansard. Members on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, support the volunteer fire departments throughout this province.

MR. KEMPF: That's not what you said last night.

MR. SKELLY: That's why the debate has taken place on this vote in the House. We're not asking that volunteer fire departments be done away with. We're asking that the government encourage and support those volunteers by providing them with equipment and assistance that they....

MR. KEMPF: By paying them! By paying them!

MR. SKELLY: They're already being paid for fire service and for training. What they're asking for is the necessary equipment, the necessary fire halls, the necessary support, training and government back-up so that they can save lives and property in this province in the most efficient way possible. They're not asking that volunteer fire departments be done away with; quite the contrary. What they're asking for is government assistance for equipment, government assistance for fire halls - assistance that hasn't been forthcoming from this government in spite of the fact that we've had a royal commission of inquiry in this province to which all volunteer fire departments made submissions, Mr. Chairman, requesting that very assistance that this member advises the Attorney-General to reject. It's unthinkable, unbelievable. The member spends most of his time in the House shouting garbage across the floor; this is the first time he's got up to the mike and shouted garbage through the mike. It's unbelievable!

Mr. Chairman, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has asked the Attorney-General a specific question. The Forest Service has now dumped on the volunteer fire departments an additional requirement to issue burning permits during fire season, a requirement that they don't have the staff to provide. They've also asked the fire marshals and the fire chiefs in the volunteer fire departments in the various areas of this province to perform an inspection function which is the function of the fire marshal's office.

What we're asking the Attorney-General is: will he make supplementary support funds available so that this service, which was formerly provided by paid civil servants in the province, will be covered when it is assumed by the volunteer fire departments in the province of British Columbia? The Attorney-General is not in the House. When he returns to the House, we hope he'll answer that question. In the meantime, I hope that you'll hold off on the vote, Mr. Chairman, and wait until the Attorney-General comes back into the House. What we need is financial support for those two additional functions that have been dumped on the volunteer fire departments by the provincial government over the last year.

MR. C.A. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, I hope the Attorney-General is listening. If not, I'm sure the deputy will be listening.

Continuing with some remarks regarding fire protection with specific reference to the Keenleyside report, on June 1,1977, the cabinet had a very welcome meeting in Trail. One of the briefs presented to that cabinet meeting and made available to all members of the public and the press, was from the fire chief of the city of Trail who is also a second director of the B.C. Fire Chiefs Association. He raised some serious concerns in that brief. By the way, Mr. Chairman, the brief was completely reprinted in the Trail Daily Times of June 2,1977.

I'm not going to go over everything that is in it because I'm sure the Attorney-General, if he is listening, is aware of what was in that brief. I'm sure any other cabinet ministers who are here in the House are aware of what is in that brief as well.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss some of the points raised by the fire chiefs in that brief. He quotes the fact that it has been nearly two years and one month since the Keenleyside report was tabled and that the former government, in the six months before it was out of office, did not make any moves on that report. In the 18 months that we've had the present government in, they have not taken any action either.

Dr Keenleyside said, in perhaps his most telling statement, that the British Columbia fire record is the worst of any province in Canada.

MR. SKELLY: In the industrialized world!

MR. D'ARCY: The chiefs say that in 1976 this province suffered the following losses: 110 deaths by fire, 382 related injuries and the astounding figure of $77.6 million in property losses. Even this, fortunately, was a decline from 1975.

Applying these to 1977, the chiefs indicate that the province has lost one human life every 3.3 days. They say that at this rate the next death by fire will take place some time tomorrow. I did some digging on that, Mr. Chairman, and in fact the chiefs were rather generous in their estimation of the next death taking place. It took place that very evening in the city of Prince George where an elderly woman died of fire and smoke inhalation.

The chiefs also prorate some of the dollar losses, estimating that in the first five months of the year some $32 million worth of property has been lost in fire, or $212,000 per day. As the chiefs indicated, the loss was about $20,000 during the time that they took to present the brief.

Mr. Chairman, they relate the concerns of the

[ Page 3072 ]

province for fire to the concerns of the province for property damage and death due to violent crime in British Columbia. They compare the fact that while the province in 1976 had 85 violent deaths due to crime made up of 81 non-capital murders, three manslaughters and one capital death, in the same period there were 110 deaths by fire, some 40 per cent more than that suffered by crime.

The chiefs also point out that the police service has - and this was largely set up by the former New Democratic government - a Police Act, but there is no "Fire Act" in B.C. There is a police commission but there is no such body for fire protection. There is a police service and a police college, but there is no such thing for the firefighters in this province. The police service has many training and upgrading programmes for post-graduate work for a systematic and logical progression of firefighters and recruits into that service, and there is absolutely nothing of that nature applying to the fire industry.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to enter into the debate around the question of the volunteer firemen of this province. Welcome back, Mr. Attorney-General! But I again want to quote the report: there are 266 or more - because some have been added since the Keenleyside report - fire departments in this province. The majority of these fire departments are represented at this year's fire college. Of these, 191 or more are made up entirely of volunteers, with the balance comprising paid firemen with some volunteers and some fully paid fire departments, all of these having the respect and sympathy of their community. Mr. Chairman, these groups are wanting positive action on the Keenleyside report and, believe me, they have waited too long with inaction.

It cannot be said that these individuals have not tried. They cite the fact that on March 2,1976, some 15 months ago now, they did succeed in arranging a meeting with the Attorney-General. They had a positive and warm response, at least verbally, from the Attorney-General. He said: "Yes, we will not forget the Keenleyside report." That was 15 months ago, Mr. Chairman.

In February of this year the association of fire chiefs was instructed by its executive to meet with the Attorney-General as soon as possible. They note that after many contacts and setting dates of meetings and postponements, they had to settle for a last-minute telephone call on April 28, four days before the college was due to meet. This was after three months of contacts and promises of meetings.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I note, Mr. Chairman, that after the indication of the number of deaths and the amounts of property damage that have taken place by fire in British

Columbia - far in excess of what is considered to be a dangerous level in terms of violent crime - we see that the Attorney-General only has time in his busy schedule so far in 1977 for a telephone call a few days before their annual convention.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Since June 1?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I had to phone as I couldn't go to the meeting.

MR. C, D'ARCY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Attorney-General is going to have something to say about this on his feet. I appreciate that he is a busy man. However, the point that I am making to the committee is that the fire services in British Columbia have been terribly neglected by a succession of governments and a succession of Attorneys-General. I would note that the former government, at least, did commission Dr. Keenleyside . to do a complete investigation that, as was pointed out by my colleague from Alberni, involved all the fire departments and all the fire services in British Columbia. It's been one and a half years that the present government has been in office and one and a half years that this member for Point Grey has been Attorney-General. During that time, he apparently has made himself available for one meeting, in which he promised action. So far he has not produced. One phone call! Now we hear that, perhaps in the last few weeks, there was a further meeting.

The general question which I would ask the Attorney-General and have him report to the committee, Mr. Chairman, is: can he tell us what happened at that meeting, and can he give the House some indication, notwithstanding what has not happened in the past, of what he and his staff are prepared to do on this vital issue in the coming months of this year?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General) First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank. the member for his remarks, particularly those dealing with the volunteer fire departments and the issue that was raised concerning the work, that they are doing relating to forest fires. I would very much like to have a discussion with my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) on that point. I was unaware of it and I'm certainly prepared to look into it and give it some consideration.

Re the suggestions raised by the lady member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , . I've noted your concerns and they will be considered, as will the remarks of all of the members during this estimate.

I would say to the last speaker, as I stated last night, that there was a government reorganization and

[ Page 3073 ]

the committee that was given the authority to review and prioritize the Keenleyside report, from the point of view of that which we can do, unfortunately....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My deputy says it got burnt.

What happened was, by virtue of government reorganization, that we had to change the committee. It is now back on stream and it is headed by Fire Marshal Jerms. He has received instructions to consider the report, prioritize it, and furnish me with his recommendations. When those are in hand we can then develop some priorities and, hopefully, move ahead to a far greater extent than was done this year.

As I said last night, some considerable progress was made this year but not to the extent that I would have liked. I stated that last night and I'll state it again. But there was progress made; I'm not going to reiterate what it was to take up the time of the House. Other members have that and it's all recorded in Hansard.

But there are some interesting points here. Insofar as the resources are concerned - the actions administered by the fire marshal within the establishment of 37 people - the field administration is carried out by some 400 local assistants, composed of fire chiefs and fire prevention officers in the various municipalities and regulated areas, and constables of the RCMP.

Last year, insofar as public safety is concerned, more than 1,830 plans were processed by the engineering department and those plans were reviewed for compliance with applicable registrations, including regulations for the building of assembly, educational and institutional occupancies and flammable liquids and compressed gas facilities. There are a number of staff field inspections of inflammable liquid and compressed gas installations - 118 industrial and commercial; 21 bulk gas facilities; eight tanker vehicles; they responded to five emergency incidents relating to leakage and spills. Additionally, 14,600 fire marshal approval labels for propane systems were issued in servicing 146 dealer and manufacturer applicants. There were 211 licences issued for moving picture theatres, 358 were issued for moving picture projectionists, and 23 examinations were held along that score. A considerable amount of work was allocated to the code and the regulations.

As a reflection of the increased activity and upgrading of fire safety in buildings other than private dwelling homes, an unusual number of appeals was registered last year with the fire marshal. Some 151 appeals were heard and decisions were rendered.

Every reported fire - which is new - in B.C. was investigated to determine its cause and origin. In most of the cases that was relatively simple, but 206 had to be investigated in depth. Those included fires where there was loss of life, large property loss or violation of regulation, or where the fires appeared to be of suspicious origin. Arising out of those investigations, 115 criminal charges were laid involving 113 people.

Fires in schools were a very serious problem last year. The total number of school fires has been increasing from 60 per cent in 1974, 75 per cent in 1975 and reached 76 per cent in 1976.

The vehicle fires also continue to be a problem, and the fire marshal staff undertook a programme of training for ICBC adjusters and investigators in the investigation of vehicle fires. This was achieved by lectures and practical demonstrations.

The fire marshal's office, if you do not know, is a participating agency in the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit. Of course that has been of considerable value as well.

Insofar as training is concerned, 24 fire suppression training sessions were given to municipal and industrial fire departments; 18 fire safety lectures were given to institutional and service organizations. Then there is a liaison with the RCMP and the local police forces in the 12 municipalities. So he has been busy.

Insofar as the Keenleyside report is concerned, I covered it last night and I said it again this morning. I think if I just expand on that I'll only be reiterating.

MR. SKELLY: I have just a final question, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering, when the Attorney-General is discussing the question of fire permits with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) - those permits were originally issued by the Forest Service and have now been, in specified areas, placed as an additional burden on volunteer fire departments - if you could request that the Minister of Forests retain that authority for this year until some action has been taken with regard to the Keenleyside recommendations. After all, they are paid civil servants; they have been issuing the permits in the past. Why impose that additional burden on volunteer fire departments this year until some conclusions have been reached with regard to the Keenleyside report? Will that be the tenor of your discussions with the Minister of Forests?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, yes, I'd like to determine the cause and the reason for it. As I said before, I m very happy to look into it.

Vote 73 approved.

On vote 74: Racing Commission, $351,078.

MR. MACDONALD: A member who's not in the House asked me to ask a short question, drawing the Attorney-General's attention to the danger of the

[ Page 3074 ]

infiltration of the Racing Commission and racing by organized crime. It's a legitimate question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There's none.

MR. MACDONALD: You say there's none, and you'll be vigilant on that score.

You're not proposing to place Captain Harry Terry on the Racing Commission, or are you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I realize that between the past Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General there is a great banter across the floor. It would make the job of the Chair much easier if we would observe the regular rules of the House. Instead of having this personal conversation, just wait and do what I ask all other members to do. Would the first member for Vancouver East like to continue?

MR. MACDONALD: I've asked my question.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The clocker told jockey McGee. The jockey, of course, Passed it on to the horse And the horse told me.

Vote 74 approved.

On vote 75: land registry programme, $4,503, 5 10.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think the Attorney-General is aware of the problems that have occurred in my particular constituency on two different instances with confusion in land registry. These sort of problems cause a great deal of personal embarrassment, and economic problems too, when there is, say, by an error some claim or some other encumbrance recorded on a title, particularly if a person is looking for mortgage money or something like this. An error, because of a similar name or some such ting, or incorrect information is....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're talking about the....

MRS. WALLACE: I'm talking about land registry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, but the judgment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps that's right. We're having the same problem, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I would only like to call the Attorney-General's attention. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor and is quite in order to continue. Perhaps the Attorney-General could refrain from remarking until the member is finished.

MRS. WALLACE: While I have had assurances from the land registry that they are taking steps to correct this problem, I would like the assurance of the Attorney-General that this is in fact the case. He is assuring me by motion, Mr. Chairman, that it is a fact, so I would hope in future this will not occur.

Vote 75 approved.

On vote 76: Order-in-Council Patients' Review Board, $50,000.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I notice that in this vote under part C it provides for this board to consider transfer of inmates who have become mentally ill from correctional institutions. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if there's any possibility for this board to be utilized in looking into the cases of persons who, through the archaic McNaghten rule, have been found legally sane and yet by any judgment of human decency can be obviously known by us to be insane, and are in correctional institutions by virtue of the McNaghten rule and yet would constitute a great public danger. Is there any provision for transfer of persons serving a life sentence from which they can at some times be turned out into the world? Would there be provision by review of this board to transfer them from a correctional institution into a mental institution?

Do you want a name? Nelson.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, would you just mind summarizing your point? You needn't give me the name. I know whom you're thinking about.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm concerned that some people who are criminally insane will be a danger to society when they have served their time - people with no hope for reform because that is not their problem. They've been found to be criminally sane by the M'Naghten rule. They are serving a prison sentence. They can be turned out at the end of some 20-year period and will be turned out into society. Under section C of this, I see that this board can review and transfer inmates from correctional institutions who have become mentally ill. These, obviously, are not the criteria of the M'Naghten rule. Would there be provision under this for the transfer of a person who might have been sent to prison into a mental institution?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No. We're governed here by the Criminal Code, as the member is probably aware. But if not, the governing body is the Criminal Code. You're referring to a situation where an individual has

[ Page 3075 ]

been convicted of a capital charge and there's not any finding of insanity, right? But it's your assessment that the individual is psychotic or probably could be considered insane and has not been found as such. Well, we don't have perpetual sentences, no. But if you take the converse of that, you're into a very, very dangerous area.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's estimated by the national Law Reform Commission that about 650 people are held under Governor-General's warrants in mental institutions under close custody -not always close custody; sometimes even daily -that kind of thing. It still comes back to the politicians to decide whether or not these people who have committed usually a violent crime and have been found not guilty by reason of insanity and then are committed at the pleasure o f the Lieutenant-Governor, which in effect means the cabinet....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You know all that. You've been through it.

MR. MACDONALD: What I'm asking the Attorney-General to do is to seek an amendment to the Criminal Code, and whether he supports that proposition that this kind of a release be taken out of the hands of politicians, because politicians are naturally apprehensive about allowing somebody who had had a violent experience, had been psychotic, had been found not guilty be reason of insanity, to be released again into the community. Now politicians are the last people who can make that kind of a decision. In the absence of a decision, the term is indeterminate as to how long that person shall be confined. There are no real criteria on which the person can be released. You can get a recommendation from the patients' review board, but it's only a recommendation and the cabinet has to make the decision.

You should look at the national Law Reform Commission report and find an alternative procedure, because I don't think this kind of thing should be in the hands of politicians who are fearful that at the next election, somebody they had released....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Of course, that kind of pressure is on any cabinet.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I know, but not on that basis. Come on!

MR. MACDONALD: Somebody who has killed, was insane and may kill again is somebody that frightens politicians.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did you look at it in the light of votes?

MR. MACDONALD: Politicians do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did you?

MR. MACDONALD: No.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can tell you that I didn't.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, let me finish what I'm saying. I'm saying you've got a problem here and I'm suggesting that there should be an alternate procedure. I'm suggesting that politically elected people are the last people who should have to deal with what basically is almost a judicial problem, eh?

Now do you favour having an amendment to the Criminal Code to take this power away from provincial cabinets and put it in the hands of some kind of judicial review board that could make a final decision based upon known criteria and precedents? Do you favour that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, I'd like to respond to the hon. member. I don't think there's a politician in the country, when faced with this awesome responsibility - and that would include yourself - who would ever say that you were making a decision based on what might happen in a poll. I think if a person is doing that, they shouldn't be in office. It's a very, very heavy responsibility. But I say without question that I've had a précis of the Law Reform Commission report and I think it's a good report. I think it would be a preferable route 1 think it would do better justice to the community and better justice to the individual.

Certainly I agree with the premise, but I certainly don't agree with the way you led up to it at all. I would also like to say that we have made considerable strides in the procedures and the mechanisms that are now available under the Code in this province. When we came in there was a very loose arrangement around here.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the reason it should be taken out of the hands of politicians who are elected members of the cabinet is twofold: first, they're not competent to make that kind of a decision or to hold the necessary hearings; secondly, they are and should be subject to political pressures -not the Attorney-General, who should be judging it on a judicial basis, but other members of cabinet. Certainly they are elected, and if they are going to release an offender who has been violent back into a community, they're going to consider that community reaction. They're going to be subject to that kind of pressure.

[ Page 3076 ]

I'm saying that the political process should not be handling what is really a judicial function. Those are the facts, and it shouldn't be a political function.

Vote 76 approved.

On vote 77: building occupancy charges, $16,466, 107.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'm not going to make a speech, Mr. Chairman, so I'll have to have the attention of the Attorney-General. I just wanted to ask him: how are the carpets in your office? Are you pleased with them?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The carpets in my office?

MR. BARNES: Yes. Do you not have an office?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you mean down in my office?

MR. BARNES: Well, the Attorney-General's office. Are you satisfied with your carpets?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Am I satisfied with my carpets?

MR. BARNES: Wall-to-wall carpets on the floors.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I see. Well, I was under the impression that you had to have them removed because they weren't the ones that you wanted. That's not true?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, you're talking about the new office.

MR. BARNES: The new office, yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They've laid a whole bunch of carpet under the existing regulations of renovation in these great buildings initiated by the New Democratic Party. As far as my own office, I don't like the colour.

MR. BARNES: Oh, you don't, so you are having them removed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please - one at a time. The galleries cannot be impressed with this banter, hon. gentlemen.

The second member for Vancouver Centre on the Attorney-General's carpets. (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ascertain whether or not the Attorney-General made special arrangements to have the carpets removed and if they were removed. As he has pointed out, they weren't even laid yet. But will they be laid on the basis of the cost of the requisition? Will there be a change in the requisition in terms of value?

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I'll drop this point now. I'll have an opportunity to talk with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) , I'm sure, and he'll have....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: But I just hope that you're satisfied, and, if you're not, that you'll be able to get the changes you want without any expenditure on your behalf. If so, I hope that you will clarify how this will be arranged.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sure.

MRS. WALLACE: Your ministry, through you, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, is this under the carpet vote too?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, this is under the carpet vote, but it does not deal with carpets.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's under "carpetbagger."

MRS. WALLACE: I'm concerned about this particular vote, Mr. Chairman, because it is one of the larger votes for building occupancy. I assume this is because it covers the various law courts throughout the province. I wonder if the Attorney-General would be good enough to give us some breakdown of just what is involved in this particular vote.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The government-owned properties' offices comprise 287,522 square feet; storage 54,181 square feet; institutional, 892,211 square feet; courts, 413,765 square feet, for a total of 1,647, 679 square feet. The occupancy charge is $11,159, 200; lease properties are 670,718 square feet; the dollar cost there is $5,306, 907, for a total occupancy charge for 1977-1978 of $16,466, 107. Is that enough?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to thank the Attorney-General. This is the first time, in all the estimates, that we have had a breakdown of what is involved in these costs. I would like to thank the

[ Page 3077 ]

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Those are jails and courts. I'm not too sure about the carpet space, but if my friend here would like to check this 1,647, 679 square feet to find out about the carpeting on it, I'm sure he will be well occupied over the next 12 months. (Laughter.)

Vote 77 approved.

On vote '78: computer and consulting charges, $144,000.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Attorney-General if this covers all computer charges. Does this include the statistics of the B.C. Police Commission and does it include the administration of the courts?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. NICOLSON: It does not? How large would those be, then, and why are they not under this? Why is there not the centralization of these facilities? I thought this was government policy.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Under vote 58, administration and support, systems and procedures, $1,567, 521.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on the last, vote, I'd like to say farewell in this capacity to the deputy. I didn't say very much at the beginning of the estimates, but I hope he will go out and be one of the top counsel of British Columbia. Under one of the bills he helped draft, the Crown Proceedings Act, I hope possibly he will have a suit against the Crown. But I wish him well. He has done a good job.

Vote 78 approved.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Could we start again with the Attorney-General? We enjoyed that so much, Mr. Chairman. He had such a good time in his estimates, that's why we were so long.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 93: minister's office, $85,952.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 93 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

Interjections.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): I was sure we wouldn't get it that easily, Mr. House Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some comments regarding the Ministry of Agriculture estimates. I have shortly coming into the hall my deputy minister, Mr. Sig Peterson, and my director of administrative services, Mr. John Newman. Those two gentlemen will be accompanied by my associate deputy minister, Maury King; Ian Carne, my director of financial services; Reg Miller, director of special services; and Roy Wilkinson, director of products and marketing. Those gentlemen have done a great deal and have assisted me a great deal over the past several months since my appointment and I would like to, for the record, thank them for their assistance.

Mr. Chairman, the budget for 1977-1978 for the Ministry of Agriculture is a total of $64 million, up $7 million from the 1976-1977 estimates. The main reason for the increase is primarily the farm income assurance programme, as the estimated expenditure for that programme is $36 million this year, which is over half of the total estimates for the ministry. For the information of the members, we have included two new commodity groups in that programme -namely, potatoes and raspberries - and, of course, part of the additional expense under my ministry is the building occupancy charges and the computer charges.

Mr. Chairman, at the present time the agriculture industry has its problems. It has had its problems over a number of years, but basically now we're faced with inflation, increased cost of production, effect of imports, and, of course, the consumer reaction to the fact that the price of food is too high. But nobody denies, I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the price of food is high in this province, and possibly across Canada, but I can tell you that the farmer, in many cases, is not getting a reasonable return for his labour and his investment. Today, approximately 19 per cent of the total disposable income of the consumer is used for the purchase of food. You can compare that with some 30 years ago when the percentage of disposable income used for the purchase of food was approximately 24 per cent. On the basis of disposable income, the consumer is getting a better deal with his consumer dollars but there is still that question that we are paying too much for food.

The recent cost-of-living increases, as you have seen them this year, show substantial increases in food prices-, but in some cases those food prices are misleading. Many times, when consumers purchase their foodstuffs or go into the supermarket, they are buying detergents, toiletries and, of course, such items as coffee, which affect the total food dollar -the grocery bill. But the results of those statistics, I think, have an effect on the agriculture industry, on my ministry, on producers and on marketing boards.

[ Page 3078 ]

In some instances, we are blamed for the high cost of food when it really doesn't apply directly to products that are produced in this province.

I am hopeful that the food study which we are carrying out at the present time - we've had one hearing in Parksville and we'll be having others around the province; our research people are working for that standing committee on agriculture - will be able to come up with some recommendations and some findings that will possibly improve ways in which we can distribute food around this province. Perhaps we can get a better return for our farmers and at the same time make sure that our consumers get a good deal at the marketplace.

Mr. Chairman, the long-term plan for my ministry is to obtain a better return for the agriculture industry, not through subsidies but through better methods and improved markets and reduced costs of production. We have had some success in the past few months. We have made our representations to the federal government concerning the regional grading of import potatoes, and some of those recommendations have been accepted. We are presently negotiating a new ARDA agreement; hopefully this will give us more dollars to carry out some of our proposed ARDA programmes, such as co-ordinated resource management, whereby funds will be used for irrigation, drainage and reseeding of rangeland, giving us a greater potential to finish beef in this province. We have also given assistance through ARDA and through BCDC for the establishment of a feedlot in Kamloops. Hopefully there will be some in other areas in the province in order that we may finish our cattle in B.C., rather than shipping them back east to be finished and slaughtered and shipped back to British Columbia.

We are working in my ministry with commodity groups, wholesalers and retailers on a co-ordinated marketing effort which, I hope, will provide us with a provincial marketing shell to promote B.C. quality products. This approach will allow commodity groups to identify with a provincial programme as fresh produce comes on the scene. In the end we will, of course, be able to encourage B.C. consumers to buy B.C. quality goods and B.C.-grown goods.

You may recall the comments that were made regarding hothouse tomatoes a week or so ago. I can tell you that the co-operation I received from the retailers and the consumers of this province eliminated that excess hothouse tomato problem and it looks as though in some instances, we might be a little short of hothouse tomatoes for the retailers to put on shelves for the consumers.

We are carrying out a biological control programme and we have expanded the sterile codling moth programme. We have a monitoring programme for orchard pests which, hopefully, will allow us to cut down the number of sprays required. If we can monitor these pests in the orchard, we will know when to spray them, how to spray them effectively and we might cut down the number of sprays required. That would, of course, further protect our environment and also cut down the farmers' costs of production.

These and other programmes, Mr. Chairman, will help the grower obtain a much better return, thereby reducing his dependence on such programmes as farm income assurance. I and my ministry realize that this isn't going to happen overnight, nor will it cut down the continued need of assistance in a depressed market situation. But if we can take those dollars that we put out in subsidies in farm income assurance assistance; if we can get a better return with the market price; and if we can cut down the cost of production, we can take those dollars and further develop and promote the agriculture industry in this province. I'm sure the farmers would agree with me that in the end, that is what we are attempting to do.

In the past months, Mr. Chairman, I have met with the commodity groups, wholesalers and retailers of this province. I've met with individual producers. I have had excellent co-operation and communication with the Federation of Agriculture. With their continuing input and co-operation and co-operation from the producers, wholesalers and retailers, of this province, I am confident we can overcome some of the -problems that face agriculture today.

Mr. Chairman, with those, remarks, I'd be pleased to answer any questions which the members may have.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your remarks. I appreciate that you are doing all you can within the very narrow scope allowed under the budgetary moneys apportioned to you in this year's estimates. I'm concerned about the limited amount of those moneys, Mr. Chairman, because they barely reflect inflation, let alone any other added incentives for the agriculture industry. It seems to me that the historic position of agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture in the cabinet in this province of British Columbia has been a very low one on the totem pole, with one short exception of three and a half years of the New Democratic Party reign.

For the first year we had a part-time minister during this present regime. When you were first appointed, Mr. Minister, there was not even any adequate accommodation. Fortunately that has been corrected.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the basement.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, you were assigned to the basement.

Since your appointment, Mr. Chairman, through you, we have seen that that minister has been

[ Page 3079 ]

stripped of some of his responsibility - not only since his appointment, but even prior to that. One of the first things this administration did was to remove from the Ministry of Agriculture the responsibility for the retention of agricultural land. That was turned over to a different minister. More recently we have seen things like controls of herbicides and so on turned over to other ministries. We have no indication of any move to put the rangelands under the control of the Minister of Agriculture but they are being retained in the forestry section. Those kinds of things indicate to me the lack of respect which this government shows for our third resource industry.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot look at agriculture in British Columbia without looking at the global picture. The minister has indicated, and the farmers of this province are well aware, that one of the grave problems is the competition from imports in countries that have an entirely different economic base than do we in Canada and in British Columbia. We cannot isolate ourselves in British Columbia and expect, by some band-aid sort of practices, to improve and make secure our agricultural sector.

Food is one of the most critical problems facing the world today. We here in British Columbia and in Canada are not physically aware of that problem. We are living in an economy that is very well off by the standards of many areas in this world. But we cannot isolate ourselves from that problem or from the rest of the world. We are part of the whole global society. Because of that, our farmers here are at the mercy of the same kind of pressures that the undernourished people are facing in other sections of the world, where they are trying to barely scratch out enough food to subsist. All agricultural sectors around the world are struggling to maintain their ability to produce food. If the struggle is unsuccessful, Mr. Chairman, if the boat sinks, as it were, then it doesn't matter whether you're traveling first class or whether you're traveling steerage, we all go down together.

What I'm saying is that the Canadian consumer and the Canadian producer are both suffering at the hands of multinational organizations. The great mass of Third World population is suffering from the same problem. Between 1960 and 1970 we saw a new kind of colonialism developing. One by one, some 100 companies began setting up farms in the undeveloped countries and they began exporting food to Canada and to Europe. Those companies are parts of colossal monopolies and are financed, I would suggest, by such magnanimous groups as OPEC, in some instances.

What have been the results? Well, because of the pressure of imports from those countries where wages are very low, we have found that in Canada many of our agricultural industries have been literally disappearing. You've talked about tomatoes, Mr. Minister. Ontario alone could produce all the tomatoes that Canadians could eat, yet we import, basically from Taiwan, 50 per cent of our tomatoes. , Australia supplies 85 per cent of our peaches, yet you and 1, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, recognize the position of the peach growers in the Okanagan.

What has been the result of this? For one thing, in 1965 in British Columbia we had IS fruit wholesaling companies. Today that has been reduced to five. By moving their operations to Mexico, where labour is $3 a day, or less than that for women and children, on the theory that in picking strawberries, say, women and children are shorter and don't have to stoop so far, and therefore it is not as exhausting work, these wholesalers are in a position where they can increase their profits many-fold. This has had a very detrimental effect on the processing industry in agriculture in British Columbia and in Canada.

Anyone who thinks he is helping the underprivileged in these Third World countries by supporting such industry and buying such products, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest should think again. It is no help to those people in Mexico who have to turn out for a job every morning, hoping that they will be chosen from the many people who turn out looking for work in the fields - fields that were irrigated by a prior administration with government funds in order to provide a more adequate food supply for the people of Mexico.

Instead of that, we now find that those lands have fallen into the hands of foreign monopolies and are being used to grow produce to ship out of the country, produce that is picked by hand by people who come out and don't even dare ask how much they are going to be paid because they know if they ask that question they will not be chosen to go out and pick. They have to subsist somehow, Mr. Minister.

It's no help to those people in those underprivileged countries to have them punished for eating an orange or a peach when they are picking it because that orange or peach is for export and not for local consumption. It's no help to those people to have their good arable land used for export crops, forcing them to try to grow a minimal, subsistence amount of food on the dry lands and the sides of hills and mountains.

Let's not be misled either by talk that this export food is needed in exchange for consumer goods such as manufactured products. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that any manufactured products returned to those underprivileged countries are products that can be afforded by only a very few of the very rich. It is not helping the great masses of those countries.

Let us look at Haiti, Mr. Chairman, where an

[ Page 3080 ]

American food chain has a franchise and is shipping cattle from Texas to grass pasture on the flatlands of Haiti and then shipping the meat back to North America, while the citizens of Haiti are driven up the mountainsides to try and produce enough food for themselves. This kind of manipulation is no help to those underprivileged countries, Mr. Chairman.

In Brazil we have companies like Volkswagen, Nestle and Goodyear with contracts to use the good arable land of Brazil to grow beef to ship to Europe, Japan and North America. The average protein intake of the people in Brazil, Mr. Chairman, is 65 grams per day, and only 20 grams or less of that is animal protein. Yet that country is being forced, through the monopoly control of large corporate enterprise, to use its good land to feed the insatiable appetites of already overfed people of the so-called advanced countries. Of the 40 poorest countries in the world, 36 per cent export food. That is the problem that is facing British Columbia and Canadians , Mr. Minister, and that is the problem to which you must address yourself.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I just indicated, Mr. Member, that the consumer goods that they get in are doing no good for the masses. Those are going only to the very, very few who can afford them. It's not doing any good for the average citizen of those very poor countries to bring in things that they can't afford, and at the same time, to take away from them the land which would produce the food that would provide them with a better standard of living. Food is very basic in those countries and it is by far the most important thing that those countries need.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: The problem, Mr. Member, is that the government has been taken out in those countries and, in many instances, has lost control. It's those monopolies that are in there using those lands and exploiting the very lives of the people who are the most hard-pressed in those countries.

The farmland is used to produce profits for a few while multitudes go hungry, Mr. Liberal Leader (Mr. Gibson) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, is this under the jurisdiction of our Minister of Agriculture?

MRS. WALLACE: I have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that this minister must address himself to this problem. I think if you look at the estimates, Mr. Minister, you will see that there are in the agricultural estimates certain moneys for aid to developing countries. I think I am in order, Mr. Chairman.

I suggest, Mr Chairman, that firms such as Safeway and Weston Foods and Kraftco and Ralston Purina are not interested in food as a human necessity, but as a means to make a profit.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the vertical integration in the food chain. The same company or subsidiary owns the farm, the processing plant, the distribution and transport facilities, and the wholesale and retail outlets. As a result, those companies, and not the farms, are the ones who manipulate and control the prices and who create artificial shortages and force up market costs, thus causing a disadvantage to the consumer.

Many British Columbia fruit growers have had no price increase for the last three years, but they are under the gun, threatened by further imports by giant processing companies. At the same time, the local farmer in British Columbia has to face rising costs. Between 1941 and 1971 - that's 30 years - Canada's farm population decreased 50 per cent, Mr. Chairman. In 30 years, we cut our farm population in half in Canada. That's direct economic pressure that has done that, Mr. Chairman.

Farm profits have continued to drop, yet farm machinery profits in that period increased 45 per cent. We cut our farm population in half and, at the same time, Mr. Chairman, farm machinery companies increased their profits 45 per cent. There are only four major machinery companies and they control the prices. Allis-Chalmers' earnings per share went from 54 cents in 1971 to $2.33 in 1975 - from 54 cents to $2.33 in four years. John Deere went from $1.08 to $3.02 and Massey-Ferguson from 51 cents to $5.08. Those are the kinds of increased profits those companies are making selling machinery to farmers whose income was decreasing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MRS. WALLACE: The net income of farmers decreased. The gross didn't increase, but their net return decreased.

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that out of every food dollar, 65 cents goes into distribution, yet in 1973, the major packing plants shared a 36 per cent increase over the preceding year. From 1972 to 1973, the major packing plants increased their profits 36 per cent at a time when 65 cents out of every dollar was going into distribution.

There are many signs indicating that this is the trend agriculture is taking; that this is the trend of the kind of corporate control that is directing the course of the small family farmer in British Columbia and in Canada. Just recently, Windsor Packing in Vancouver went out of business because McDonald's Restaurants decided to buy their beef in Ontario. I'm sure you're aware of the case, Mr. Minister. That's the kind of

[ Page 3081 ]

thing that's happening. That's the kind of thing that's affecting the economy of the related agricultural 'industries in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Windsor Packing closed the doors.

MRS. WALLACE: This is my information, Mr. Chairman - Windsor Packing.

Another item that's come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, is the case of General Foods bringing products into British Columbia. We have in B.C. two companies, I believe it is, which are manufacturing potato chips. Yet these two local concerns are being subjected to undue pressure at this particular moment by a very unusual and devious quirk. Hostess potato chips are being dumped into British Columbia at prices far below cost with all kinds of gimmicks and come-ons to encourage people to buy them. Why? That particular parent company, Mr. Chairman, went afoul of the AIB and they were directed to cut back a like amount of return over the excess profits they had received. How did they do it? By using that to get a corner on the market in British Columbia, by dumping product here as a loss leader to get an edge on the market, to make up the amount of excess profit that they had made in eastern Canada and to attempt to put the local potato chip companies out of business.

This is the kind of manipulation that's going on, Mr. Chairman. This is the kind of thing that's facing the agricultural industry and all industries, but I'm particularly concerned about what it's doing to the agricultural industry here in British Columbia.

It's happening in the United States. Back in 1976 in Washington, Congress was told there that the consumers may be paying $682 million higher grocery prices each year because of monopoly situations in supermarkets. The food-store industry was attacked by this research report. It said: "In most local markets, only a handful of chains will be found in direct competition. This study found that consumers can expect to pay high prices for food, far higher than elsewhere, if only two or three chains dominate and compete in their local market." That was what was happening in the United States last year; that trend is continuing. It's getting worse and it's spreading in Canada, Mr. Minister.

The eight biggest food retailers in Canada increased their share of sales. This was January, 1977, a Statistics Canada report. The concentration is coming to Canada and it's coming to British Columbia. The monopolies are here. We have to do something about this, Mr. Minister. It's a challenge. It's a real challenge, and we can't do it with band-aid measures. Agri-business is a part of this and it's moving in to British Columbia.

There's another aspect of this, Mr. Chairman, that's very important to me as a housewife and a mother. That is the aspect of nutrition. I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the nutritive value of food is not one of the prime concerns of the supermarket. Their prime concern is to make as much as they can from any given product. We saw something on "Marketplace" not long ago - I think it was "Marketplace" - that went into the food value and the calorie content and so on of various pre-prepared meals. Not one of them was found adequate - not one. They were all far too high in calories, they were lacking in all sorts of nutrients. But that's not important to a food chain that's interested only in making the most they can for their product.

Advertising has become a very pertinent factor in our concept of today's living. It has far more influence on people than you or I realize, I think, Mr. Chairman. With the modern media and its amount of exposure, the appeal to children to eat products that are certain shapes or sugar-coated or whatever, not necessarily nutritious. . . . In today's modern living, too, we move at such a fast pace.

There is such a trend to prepared foods and highly processed products, and that's where the money is, Mr. Chairman. The money is not in selling the fresh ear of corn right out of the garden or the fresh green peas or all those good things that perhaps some of us older members take for granted as being just something you go out in the garden and pick and put in the pot. That's gone, Mr. Chairman. It's the processed food with all the additives, and that is something that concerns me very much. You get into storage and long-time retention of food, and to try and retain colour freshness and appearance over a period of time, you're involved with all kinds of additives.

This clipping is headed: "Appalling Story on Additives, " June 15,1977:

"Consumption of food with additives may be setting up a time bomb in the user system, federal Conservative health critic, Dr. Paul Yewchuk, said here Saturday.

"He said: 'There is a chemical time bomb not , so much for myself but my children.' He said food additives in the food supply are creating a generation of hyperactive children, and suggested there was a relation between rising crime, violence and the number of additives in food."

And along with this, Mr. Chairman, a recent survey in Canada, 1970 to 1972 - the latest statistics I could get - showed a large portion of our population malnourished. Some of the problems are overweight, iron deficiency, protein deficiency, shortage of calcium, shortage of vitamin D, thiamine deficiency, vitamin C deficiency, and so on. Those are the kinds of problems that we must face up to, Mr. Chairman. I

[ Page 3082 ]

suggest to you that it's no good using band-aid measures. We must start with basics.

It is important that we look at the global concept. What is most shocking to me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this minister has seen fit to drop from his estimates the $5 million for world food relief. He has retained only the $350,000. In 1976 there, was something close to $2 million expended on that programme; this year it's far less than that. What is shocking to me, Mr. Chairman, is to find that he absolutely cut it off the end of December with no grants being accepted from December to March. So even at that, according to the figures he gave me in answer to a question I put on the order paper last spring, he is still down. He has spent something like $1.5 million. Now he has cut that, so he has only $350,000.

The Premier's remark that he would send surplus food to those countries is ridiculous. In closing I would like just to quote the old eastern proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day., Teach him to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life." That was the concept of W.A.C. Bennett when he introduced this programme, and now it's been cut back to the original amount of only $350,000 which was put into effect many years ago. I would urge this minister to consider some change in that particular item.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , I'll try and answer some of your questions. The one you raised regarding agricultural aid comes up under another vote. I think we'll get into it in a little more detail then.

With regard to my "low profile in cabinet" as far as the Ministry of Agriculture goes, I can assure you I'm working on that, and we'll try and raise up the profile considerably as time goes on.

With regard to being, as you mentioned, stripped of the responsibility of the Land Commission Act and pesticides and the fact that range management comes under Forests.... The Minister of the Environment has the Land Commission - the responsibilities for the agricultural land reserves. It forms part of the environment regardless of which ministry has it. It certainly is being administered in such a way that the expressions that I made and the concern brought forward by the Ministry of Agriculture certainly are heard. As you know, I sit on the Environment and Land Use Committee, which deals with land reserve matters.

The rangeland, as you know, is under the co-ordinated resource management programme. This is our new approach to trying to upgrade the beef industry in this province. It is a co-ordinated effort among t he Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Forests, Fish and Wildlife, and the Ministry of Agriculture. I think it's a programme that will probably improve that profile that you mentioned. I think we're going to go a long way with that, and I can tell you that the cattle industry in this province is quite excited about it.

Imports: yes, I know imports are a problem. I could easily answer the question by saying imports are not a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but they are a concern of my ministry. Yes, labour costs are lower with the imported product and, yes, material costs are lower and the land base is much greater. If you look south of the border, large units of production are there, which automatically drops down the unit costs of production.

We have made representation along with the Federation of Agriculture to the horticultural council with regard to the grading of import potatoes. I can tell you that we made our point and that the grading has been improved. Some of the stripper potato problem that we had last year we won't have in the coming years.

The loss of the processing industry in this province is of concern. Again we have to look at the cost of production in the processing industry in other states, in other countries. Your expression regarding Third World countries ' - the low cost of labour, hand-picked produce, living conditions - certainly affect their cost of production. When they produce it they can ship it in to us lower than our farmers can produce it. That is a problem.

I have to go back to the consumers who make that higher standard of living in the province of B.C. and suggest to them that we are all part of one family in the province of British Columbia. We should look at supporting each of our industries, whether it's the clothing manufacturing industry, whether it's the agriculture industry. We should support our local manufacturing industries in this province.

So I don't disagree with you what you say. But then again I can look at the consumers in this province and look at what comes in. Even with tariffs, there are numbers of foreign cars on our roads and amounts of clothing produced outside this province and outside this country. I don't know the answer, Madam Member, but I can assure you we are concerned and we are trying to express to the federal government in any way we can the effect on the producer in this province. We have made recommendations with regard to improved tariff situations for produce, and I am hopeful those recommendations will be accepted by the federal cabinet.

You talk about the big stores, the big retail chains - Safeway and Super-Valu and those chains. I have told the producers in this province, and I think we must recognize this, that we produce a product. It's a perishable product and there's no way we're going to solve some of our problems by being in confrontation with the top end, you might say, of the food chain,

[ Page 3083 ]

which is the retail store. It's got to be one of co-operation and co-ordination of our programmes and our planning, our advertising, our marketing. You don't win by confrontation, and I've said that before and I'll continue to say it. On fresh produce the wholesalers have said to me, when I met with them, and the marketing boards have said to me that they get excellent co-operation from our major chains.

Your percentages are a little out, I understand from my staff: 38 per cent goes to the farmer and 62 per cent is the increase that occurs in the rest of the food chain up to the consumer price.

I think another thing we all have to recognize is that the consumer seems to want fancy packaging. If we could only cut down some of the costs of packaging, regardless of whether it's a food product or any other product you buy in the retail store.... We seem to have a fixation for plastic covers, plastic packages, fancy printing, fancy advertising. All of those affect the cost of the end product. It's unfortunate.

With regard to your comment on potato chips: yes, I am aware of it. It was of concern. I talked to the local potato-chip producers in the province. I spoke to the Canadian president of General Foods of the Hostess potato chips. I can assure you the response I got with regard to the AIB problem was a negative response. That wasn't what they had done to get away from that surplus they had made. The AIB was advised of the reaction that was made in B.C. They were informed by my ministry and requested to check it out to ensure that there was no abuse of that.

Their first inroads into B.C. are to serve a national account, which is Mac's food stores. They sell a product, you might say, in Ontario which of course is for the country, and the price is set on that basis. The national advertising programme goes along with it.

The monopolies or oligopolies or whatever you want to call them in the food stores: I hope that some of the research on the food study that we're carrying out now will give us some answers. We've got the retailers appearing before us and, as you know, the terms of reference of that food study are such that we can bring forward anybody under oath before that committee. Our research staff, I think, have had good co-operation with all parts of the food chain in requesting information from them. I think the results that come from that food study - at least I'm hopeful - will give me some material with which I can work to establish new policy.

The quality of food: I agree with you 100 per cent. Convenience foods in this province and in this country create a problem. I think one-third of the food now that is consumed is consumed outside the family home. It's consumed at McDonald's and it's consumed at A & W and all the other fast food stores. As I understand it the statistics indicate one-third.

Now why? It's the consumer that's doing it. The store isn't going out and dragging the consumer in. The person wants that type of service and wants that type of life. I don't agree that it's right. It's the rush, I guess, in the world we live; it's the type of family life we live. There are more husbands and wives working as a team, both going to work in the morning, coming home, liking to have more leisure time. Rather than have to cook supper, eat it, and then wash the dishes, it's easier to go down to the local store and buy the food. It's a fast-food service. You eat it in your car and you're on your way, doing whatever leisure activity you’ve got.

It's a problem I think I can relate to the Attorney-General's estimates and some of the comments made by other members of your party in regard to the quality of life and the problems that exist in this province with corrections, with police problems, with drug addiction - with all those things. It's the type of family life, in many instances, that we have. It doesn't necessarily mean that only the people who are underprivileged are having those problems. People who have a fair amount of wealth also have problems with the fact that they are too busy to sit down around the family table to eat and enjoy one another's company.

The additives in food - that's a problem too. I guess, Madam Member, it's a case of education. Maybe that's something my ministry should look at. Maybe we should try to put a lot of our energy into educating the consumer, to say: "Hey, Mrs. Consumer, let's sit around the table and eat some good-quality food ."

I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, that the world food relief ... the fact that the $5 million is not there but will be coming up later on in the estimates. Maybe we can deal with it at that time in more detail.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I hadn't intended to say anything about Third World food production but some things have been said this morning that I'd like to comment on just briefly. How people can say we've got to keep Third World food products out of our country and out of the western world generally, I suppose, because they are so low cost, and then go on to say that we've got to increase our exports out of British Columbia, then say at the same time that we've got to increase foreign aid because they can't sell their products abroad.... To me that doesn't make sense. It's the basis of international trade which is the basis of comparative advantage and some people are able to do things better than others - trading around the world to make everybody better off - and if that means anything, surely it has something to do with

[ Page 3084 ]

the agricultural area too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Adam Gibson!

MR. GIBSON: Adam Gibson, that's right -Gordon Smith.

A lot of these Third World countries that we're all concerned about depend on food exports for their foreign exchange. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) put great stress on the alleged inequitable internal distribution of the proceeds of these exports. Well, I regret that to the extent that it's correct, but surely that is something that is up to the local governments, and is up to the local population. It is something that we can hardly help from our point of view by failing to accept exports. Failure to accept them would mean that those countries were just that much worse off, except in the technically unusual circumstance where people in the given country are being deprived of a commodity because it is in such short supply that they're shipping abroad commodities that would otherwise be consumed in that country. But that's quite rare.

When we're talking about coffee, for example, there's not a shortage of coffee within the coffee-exporting countries, nor is there a shortage of bananas. There's adequate land in Brazil, let us say, or Guatemala, or Colombia, apart from the coffee-producing land to grow whatever else they need. It's a question of internal organization; it's not a question of shortage of land. So I don't really see that we can cure the social problems of other countries by refusing to accept their produce.

I won't have a great deal to say on this estimate....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . I'll ambush you one of these days.

We are awaiting the report of the agricultural committee, which is not put together in exactly the way I would like to see it put together. We'll wait and see what they produce. In the meantime, while this committee is going on with its deliberations. I want to tell the minister that the agriculture industry has a serious public relations problem that he should move to do something about. That public relations problem turns predominantly around one particular issue: the issue of marketing boards, and not even marketing boards generally, but three particular marketing boards.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that most people in this province are very sympathetic to the farmer, to the producer. I think that most British Columbians believe in a B.C. food industry; they believe in Canadian security of supply in basic foodstuffs. I think they are willing to pay something for these beliefs. How much they are willing to pay is another question. British Columbia is a high-cost economy. We are trying to keep our cost of living down so we can keep our other costs down and keep our world exports competitive. There's a limit to how far people will go in this extra payment but I think the Minister's comments about what people are prepared to pay for packaging indicates that there's still a good deal of flexibility there.

One thing which they won't go along with is what they perceive to be unfair treatment. I want to tell the minister that these three marketing boards are a very serious bone of contention that, to a considerable and unnecessary degree, turns the consumer against the farmer.

I heard the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talking about monopoly control in other countries. These are legal monopoly controls within our own province. People aren't dumb, Mr. Chairman. They know when they're being ripped off and they're being ripped off by three marketing boards in particular. Those are marketing boards with heavily capitalized quotas. I will name them: the Fluid Milk Marketing Board, with a quota capitalized in excess now of $100 a pound; the Egg Marketing Board - and you get all kinds of various figures as to what a case is worth these days. I get figures between $400 and $1,500. I don't know what it is, but it's a substantial capitalized value per case. And the Broiler Marketing Board has a capitalized value of something between $2.75 and $3 a bird. That is my understanding.

Now the fact that a person has to put the capital value of these quotas and the interest charges on these quotas as a part of his cost of production means that he has to get more for his product. The monopoly right conferred by the people and the law of British Columbia is, through this means, increasing the price that the consumer has to pay.

[Mr. Barrett in the chair.]

We have one measurement of this that was done recently and I'd like to know the minister's opinion of this particular measurement. I don't know the gentlemen personally, but it was a professor at Simon Fraser University, Professor Grubel, who did a study on fluid milk. His finding - I'm speaking from memory here but I'm pretty sure of the figure - was that the Milk Board quota premium on a quart of milk was around 7 cents.

It's a very heavy premium, Mr. Minister. I d like to know if that figure, more or less, has your agreement as to fact. I'm not talking about propriety now, but as to fact. Is that more or less what your economists tell you? If it's not, what do they tell you? What figure do you think is the premium that is caused by

[ Page 3085 ]

that quota? There is no doubt that when you are talking about $100-a-pound capitalized value, you've got a lot of quota there. You've got a lot of quota capital charge.

I appreciate, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman - and I see that we, at the moment, have a very experienced, prestigious, non-controversial chairman - that you're in a real box on these quotas because some people have bought them at high prices. Well, I would submit to you that the historic average - the average cost that most people have built into their production system - is probably a great deal less than the current values. Somehow you have to devise a re-entry pattern. I'm not asking you to do that on the floor of the House today. I hope you're working on it, and it may be something that comes out of the committee.

I am asking you to do one thing on the floor of the House today. I'm asking you to come out against these capitalized quotas on a moral basis. I'm asking you to say in the fullness of time and in a way that's fair to everybody: "We will find a way to get rid of the trading in monopoly privileges that are conferred by the public for private gain, thereby raising the price to the consumer at the store."

I'd like you to come out against ~hat in principle, Mr. Minister, and then we can start working on exactly how we can be fair to all concerned in getting rid of that.

Mr. Chairman, the maintenance of farm income is essential for all kinds of reasons, including equity to our producers as a result of the Land Act. We all believe in the Land Act - the preservation of agricultural space - so we all have to say we are prepared to pay a little bit in terms of the maintenance of farm income at something that's a fair level compared to other British Columbians. But for goodness' sake, Mr. Minister, here is my plea: do it in a straight-ahead way that applies to the whole agricultural community, and let's not have a particular area of this kind - the high capital quotas in these three marketing board areas. They aren't doing that much good to the producer when you consider that the same cause could be served by income stabilization, but they are unquestionably giving a very black eye to the farm community of this province when it comes to the view that the ordinary voter has and, therefore, the political world which you have to live in in terms of assistance to the producing community.

I would ask you to respond to that. I think it's an important public relations thing that you can do - to come out morally against these quotas and their high value and the trading in them today. We'll work out how to repair it down the road.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Well, the Minister of Agriculture, discussing earlier in his estimates, pointed out that we as Canadians pay as a percentage of our income considerably less than other people do for our food costs. But I still hear from housewives and shoppers, whether they be the husbands that are doing the shopping or the wives or bachelors, that food they buy at the supermarkets is very expensive, When they go through the checkout line, they're not sure whether they received a bill or a ransom note. (Laughter.)

But I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, that you would ask them to turn around and look to see what's in the basket. The last time I went to my favourite supermarket - I must admit my wife was sick in bed and that's why I went - as I was standing in that long queue at Woodward's I looked around, and in every basket there were garbage bags and light bulbs and mops and soap and garden tools and potted palms. When they do get down to seeing the food, it's in a can. Imagine somebody buying soup in a can when it's so easy to make at home. But anyway, they buy soup in a can. They buy food that's totally processed.

MS. BROWN: How often do you make it?

MR. ROGERS: Well, hon. member, you can take your turn. One day I'll invite you over to the house for bouillabaisse. (Laughter.) Or maybe I'll have some Creole soup, I don't know.

Interjections.

MR. ROGERS: I've had that problem with other members when they've visited my house and complained about the cold soup, but I must admit I'm trying to rectify that.

But, Mr. Chairman, I really mean it. If you look down there, ask yourself how much of that is raw food in that basket. How many people take a bag of flour and actually make a loaf of bread? I don't do that, but my wife does. There are other people who do that as well. The actual food in that basket is a very small percentage of the checkout. I think it's incumbent on you, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, to occasionally turn the finger around and point it back at the people who are shouting at you and telling you that the cost of food is too high.

But while we're discussing agriculture, I have to agree with the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) that the Milk Board and the Broiler Marketing Board and the Egg Marketing Board certainly haven't convinced me that they're as sanctimonious as they'd like to be.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that recent immigrants to this country haven't fallen into the trap that established Canadians have of eating junk food or convenience food. They tend to much more get back to cooking foods the way they do in the countries from which they came. Their food costs are

[ Page 3086 ]

considerably lower than ours. So, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I just leave you with those kind remarks from someone who has no agricultural land in their constituency.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Maybe I can respond somewhat t o the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) first. Yes, we have a public relations problem in agriculture in this province. I think one of the objectives I have is to work towards improving that image that agriculture has. Maybe we should look at the ministry as the "Ministry of Agriculture and Food." Some of the provinces have tagged that to the Ministry of Agriculture and called it Agriculture and Food. Really, Agriculture is responsible for the food which we consume. Maybe we can get a little closer to the consumer if we put that under.

I would like to see an improvement in the public relations and promotion department of my ministry to make sure we can get out releases and we can get the message out to the people, telling them the value of the convenience food or lack of value when you look at nutrition, telling them about what you're buying in your food basket. Is it food or is it convenience goods?

With regard to the marketing boards, I think you touched on the milk and the broiler or turkey and the eggs. I can tell you that the quota value is not included in the cost of production that determines the price that is paid to the producer. Now it is not in there. Well, if it's not in there, how can you determine that the consumer is paying for that?

MR. GIBSON: You don't get something for nothing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Right on. Mr. Chairman, I'll try to respond to the member. I recognize you don't get something for nothing. If a person pays $1,500 for a case of eggs as quota, I'm concerned and I've expressed my concern. I've asked my staff to take a look at this. But there's very little trading in quota. I'm not sure of the percentage; I'm thinking of 4 per cent traded annually in quota. So it's not a major factor, and I think that's where the professors got a little off track. They were talking about it, but really the transactions in quota are very few.

Let me ask you a question in regard to quota. Everybody comes down on quota and sometimes they're down on marketing boards. But, you know, we've got some controls in this society in which we live. For example, taxi-cab licences: what's the value of quota on taxi-cab licences in Vancouver? Could you go out and put a sign on your cab and drive it around? No, you can't. You can pay a good price for that licence. So I think people should look at that as opposed to just aiming it at a supply-management concept.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I'm fairly new at this game. It's been an experience for me to look at some of the things that we have in place in our society, but everybody seems to aim at the quota situation and the fact of supply management, whether it's good or bad. I've come to the conclusion that I'm somewhat in agreement; in perishable goods in the agriculture industry in Canada, supply management isn't all that bad.

Now some of the problems that exist is this quota problem, and whether or not you put a value on quota, let it trade openly.... You hear it's $1,500 a case or whatever it might be - $100 a pound for milk.... If it doesn't sit above the table and trade for a price, you can recognize, of course, with supply management and quota nationally and provincially.... If you say it has no value and you don't recognize it when it trades freely, you know where the value is going to go. It's going to go under the table. The price will still be paid. When the farm is sold, the farm will be sold for half a million if it has the ability to produce milk or eggs commercially. If you take that licence away, that farm may sell for a quarter of a million dollars, because what can the man do with it? It's just buildings and land.

So it presents a problem, and I think maybe we'll have to do.... If I'm not mistaken, in Ontario they're looking at it. I don't. know whether or not they're doing it, but maybe there has to be a sort of independent appraisal taken when sales are made. But that involves administration bureaucracy and I sometimes wonder whether that's of value.

So I just want to make the point that the quota value that those professors quote is not in the cost of production. There is no quota in the cost of production, whether it be eggs, milk or broiler.

The marketing board doesn't set the consumer price, he sets the producer price. For example, for broilers - and my figures may not be deadly accurate because I haven't communicated that much with my staff while you were talking - I believe the price to the producer was 37.5 cents a pound. Would that be it? Since October, 1975, that's paid to the producer. The wholesale price to the store, I believe, is around 75 cents to 80 cents a pound. You and I buy it on the supermarket shelf at $1.05 to $1.10 a pound. The producer only got 37.5 cents. There's a big spread between what the producer got and what you and I pay. So let's not aim at the producers and say, "because you've got quotas and because you've got supply management you re ripping off the system, " I think, as you put it. I don't agree with you; that's not correct.

So I would say to you, Mr. Member, that the supply management concept ensures a reasonable

[ Page 3087 ]

supply when the demand is there. It takes away some of the peaks and valleys of it. You're correct when you say you don't get something for nothing. There must be a value to it. You and I aren't going to pay $150,000 for a quota and not expect a return on our investment. So I am concerned and we're going to have to look at that.

You mentioned maintenance of farm income. At the present time we have the farm income assurance. You know we have a study going on now by Dr. Hudson and Mr. Phillips, who will be carrying out the review of the farm income assurance programme because the tree fruits plan is coming up as of the end of this growing year. So we have to have a determination as to what the ongoing programme is. I believe very strongly that we must protect our farmer in a depressed market condition. I feel very strongly about that.

I don't feel - and I've told the farmers this - that we should be guaranteeing the farmer's income. The reason I say that, and I've said it to them, is that I'm sure.... I know most farmers in this province, if not all of them, are great free enterprisers. They're people who work with the land. Their hours aren't from 9 to 5; they don't work a four-day week; they work seven days a week and many long hours. But I'm sure they don't want to see a situation where they're guaranteed an income but don't have the flexibility to make a real good return on their investment when their production is excellent one year because of weather or because of their methods or expertise. So it gives them flexibility in which they can make good returns, and in some instances make fair returns.

But as long as I'm there to make sure that they don't run into a situation where they can't afford to at least get enough to meet the costs of operation.... I've told the industry that I'm not in agreement with a guaranteed income for farmers, but I am in agreement with the fact that the farmer must have that protection because when the weather turns against him, when imports turn against him and the marketplace turns against him, we need that farmer on the land. We should be able to pay and we should want to pay to make sure that he stays there in the bad years, because we're going to need him 20 years or 50 years down the road.

To the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , I agree 100 per cent with regard to your comments about the food basket. I can tell you that at our food hearings in Parksville, when you mentioned all those other items, one chap said: "Will you include a wheelbarrow in that foodbasket?" I'm not sure how he got the wheelbarrow into the foodbasket, but that was one of the things he bought at the supermarket, so you can get anything there.

Mr. Chairman, just one last comment and I'm going to take a little bit of licence here. I would like the House to welcome my lovely wife, Sheila, from

Penticton who's come down to be with me this weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: So be nice!

MRS. WALLACE: First, I would like to correct a misstatement I made in my earlier remarks when I mentioned that Windsor Packing had closed. What I should have said was that they have curtailed their activities, they have laid off some people. They certainly haven't closed their doors and I'm sorry if I left any wrong impression on that.

The minister has indicated on different items that we would get into more detail when we got to the specific vote. That may be true, Mr. Minister, but I would just like to give you forewarning that I don't intend to let your salary vote go through until I have some assurance about something relative to the $5 million at least. Because I think that this is where its at when we're discussing your vote, your salary and your responsibilities. We must get into the overall total.

I want to make just a brief comment at this point about quotas, although I really don't want to get into the marketing board thing right now. I was very interested in the minister's remarks in reply to the Liberal leader. Certainly I share the minister's concern about the value that has been placed on quotas and I share his quandary as to what can be done about it and how we approach this thing. I would suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that this question of quotas is going to have to have some very strong guidance, if not intervention, from government in order to resolve this problem that is such a knotty one.

The remark that I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is in regard to the inference left by the Liberal leader in reference to the book which was written by the two Simon Fraser professors which indicated that the farmer must be making a ripoff when he was prepared to pay such extravagant amounts for quota. I recognize, as the minister does, that if it isn't out in the open it's going to be under the table.

But I think the thing we have to look at, Mr. Chairman, as far as these quotas go, is that the farmer prefers to live in the rural area. He prefers that way of life. It has been said, and very truly, that he lives poor and dies rich. In many ways his investment in land and his investment in quota are very akin. He is prepared to take a much lower return on that investment. He is prepared to work for much lower than the allowed average wage. As a result of that, he puts out that extra capital investment, be it directly in quota, or additionally as reflected in the cost of the land, or the buildings, or the wheelbarrow, or the animals, or whatever. He puts out those extra funds and offsets it by taking a lower return on his investment and a lower return for his labour in order

[ Page 3088 ]

to allow him to live the kind of life that he wants to live and lead that type of rural existence. He lives poor and dies rich. It does not necessarily reflect that he is making so much money that he is able to afford, by financial and bottom-line bookkeeping methods, the amount of money that would be indicated that he should be making in order to pay that amount for quota.

I think that is something we must bear in mind, Mr. Chairman. I wish the minister well in trying to do something about reducing the value of quota, because we all share a concern. I think there can be initiatives taken jointly through discussion with the organizations representing the farm groups - the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in particular - and the ministry to work out some means of reducing that value of quota.

I've had some rather new and innovative ideas suggested and I'm just toying around with those now. I'm sure the minister is thinking about the same thing. I think those suggestions must be considered and we must move in that direction.

I want to return for a moment to the aid of developing countries in the hopes that the minister will make some responses this morning. I would like to read just briefly from a letter from the president of CUSO. As you know, one of the very specific things about the world food relief fund was that it was a matching fund - private organizations put up funds and were matched by government. These projects were of a very rare type in the usual run of funds to aid developing countries. They were outstanding in the whole process of what has been going on with those developing countries. They weren't just outright gifts that might wind up rotting on a dock somewhere or being utilized in an' inefficient or wrong direction. What happened with both the aid to developing countries money and the world food relief fund was that people actually went in and worked with the people there to help them better themselves to help them improve their own way of existing. They took certain skills and technology to help these people advance and become self-sufficient and self-supporting.

Those are the kinds of programmes that we were dealing with, Mr. Chairman. This letter from the chairman of the CUSO organization was written to the Premier. I have a copy of it. It reads in part:

"I'm writing to you on behalf of CUSO and the several hundred returned CUSO volunteers in this province to ask you to take a personal interest in the fate of the B.C. agricultural aid fund.

"As you know, it was your father's government in 1969 that established this province's unique and progressive approach to the problem of world underdevelopment. Utilizing the existing administrative structure, the B.C. fund has speedily delivered its financial assistance to selective projects on three continents. Such a businesslike system is the envy of international agencies working in other provinces.

"Not only is the B.C. fund unique in its management, it also provides leadership in its aid philosophy and has met United Nations' guidelines that the Second Development Decade emphasizes: self-reliance and not dependency. The B.C. fund has consistently insisted on projects of agricultural self-reliance, and improved food production. Furthermore, only those projects with a high probability of success and eventual self-sufficiency have been assisted."

Truly B.C. has recognized the ancient Asian proverb which I quoted earlier: "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you'll feed him for the rest of his life." This is the concept of this programme. It was working very well; it was growing. I agree, there was too much money there in the initial stages because the volunteer organizations were just becoming aware of this programme. The thing was beginning to roll, but we did get up to $2 million.

Then this year, Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in the position of being reduced. I would ask the minister specifically why he saw fit to stop grants as of the end of December last year, rather than letting them continue through to the end of the fiscal year. Why have you dropped the $5 million from your budget this year?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I can't recall the figures on the answer I gave you for your question on the order paper, but I can tell you that from January 1 to the end of March we paid out under that programme $401,000. We didn't cut if off; we were paying out funds that had been approved. Our total expenditure for 1976-1977 in total was $1.36 million out of which the agricultural aid for developing countries vote was $35 ' 000 and that of the world food relief was $1,329, 000. Since April I we have had approved and paid $121,000 out of the vote for agricultural aid to developing countries.

Then I have a list of the projects that we've paid funds to: YMCA in New Guinea, CARE in Colombia, CARE in Equador on agricultural developments, Nicaragua World Vision, India, Canadian Hunger Foundation, Dominican Republic, Canadian-Vietnam Friendship Society, and a number of other ones. There are, I guess, a few dozen names I can list off.

So we didn't stop but we proceeded. We were dealing with requests that were coming in throughout that period from January I on. If my response to you and your question was misleading, that may be the reason why you thought it was cut off. We have paid

[ Page 3089 ]

out since the first of the year. I met with the delegations from all those groups that came here -the YMCA.... I can't remember all the names of the groups that came, here; we had about 35 people and I met with them. I explained to them and I heard their cause. I certainly appreciated their concern.

The response was basically that in my budget for this year we had the $350,000 for agricultural aid to developing countries. When we dealt with the world disaster situation - as the Premier said, I believe, in his estimates - that request for assistance under a disaster situation would be considered and receive cabinet approval. If necessary, a special warrant would be made to cover any costs incurred to make sure that a disaster situation was looked at. So we haven't really cut it off, Madam Member. It's there; we are dealing with applications all the time.

One other comment in regard to the ideas on quotas that you've mentioned that you had, we'd certainly like to know what your ideas are on the value of quotas. If you want to pass those along some time, we'd appreciate getting information from all areas. I can tell you that we will be discussing the value of quota situation at the upcoming ministerial meeting which will be held in Victoria next month. All the ministers from across Canada will be here and one of our topics on the agenda is the effective value of quota.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): I don't intend to speak long on agriculture today because the committee's been appointed to study all of the problems in agriculture. I would like, first of all, to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on a point in this committee. There's no question that the problems we're facing today are not exactly new. Some of the problems are certainly 60 years old. I recall going to the Courtenay Farmers' Institute meeting one time and looking back - to 1917, I believe it was - to their resolutions. All of them would certainly fit in today. The first one was the price spread between the consumer and the producer; the second was the freight rates on prairie grain to Vancouver Island; and third, the imports from the mainland of various agricultural products. I think Vancouver Island in those days, the same as today, hardly recognized the mainland as being the same country.

I certainly agree with the Federation of Agriculture in their campaign around the province in trying to tell people that we should be eating more local B.C. products. I believe at the present time, according to their figures, we're producing roughly 40 per cent of our needs. I was pleased to hear the minister say that our goal should be 65 per cent. We certainly can do it and we certainly have to in the years ahead. But if we did get up to 65 per cent, it would mean that we could hire nearly a quarter of our present unemployed in the food industry and production processing, et cetera.

Now I'm not going to argue with.... I see my friend from the Liberal party is not here, so I guess I can't argue with him anyway. But I'm certainly not going to argue with him about marketing boards, with all of their faults. I would agree that the high price of quota is of real concern. But I would also point out to him that if we could keep our wage rates in our exporting industries down to the same type of increases that we've seen in eggs and broilers, we certainly wouldn't have any problem in exporting our products to the foreign markets. I will say that there's no area where there's been a smaller increase than in eggs and broilers and beef over the last number of years. For instance, if agricultural prices had followed the trend of wage increases, milk would be selling for more than $3 a quart right now. I think all of us who are sitting on the agriculture committee recognize that it's certainly not the producer who is running away with all the gravy. As much as we criticize the boards, I would say they have stabilized production, which is a good thing for Canada. If there are better ways, well then, I'd certainly like to hear from anyone who can make good suggestions. I'm quite sure that all of the committee members would like to hear suggestions on how to keep stable industry in our province and not export all our jobs to other countries.

I would say there is really no solution to this question until we take a realistic approach on cheap imports. Cheap imports today mean expensive imports tomorrow. Once we have to rely on foreign surpluses, we're on very dangerous ground. As I pointed out many times when I was Minister of Agriculture, if we lose our production units we also lose our nation, because we can be held up for blackmail by other countries which can say: "Give us your water, oil or gas or we'll starve you out." So it's extremely important that we do keep our food production units. All countries in Europe have gone through this and they know what it's like in times of war when they can't import from other countries. I don't care what we say about encouraging imports from the cheapest place possible; we should also keep our eye to the day when we might get cut off from these sources of supply. A good example, of course, of where we rely on someone else is coffee, not that I want us to start growing coffee in British Columbia. But it is an example.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: You can have that in Prince Rupert, my friend.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): We need something if they close down the pulp mill.

[ Page 3090 ]

MR. SHELFORD: Now that my friend has mentioned it - and I'm a little bit off the subject -when they tried to get people to come to work at Kitimat when the pulp mill was closed down, they only got one volunteer.

Now in our experience over the years, I often look back to the problem of the strawberry producers. Now in those days, if a strawberry producer could get 21 cents a pound, this was a pretty fair return. But at the same time, Mexican strawberries were coming on the market for 12 cents a pound. I would say that this very nearly destroyed our whole industry and it's never really recovered since.

Now many people, and I've heard it right here in this House, will say: "Good! The consumer got a good deal." Now this is completely not true. The consumer paid the same price for the local product and the imported. Even though our producers were getting 2 1 cents and the imports came in at 12 cents, the strawberries sold on the market at exactly the same price; it didn't mean a thing as far as the consumer was concerned.

Now we see the same situation developing in other fields and it certainly gives me a great deal of concern. We also see the various chains importing one carload of cheap apples, potatoes, pears, et cetera, and that establishes a total price for our total crop. This again is something that is destroying our agricultural industry, and unless we can resolve this problem it will keep going backward.

We also see the same thing in our broiler industry, where one company, which showed no loyalty to any country, was bringing in - or tried to bring in -cheap broilers from the U.S. The same thing would have happened that happened in the strawberry industry; they would have killed our broiler industry and then the price would be sky-high.

I think the consumer should consider very seriously when they talk about bringing stuff in from across the line just because it's cheaper or from other areas in the world.

One of my concerns, and it's still the same as when I was there - things don't change that fast, and no doubt the former minister found out the same thing - is that the Minister of Agriculture has no power except in a little bit of arm-twisting. I must admit that if you're good at arm-twisting you can get some of the companies to buy British Columbia products and try to keep our supply moving. As I see it, the only solution is the licensing of food importers. Of course, they wouldn't get a permit to import until our own supply was pretty well exhausted. I think this is the only way. If we expect to find loyalty to our own production, we're barking up the wrong tree. It's just not going to happen.

Another frustrating thing I found is in the field of pesticides. I'm sorry to see this moved over to the Ministry of the Environment. The same people who would tie themselves to trees to save themselves from spraying, for instance, of our forest crops - or many were to, of course, sail with the Greenpeace up the Fraser River to stop a mosquito from getting sprayed - are the same groups that will run across the line to buy their food products. They are the same people who will buy food that's produced in other countries. They are the same people....

MR. LEA: How do you know it?

MR. SHELFORD: We know it. Never mind. Pretty well every one does it, and I'm not saying they do it more than anyone else. But pretty well all the consumers who have a chance will do it. And I'm not blaming them for it.

What I'm saying is the same thing: they'll. cry on one side and then do the opposite. And I know for one reason, because I was the first minister in Canada that banned DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor and endrin. Now what did I achieve? Not one damned thing. I didn't achieve a thing because all that happened was that it increased the cost of production. And the consumer ran across the line to buy his products. He bought imported strawberries from Mexico where they throw DDT on with a shovel.

Now I think we should do more in the field of education to advertise to say that our products are pure. We do have a good product; we should be proud of them. And I think we should also point out that products from other areas are quite often produced in unsatisfactory conditions, if you want to put it that way. We have to support the agricultural industry; we have to be as self-supporting as possible. I hope in traveling around the province in the next few months, whenever that starts, that we will be able to come up with some of these solutions. But we won't come up with any solution unless we grapple with the problem of cheap imports.

MRS. WALLACE: In the few minutes that we have left I would like to turn the debate to a slightly different direction. I would like to refer to the minister's attention - and I'm sure he has seen it -this most recent copy of Down to Earth, published by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. It's an extremely well-written little magazine. This particular issue is extremely informative. It deals with the minister's thoughts relative to the amount of food production which we have in B.C. now and the place he would like to go. The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) has mentioned that currently we produce 43 per cent of our food in British Columbia and the minister is aiming, over a term of time, to 65 per cent. This little magazine says:

"No matter how many commissions of inquiry are held and no matter how many

[ Page 3091 ]

studies are made, in the final analysis our ability to meet our food requirements will only be as good as the institutions which we employ to look after them.

"The family farm is the only unit which provides both management and labour with the flexibility required for food production. It is, therefore, to that that Canadians must look if they are to have any hope of adequately meeting their food requirements of the future.

"Unable to withstand the pressures of persistently hostile economic environment, family farms in North America have been giving up at an alarming rate. Corporate interests with the capital and incentive necessary to integrate into the business of food production have been quick to fill the vacuum created by their departure. Big business has been more than willing to add yet another hat - the farmer's -to its ever-expanding wardrobe. Larger and consequently more resilient to the shocks generated by a modem economy, corporate agriculture has been able to survive where individuals have not.

"Size has never been a measure of efficiency, though, and there are a number of things that the small farmer can do better than his larger replacement. Recent studies in the U.S. have indicated that the industry is inefficient in terms of energy, consuming four times as many units of fuel for every one unit of food produced, and it ultimately contributes to higher food prices. In other words, the food on the dinner table is at an unnecessarily high cost.

"The family farm represents a high-yield, labour-intensive method of food production. To abandon it, or, worse yet, to let it die of neglect is done at the expense of the rural community."

That is the thing that I would like to talk about next in these estimates, Mr. Chairman, but the hour has now reached that of adjournment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Motion 3 standing on the order paper in my name. The business pertaining to that motion has already been completed by the House.

Leave granted.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA REPEAL ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. McClelland, Bill 59,

Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make a very short statement.

Leave granted.

ALLEGED MUZZLING OF HEALTH

OFFICER ON 2, 4-D ISSUE

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, while I was away in Ottawa in the past few days, there were several stories in the media alleging that Dr. David Clarke, the medical officer of health at the South Okanagan Health Unit - I understand this was raised in the House as well during my absence -was instructed not to make public statements about the use of 2, 4-D in Okanagan Lake.

The reports and the questions in the House indicated that Dr. Clarke had said that he believed he was forbidden to speak on this issue. I want to inform the House that I very much regret that this impression was formed by Dr. Clarke, or by anyone else, because it was never the intention, nor was it the act, of my ministry or myself to prevent a health officer from discussing public issues that affect this community.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Nielsen?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would go further and assure the House that 1, personally, have never asked Dr. Clarke to be silent on this issue or to refrain from attending any public meetings at which this issue was discussed. Dr. Clarke and other medical officers of health have not only the right but also the responsibility to be heard. I say this despite the fact that we have received representations from individuals and from various community leaders about Dr. Clarke's public involvement in these matters, and when I receive such representations I have a responsibility to deal with them in the best way possible.

MR. BARBER: Did you get any from Nielsen?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that there is not unanimity even among health officers on matters of this nature. However, I did deal with the representations which came to me from a number of sources and, in fact, I view the memo which I sent to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , on this as very supportive of Dr. Clarke's involvement. It was not

[ Page 3092 ]

intended to convey any disapproval, and it didn't. I find it hard to understand, as do most of the members of the media to whom I've shown this letter, how it could be read that way.

MR. BARBER: Will you table it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Of course. Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. members of the House please allow the hon. minister to make his statement without interruption?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can't table them today because I didn't bring them with me, but I'll table them on Monday, if you like.

I would like to clear up another area of misunderstanding that affects Dr. Clarke's published activities. When the Premier's office and my office were phoned a week or 10 days ago by a person in Penticton, I believe, to seek permission to have Dr. Clarke speak in public on the question of sewage disposal, I issued a very firm directive.

On the phone I said that permission was not necessary. I repeat that now in this House. Our medical officers of health do not require permission from the minister to speak on matters affecting the health of the community. It is their duty to act as responsible health officers, and we expect them to discharge that function with due regard to their status in the community and their standing in the honourable profession of medicine.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this statement will remove any doubts in the minds of Dr. Clarke, his colleagues in the Ministry of Health, and the members of the Legislature as to my position in this matter.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I wish to thank the minister for his statement, Mr. Speaker. I just want to point out that any judgments to be made with respect to the intent of memos exchanged can only really be considered seriously once that material is supplied to members of the House. I thank the minister for his intention and his commitment to table both the letter to Dr. Clarke and memos that were exchanged between the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment pertaining to this question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, to clarify something that the member for Revelstoke just said, there was no letter to Dr. Clarke at any time. There is no letter. So the letters I will be tabling will be a letter from the Minister of the Environment to myself, and a response to the Minister of the Environment. But there was never a letter sent to Dr. Clarke, and that must be made very clear.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. minister has clarified the point.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there's some great confusion surrounding this whole matter. Dr. Clarke was on the Jack Webster radio show out of Kelowna this week. Jack Webster was reading from a letter that was apparently addressed to Dr. Clarke, and I understand it was from the Ministry of Health.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. KING: However, be that as it may, I appreciate the minister's commitment to table all relevant documents. I only regret, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health saw fit to show these documents to members of the press gallery before having the courtesy and the respect for the House to table them here.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They had already been in the press. What's the matter with you? The press showed them to me.

MR. KING: I think when it comes to a judgment, Mr. Speaker, regarding conduct of a ministry, a department of government, the members of this House have a right and the responsibility to assess that conduct and that directive before the public or the press gallery has access to it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North- Vancouver-Capilano. Are you about to reply?

MR. GIBSON: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I just regret that it wasn't before application of 2, 4-D in the lake because of his indication today that even among health officers there's not unanimity on this question. Surely that means there's every case to hold off on this particular application.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member is now entering into a debate,

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I just want the minister to come back to this House with a statement on the medical aspects of the use of 2, 4-D in light of the opposition by the BCMA.

[ Page 3093 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Read the report!

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.