[ Page 3095 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

"Smile" campaign. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3095

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Use of 2, 4-D in Okanagan Lake system. Mr. Cocke –– 3095

Investigation into fishing industry. Mr. Lea –– 3096

Alleged conflict of interest in rezoning of ALR land. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3097

Investigation of fishing industry. Mr. Lea –– 3097

Use of 2, 4-D in Okanagan Lake system. Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 3097

Dease Lake extension. Mr. Lauk –– 3097

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 93. Mr. Levi –– 3116

Mrs. Wallace –– 3098 Mr. Barnes –– 3119

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3099 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3121

Mr. Stupich –– 3099 Mr. Barnes –– 3122

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3103 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3122

Mr. Stupich –– 3105 Ms. Brown –– 3123

Mr. Barrett –– 3107 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3124

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3109 Mr. Levi –– 3124

Mr. Barrett –– 3109 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3125

Mr. Lea –– 3110 Mr.Cocke –– 3126

Mr. Kahl –– 3111 Mr. King –– 3127

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3111 HON. Mr. Hewitt –– 3128

Mr. Kahl –– 3112 Mr. Bawtree –– 3130

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3112 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3131

Mr. Lea –– 3112 Mr. Levi –– 3131

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3112 Mr. Stupich –– 3131

Mr. Lauk –– 3113 Mrs. Wallace –– 3132

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have a special message for the House. Today marks the kick-off campaign of a year-long campaign which I hope that all people in British Columbia will adopt, and it is: "We have a special smile for you." It is being initiated by my Ministry of Tourism.

On each desk there is a placemat which will be in many, many restaurants throughout the province of British Columbia. You will see that the ones that are on the desks of the members are identified just for Victoria or Vancouver. However, the member for Revelstoke will have the Revelstoke ones in his area and the member for Dewdney will have the ones in his area and so on. They will be throughout the province in nine languages.

There will be buttons worn by the citizens of British Columbia to welcome all of the tourists who are here to visit with us this year. There were 10.5 million of them last year, Mr. Speaker, and last year they left with us $1.2 billion for the third-largest industry in this province.

I would like all members of the House to recognize this day, to recognize this week and to recognize this year as a very special one for tourists to our province. I would like on behalf of all members of the House to have a very special smile from all of them to all of the tourists who are here today with us in the Legislature. Please, Mr. Speaker, and through you to members of the House make the smile campaign for British Columbia the most positive one this province has ever seen. Thank you very much, and smile!

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): In response to the Provincial Secretary's message, on behalf of the official opposition I would certainly welcome any programme which is designed to stimulate tourism in, the province of British Columbia. I just wish, Mr. Speaker, that the government had pursued policies more calculated to create smiles on the faces of people.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the rather exorbitant ferry rate increases which, in my view, have been the biggest detriment to tourism in the province of British Columbia, would be reviewed with respect to bringing about a more realistic rate which would encourage tourism and bring smiles - legitimate smiles of happiness - to the faces not only of tourists, but to the citizens of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was made necessary by you and the NDP government.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): I'm very pleased this afternoon to introduce eight young students from South Delta Senior Secondary who are over here to see the Legislature in action. I would like at this time to introduce Mr. Mark Bridge, Miss Beth Stanger, Mr. Colin Coates, Miss Paula Pattison, Mr. Don White, Miss Monica Foster, Miss Debbie Kastak and Miss Donna Sawatsky, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Kinney from Chemainus, B.C. I would ask you to make them welcome.

Oral questions.

USE OF 2, 4-D

IN OKANAGAN LAKE SYSTEM

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. The second interim report of the advisory committee on the control of Eurasian water milfoil in the Okanagan Lake system of B.C. is out, and I'd like to quote from that report. It said: "For swimming areas, mechanical methods should be used until the results of the 1977 experimentation are synthesized." A beach area of Skaha Lake was the initial site chosen for use of 2, 4-D on Thursday, June 23, at 5 a.m. Why was the advisory committee named if the first action completely disregards an essential recommendation? Does the government have additional information indicating the use of 2, 4-D in the beach recreational areas to be completely safe?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): No, the government does not completely disregard the committee report. In fact, we are working very closely with that report - the interim report supplied by the three-member commission.

The persons responsible for the programme, including Dr. Peter Newroth, have outlined a programme which was reported to all regional districts and municipalities, and none is going ahead without the concurrence of these regional districts or municipalities. I think you might find it somewhat difficult to take a line or two out of those reports because the report was intended to be read in its entirety.

The programme is going on as intended. It's going along very, very well. The time of 5 a.m. was not when the 2, 4-D was placed in the lakes, according to information given to us. The spraying application began at 7:30 a.m.

MR. COCKE: The minister's own pest control

[ Page 3096 ]

products regulations in section 44 (l) says: "No person shall use a controlled product in a manner that is inconsistent with the directions or limitations respecting the use shown on the label."

Let me read to you an excerpt from the label of the product that they used in that lake. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and his budworms should take note of this too. This product is Aqua-Kleen, manufactured by Emken Products of Fremont, California. The label states: "Do not apply to waters used for irrigation, agricultural sprays, watering of dairy animals, or domestic water supplies."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the water I'm talking about is used in a number of these ways. I would wonder why the minister ignores professional advice in the first place and, secondly, ignores his own regulations.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the label instructions on Aqua-Kleen are not ignored. There is not intent that any water be drawn from the lake for those stated purposes, which may contain an excess amount of the product 2.4-D. The same question was placed before the federal government and Agriculture Canada, pointing out the possibility that there could be a label violation. The federal government, through Agriculture Canada, agreed with our programme and agreed with the method we intended to bring forth. We do not intend any 2, 4-D ~ to be found in any intakes, whether for domestic purposes, irrigation or for the watering of cattle. The areas are being avoided with specific reference points in agreement and also at the suggestion of the federal government, along with their own scientists.

MR. COCKE: The minister is standing in the House and saying that he is ignoring professional advice - the very advice he sought to begin with -and, secondly, that he is ignoring the....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What is your question?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please state his supplementary question and not engage in debate?

MR. COCKE: Since part of the recommendation, Mr. Speaker, was the question of mechanical devices and since the minister called across the floor the other day that Mr. Jennens has invented a machine to control Eurasian water milfoil, would the minister tell us, Mr. Speaker, where the 25 acres are that this contract involves? Also, would the minister tell us whether or not he has Treasury Board approval, which he didn't have when he was mentioning this across the floor the other day?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The precise location of the 25 acres, Mr. Speaker, was contained in the communication to Mr. Jennings; I would have to look at that correspondence to get you the proper geographical location.

To my knowledge there is no machine as yet; we have not seen a machine. We have agreed with Mr. Jennings that if he is able to produce such a machine to the specifications he has advised and at the cost he has told us, we are quite prepared to enter into a contract which would provide Mr. Jennings with approximately 300 acres of weeds to be harvested.

The machine is not intended to destroy the Eurasian milfoil the machine is intended to remove specific areas of Eurasian milfoil from specific areas of the lakes. Mr. Jennings acknowledges that it will not be the complete answer to the problem, because there are physical limitations to the machine itself regarding the depths of water and the bottom of the lake. But to this moment we have not seen such a machine. We are anxiously awaiting a progress report from Mr. Jennings as to how soon he will be able to demonstrate that machine.

INVESTIGATION INTO FISHING INDUSTRY

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Because it is becoming increasingly apparent that there are many British Columbians who are being forced out of the fishing industry in British Columbia, both in the ownership of processing plants and people who harvest the fish - the fishermen - and because there is an appalling lack of knowledge not only in this government but preceding governments about the fifth-largest industry in this province, will the government take steps to set up a select special committee of the Legislature to look into all aspects of the fishing industry, from harvesting to processing to marketing, so that once and for all the government and those people who are not involved in the industry get to know what is happening first-hand in that industry, and so we can better deal with our fifth largest industry?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in disagreeing with some of the statements made in the preamble to the question from the member for Prince Rupert, I would say that the present Ministry of Recreation and Conservation, in conjunction with other ministries - they have the primary responsibility for fishing - have a complete review of the situation and will be introducing and carrying out measures that haven't been done before in support of the fishing industry. Some of them will be announced later, and that is B.C.'s position on the proposed

[ Page 3097 ]

200-mile limit and traditional fishing grounds. It is not available for announcement at this time because we are in negotiation with the government of Canada.

MR. LEA: Does the Premier not agree that a select special committee looking into harvesting, processing and marketing of the fishing industry in British Columbia would be an asset to government so they can better carry out policies that are designed to improve and help the fishing industry?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Without commenting on the member's very serious concern for the fishing industry, I believe that all possible measures are being taken within the departments at this time. Now is not the specific time for such a legislative committee.

MR. LEA: A final supplementary: would the Premier - because in the broad community there is a great deal of interest, I think, in regard to this industry - undertake to table in the Legislature all the reviews that have been done by his government so far, so that all members of the Legislature can have some firmer grasp of what is being done?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, but I'll table all the reviews done by the last government.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

IN REZONING OF ALR LAND

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and, Housing): Mr. Speaker, in question period last week the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked me a question with respect to Timbercrest Estates Ltd. and a requested release of land from the agricultural land reserve. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the member asked if I intended to direct the inspector of municipalities to conduct an inquiry into what she termed this possible conflict of interest involving one Mr. David Williams, QC.

I think it's only correct and fair to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the member was not correct in suggesting that there had been a presentation to the executive council with Mr. Williams in attendance. The appeal for exclusion to this date has not come before the Environment and Land Use Committee, nor has it come before cabinet. The information, therefore, was incorrect. On the basis of the review conducted by the inspector of municipalities since the question was put, and with information readily provided by the district municipality of North Cowichan, there does not appear to be a requirement for an inquiry under section 728 of the Municipal Act. If the member has further information to place before us, we can examine it at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Misinformation!

INVESTIGATION INTO FISHING INDUSTRY

MR. LEA: To the Premier, Mr. Speaker: I didn't say that I was satisfied with the work that we had done with regard to the fishing industry. I think we could have done a lot more. I don't think you'll find anything in the files on reviews that we did to table. My question is: why will the government not make available to the members of this Legislature the review material that his government is doing? Why is the Premier against that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I in no way intended to embarrass the member because of the lack of action of the former government. What I would say is that the review is going on. Much of the information is confidential. When such reports are completed, information is always made available, either in the Legislature or - as with many government reports - through the library.

MR. LEA: As a supplemental, Mr. Speaker, I don't quite understand what can be confidential about the fishing industry reviews that are being done by government. What we are trying to find out is what is wrong in our fishing industry and what can be done to correct some of the mistakes that have been perpetrated over the years.

My question is: why is the Premier against making the Legislature aware of government studies into ti!.e fishing industry? I didn't want a political speech from the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the member doesn't understand - that's between him and his constituents. What I do say is that studies are going on, and yes, there is some information of a confidential nature. I'm sorry you don't understand.

USE OF 2, 4-D

IN OKANAGAN LAKE SYSTEM

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I did not completely answer the question of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . Yes, Treasury Board has approved the expenditures of money with Mr. Jennen, subject to terms and conditions as outlined to him.

DEASE LAKE EXTENSION

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I have a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I have received a report that a Mr. Ernest Gilliatt, who is a director of the freight capacity development branch, railway directorate of the federal Ministry of Transport, has recently stated that the federal government would

[ Page 3098 ]

not have paid the $81 million to the government of B.C. unless the construction of the Dease Lake extension was halted. Mr. Gilliatt was reported as saying that "the condition of the agreement was that construction would cease and that there would not be further demands by the province for payments at this time." In view of the fact that the Premier has stated at his April 5 press conference that there were not considerations to the federal government for the payment of the $81 million, does the Premier wish to change his April 5 statement to accord with the statement of Mr. Gilliatt of the federal government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I never met Mr. Gilliatt, nor do I understand the weird and wonderful way in which the federal government makes decisions.

MR. LEA: Explain that to your constituents.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I don't wish to change my statement.

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before we proceed with the orders of the day I would like to take this opportunity to reply to the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who raised a matter of privilege in this House.

On Thursday, June 16, the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard rose on a matter of privilege with respect to the release to the press of answers to questions taken on notice during oral question period. I have reviewed the matter as raised by the hon. member, and it is my opinion that no privilege of the hon. member or of the House, as defined by the law of parliament, has been breached.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

continued.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): This afternoon I would like to begin by referring back to a copy of Hansard last January when we were discussing support programmes for farm production. At that time the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , in reply to a comment in the House, said:

I would make the comment that the contracts are five-year contracts. As any good operation should be carried out by any business or any government, they will be reviewed, and at the time they come due we will have something to present to agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, the minister and I have discussed that terminology subsequent to that and the minister assured me that he didn't really mean that the department was going to have something to present to agriculture, but rather he was going to move forward in consultation with the agricultural industry in coming up with programmes for support for the farm economy.

However, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat concerned about whether or not that is the direction in which this minister is going. I note that he has appointed Dr. Hudson. The only knowledge I have of the terms of reference to Dr. Hudson are from the press release which the minister's department sent to the press and to members of the Legislature, but I understand that this report is to review and recommend relative to income assurance. It reads in part:

" Dr. Hudson will evaluate the effectiveness of the existing policy and the need for future programmes of this nature. He will also consider methods of harmonizing British Columbia's programmes with those existing under the federal Agricultural Stabilization Act."

Now I'm sure the minister is aware that Dr. Hudson has a background with the federal authorities, as has Mr. Phillips, I believe, who is working with him.

I am somewhat concerned as to whether or not this direction indicates that we are going to have something laid on that will be more in line with the federal programmes, rather than a continuation of income assurance or something more in line with that concept. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is drifting away from the idea of consultation and is perhaps heading in a direction that was indicated by his remarks last January in Hansard, to the effect that he was preparing something to present to agriculture. Now I recognize that the minister wants to do some studies and some review. But from my conversations with the agricultural community, they share my concern that perhaps there is not going to be this full degree of consultation.

I'm sure the minister is very familiar with a submission that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture presented to him and to the cabinet, in which they outline A proposal of long-term planning, as it were -to set out some guidelines, to establish some criteria, and to move in that long-term direction and to move jointly, in co-operation with the production sector and with government.

I would be very interested to hear the minister's comments on this matter of consultation with the agricultural industry, relative to the continuation of farm income assurance or a similar programme. I would urge the minister to consider the advantages

[ Page 3099 ]

that are inherent in the concept, as exemplified by farm income assurance. Call it what he may, that contributory sort of scheme, where it's in effect, is not a subsidy; rather, it is truly an insurance scheme. If it's a subsidy to anyone, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it's a subsidy to the consumer rather than to the producer.

I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to comment on that particular facet.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On the five-year contracts under farm income assurance, as you know, the tree fruits section of the farm income assurance is in its final year. Hudson and Phillips will be doing. the technical statistical review. My staff will also be giving input to that study. I'm sure the Federation of Agriculture will also be involved. So there is going to be consultation there, Madam Member. I don't think we're going to go through the piece and then just drop it on the table and say: "Here it is." I recognize the value of having their input as well. They have a very excellent staff and they can certainly assist a great deal in making sure that all aspects of income stabilization or a stabilization programme for agriculture, regardless of what it is called, are the best for the longer-term approach. I think that's important, too. You will recall that the federal government is looking at the same thing - a long-term approach planning to agriculture rather than patchwork plans. So I think the review will cover all aspects, get all the input it can and basically attempt to make sure there is long-term protection for the agriculture industry and that there is harmonization between the federal and provincial governments across Canada and, in the end, we'll have the proper approach. So I would hope that the agriculture industry is not too concerned. They will be involved in this research and planning which we're carrying out at the present time.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, the government has been in office now for some 18 months. I really think that the Minister of Agriculture owes something more than that casual reassurance to the agricultural industry that something will be done, that some thought is being given to it and that some study is being given to it. More than that, there's been considerable experience over the last three years with the programmes that were introduced by the New Democratic Party government.

I recall that when we were discussing the agricultural estimates - the estimates of the minister - on Friday, he did, in one exchange or perhaps when he was on his feet, suggest that he would welcome from the opposition some ideas as to what direction he could go. I think that at that time, it was with particular respect to quotas.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we did give a lot of advice in the three and a half years that we were in government. We accepted a lot of advice. We did negotiate, but not in the sense of listening to them and letting them - the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and many farm organizations - come to talk to us occasionally when they were moved to ask for an invitation to come to our meetings. We sat down and did seriously negotiate with them. We sometimes felt it was costing us a lot to do that. Nevertheless, we felt that this was taking democracy out to where it belonged. We were listening to the farmers and their representatives, hearing them put their case and arguing with them, and finally reaching some agreement as to what should be done about a number of things.

We acted. We brought in programmes that were very far-reaching and, in some instances, very innovative. That did help put agriculture on its feet in this province. That's not so much my evaluation of it. It's also the Federation of Agriculture's evaluation; it's also the Canadian federation's evaluation; it's the evaluation of federations of agriculture from other provinces that many far-reaching changes were made in the province of British Columbia and a great deal of progress was made. It's also the evaluation of the federal Minister of Agriculture, who has never ceased to stand up and speak forcibly for agriculture and for the people he represents as Minister of Agriculture.

We've been waiting for a year and a half to have someone on the government side of the House stand up and speak in the way that the NDP Minister of Agriculture spoke whenever he had the opportunity and to speak; in the way that the Liberal Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Mr. Whelan, is continually speaking on behalf of the farmers in Canada. We have not had that kind of forceful statement from either of the two Ministers of Agriculture to date in this Socred coalition government.

You ask for advice on quotas. I suggest that one of the things that made, for example, the egg quota escalate in price in the way that it did - and I don't know the figures, but I know that right now I understand on occasions they're trading as much as $2,000 a case - was when the limit that each person may accumulate was increased, because that provided a market out there, a market of people who already had substantial egg quota holdings. They were the people who were in a position to buy more and to take advantage from these marginal increases in quota. It gave them that opportunity to go out and buy and to push up the price.

I'd like some explanation from the minister as to just why he was persuaded it would have been in the interest of the poultry industry; in the interest of spreading the industry around, if you like; in the interest of creating more family farms or making it possible for more family farms to survive; in the interest of the consumers. Knowing that it was bound

[ Page 3100 ]

to have that kind of an effect on the price of quota, what moved the Minister of Agriculture to agree to that kind of an increase in the quota that an individual producer might accumulate? That's one question about quotas.

I don't think you can do anything about getting rid of quotas. Certainly during the time we were in office we did try to keep the price down. For a while there we had a policy of taking from farmers, whenever farms were being sold or traded, a proportion of their quota and saying in advance what the price was going to be. The last year that we were in office, we told the farmers that there would be a 10 per cent cut in quotas in the Fraser Valley in 1976 and the price we would pay for that was $240 a case, not $2,000, the latest figure I've heard. I talked to a banker who said that he would lend at any time to anyone at the rate of $1,200 a case for quota because he thought that it was that good on the market.

So I think the escalation in the price of quota is not a reflection of the money that the farmers are making in handling chickens, in producing eggs, or in any of the other agricultural activities, so much as the policy of the government that allows individual farmers to get their hands on more of that quota and to maximize their total income, not only relative to the increase in the quota that they get through that one transaction, but with their total quota.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have some response from the Minister of Agriculture about the agricultural land reserve. That was a very important part of the programme followed by the New Democratic Party government, and so far we have not had one member on the government side of the House stand up and sincerely and forcibly say that he or she believes in the preservation of agricultural land. There's always some qualification with it. Mr. Chairman, we have precious little of that kind of land in this province and that's the reason we had to bring in the legislation we did. That's the reason that kind of legislation was being planned even before we formed the government. But it took the NDP government to do it. It was very important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, certainly the Minister of Agriculture, representing as he does an Okanagan constituency, should recognize the importance of saving the very minimum amount of agricultural land they still have in that area. Certainly the Minister of Agriculture must realize that if the farms and fruit ranches in the Okanagan Valley are allowed to be subdivided any more, it's going to increase the proliferation of disease and of insects. It's going to make it that much harder to maintain any viable fruit production in the Okanagan Valley. We can't afford to lose very much more. We can't afford to have those farms cut up much more than they are. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed at the hearing that you attended in Parksville, as a member of the committee, to have the minister ask the chairman of the Land Commission: "Can you suggest ways in which we can make it easier and quicker to get land out of the agricultural land reserve?"

Mr. Chairman, I'm distressed that the minister feels that way about the agricultural land reserve. Perhaps I'm taking it out of context, and I hope I am. If I am, this is his opportunity to say so, but that's the quotation as near as I can recall it. His main question to the chairman of the Land Commission was: "How do we get land? What changes do we make to get land out more quickly and more easily?"

Now you might suggest that this is not his responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'd just like to interrupt your train of thought long enough to remind you that matters that have taken place in committee during hearings away from this building are not to be discussed in debate until the committee has made its report. I'm just cautioning the member.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My response to that would be that anything that is public information, and those hearings were public hearings. . . . When the minister raises that question in a public hearing, then I believe this is my opportunity to ask him how he feels and to give him an opportunity to, if you like, balance the public record of his attitude towards agricultural land reserve.

I think we need someone who is not only saying, "it's important to save agricultural land; it's a great idea; we have to save the farmers and all that, " but also, "here and there we can give, and if we can improve the way of getting land out, so much the better." I think we've reached the point where we can't let much more out if we're going to maintain a viable agricultural industry in the province.

Farmers really don't feel, at least to the best of my knowledge and according to the brief that was submitted to us last week and submitted also to cabinet. . . . They don't lead me to believe that the farmers are reassured about this minister's or this government's attitude towards farm income assurance. Mr. Chairman, that was a new programme. They say there's nothing new under the sun, but certainly it was a different concept as to how farming should be conducted in this province and how the economics of farming should be adjusted in this province.

I'd like to compare it for a moment to another programme, and that is unemployment insurance. I could certainly quote from many speeches that have been made by the Hon. Eugene Whelan, for example, who almost every week speaks on this subject somewhere in the country.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention a few things about the farm income assurance programme.

[ Page 3101 ]

Firstly, it was negotiated with the central bargaining committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I'd like to know what meetings have been held between this minister and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture by way of negotiating with the central committee of the federation on farm income assurance. What meetings has he attended, what were the discussions and what direction has been decided upon or discussed? What's going on at those meetings, if there have been any, between the Minister of Agriculture and the central bargaining committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture?

Mr. Chairman, the difference in the farm income assurance is that one aspect: it was negotiated. The farmers felt they were a part of it; they wanted to make it work; it was part of their programme.

Unemployment insurance, on the other hand, is something that is decreed by government. Is the minister saying that we're looking for a new approach? Is he saying: "We don't like farm income assurance because it is a subsidy programme"? At the annual meeting of the fruitgrowers' association in January, which I attended, he said something to the effect that the government does not favour subsidy programmes. He was talking about unemployment insurance at the time, I thought. That was the impression I got; that was the impression the farmers got. I don't look on it as a subsidy programme, and I hope the minister will tell us that he doesn't either.

Unemployment insurance is not something that is negotiated. Unemployment insurance is something that is handed down by a government, and the workers are told: "This is going to be it." I hope that is not the kind of programme that the minister is considering in place of the agricultural income assurance programme brought in by the NDP government.

Mr. Chairman, farm income assurance is a voluntary programme. Not only is it negotiated by the central bargaining committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to cover all farmers who do participate ultimately, it is also negotiated with the producers- of each commodity. Each commodity organization is negotiated with. Beyond that, once it has been negotiated with the members of a group, then the individual applies as to whether or not he or she wants to be included in that programme. Again, how different this is from unemployment insurance, where there is blanket coverage. For everyone who is employed, premiums are automatically deducted from their earnings and they automatically qualify according to a lot of regulations when they become unemployed. That's not so with farm income assurance; it truly is an assurance programme. It is negotiated over and over, and finally it is voluntary, with premiums paid voluntarily if the people want to participate.

Mr. Chairman, there is another very important difference. Whether or not you can make a living farming, even with farm income assurance, depends upon the individual ability, initiative and efficiency of each particular farmer, as well as a lot of luck. He could have disease that could wipe out his flock. Income assurance is not one bit of help to him, even after he has paid all of his premiums. He could have a frost that could wipe out his production that year from his orchard, or for more than a year. Income assurance would not help him one little whit. He is still gambling. He still depends on his own luck, his efficiency, his willingness to work and his knowledge of what he is doing. Even with all of that, if he is at the top level of efficiency - not the average producer - all he is guaranteed by that programme in the latest labour rate I saw is $6 per hour.

Mr. Chairman, that is not a very high return for a person who is gambling, in some instances, with an investment of as much as $500,000 for a family-sized operation, or a good deal more in some cases. There is nothing like that with unemployment insurance.

The individual might have no initiative at all, or might be very inefficient as an individual. It doesn't take luck at all. All he has to do is get employment for a certain limited time and he automatically qualifies for unemployment insurance. Yet we're prepared to put as much as $4 billion a year into unemployment insurance and say that this is something to which they are entitled. Yet the minister looks at farmers and says if they want to participate in a voluntary programme and pay premiums to protect themselves against the vagaries only of the marketplace, then that is a subsidy and we should look for some alternative method.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to stand up and tell us whether or not he believes in this principle of assurance, whether or not he sees this as a possibility of not only meeting the problems that exist in B.C., the problems that we have, but also other problems.

What about the problems of international trade, for example? We can set prices only at a certain level because we have no control of movement of goods between provinces, among provinces or between Canada and other countries. We don't have that kind of control. But we do have the ability through the income assurance programme of guaranteeing the producer that if he has to sell his product at a price, in the face of competition from other provinces or other countries, the income assurance programme stands ready to guarantee him a certain level of return - not to guarantee it, but to provide that there shall be a certain floor beneath which his income shall not fall, if he wants to participate, if he wants to buy into that programme, if he wants to pay premiums.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is an excellent programme. I think the farmers think it is an excellent programme. There are some who prefer not to belong, and that is fine. Let's leave it that way;

[ Page 3102 ]

that's democratic. Let's continue to negotiate with more producers to bring more of them into various programmes. Let's bring them all under the same umbrella. I'd like the minister to stand up and tell us whether or not he thinks this is not subsidy; that this is an insurance programme to which the farmers, the producers of food in this province, are entitled; that it is important to continue producing food in this province, not only for the people who are producing it but for the people who are consuming it and living here and seeing it being produced. The only way that I can think of that anyone has come up with of maintaining a sound agricultural industry in this province, to my knowledge, is through the farm income assurance programme.

I would like to have the minister tell us something about his ideas. He wanted help from across the House. For three and a half years we helped the agricultural industry. If he wants some more help here we'll try to give it to him, but we have to have him, some time or other, stand up on his feet and tell us what he is going to do to fight for the farmers in this province.

As for marketing boards, there has been a lot of criticism of them - a lot of criticism of what they do and what they don't do. Some of them are appointed; some of them are elected. Some of the ones that were elected when the NDP were in government have since been appointed. I'm not sure just how long the Egg Marketing Board is going to continue to be an appointed board as opposed to an elected board. Certainly the Federation of Agriculture, as one might expect, has come out very forcibly in favour of the principle of marketing boards.

There are a lot of people in the community who question the value of marketing boards, who are concerned that marketing boards may be taking advantage of them as consumers. Some of the members in this House have spoken along those lines. Some of the members on the government side of the House, when they were in the opposition, spoke along those lines, and may do in this debate. Mr. Chairman, a lot of people in the community are attacking marketing boards these days, and, in almost every instance when one of those persons stands up to speak, he or she is a member of some association, some organization or some union in this province that is bound together, in part at least, for economic reasons - every one of them.

Mr. Chairman, it's nothing short of hypocrisy for those people to say that the one group in society that should not be able to organize for economic reasons, or any other, shall be the farmers. Even after they have organized, they're at the mercy of what is happening between provinces and between countries. They can't set the price at any more than a level that will attract produce from other countries. They can't organize together.

It's been said there should be consumers in all these marketing boards. Mr. Chairman, every one of the producing members, every one of the farmers on every one of those boards is a consumer. They don't eat all the eggs themselves, but they eat other things as well. We are saying that these boards shall be the one type of organization in our community that we can't trust to look after its own interests or the interests of the total community, and that's the one place where the community as a whole is going to step in and say: "We want to appoint other people on there - people other than those who know something about it." We don't say that of the lawyers. We trust the lawyers to took after the rest of us. We don't say it to the doctors. That's great, we don't say it to the doctors. We don't need a consumer on there.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What about the accountants?

MR. STUPICH: We don't say it to the accountants. We don't say it to the chartered accountants, or to whatever breed of accountant you are. We say to them: "You go ahead and run your own affairs. We'll trust you to look after everybody in the community and to be fair to everybody in the community."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Shame for what?

MR. STUPICH: But when it comes to the poor farmer, we have said: "If you want to, we'll let you pay a premium into a plan that may give you - if you're lucky and if everything breaks right - $6 an hour labour return." We're saying to him: "We don't trust you to run the affairs of your organization and we're determined to put someone else on that committee, someone else on that marketing board to run it."

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have the Minister of Agriculture stand up and tell us that he supports the principle of marketing boards. There has been concern about the prices set by marketing boards, and everybody knows that they're controlled by outside production more than they are by production within the province of British Columbia. The minister knows that as well, and yet we've got an inquiry going into marketing boards. I welcome that inquiry because I hope it's going to tell the minister something about marketing boards that he should have known before. Marketing boards are a very necessary type of organization in the province. If we're going to start interfering with the whole community and say to the unions, "you shall not have the right to organize, " and say to the manufacturers' and the employers' group, "you shall

[ Page 3103 ]

not have the right to organize or, if you do organize, we're going to put farmers on your boards to make sure that you're looking after the interests of the farmers, " what are we here for, Mr. Chairman?

We're selected by the whole community to come here and represent the rights of the community, aren't we? If anything has to be done, we do it here, but certainly we don't start putting representatives on every type of organization in our community and say, "we're going to be in there watching to make sure you do everything the way we think it should be done, " or nothing would be done.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Big Brother government.

MR. STUPICH: Big Brother government, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to have the minister stand up and reassure the farmers of this province that he does believe in their right to have an opportunity to earn an income; that he does believe in their right to stand up and organize themselves - not to take advantage of their organization to the detriment of the rest of the community. They have not been able to do that, Mr. Chairman. They haven't been able to do it in the past and they won't be able to in the future but, Mr. Chairman, they should have the right to organize, just as everyone else has the right to organize, with the possible exception of MLAs. Everybody else has the right to have unions, to have organizations, to look after their rights.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Agriculture to stand up and say that he will fight for the rights of farmers to organize and to have marketing boards; that he'll fight for the rights of the farmers, through their organizations and through the federation, to come to government and negotiate with government, not simply once a year to come to cabinet and tell them what they think about things and go away and come back next year. Mr. Chairman, let's have some of this kind of talk from the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll try to answer some of the questions the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has brought up. He talks about the five-year contract on farm income assurance and feels very strongly about it and is concerned about the fact that we're reviewing it and we haven't really made any decision yet. Well, I'd suggest, hon. member, that one of the reasons you had a five-year contract was that you wanted to have the opportunity to be able to review it, to see the effects of it, to see how much it was going to cost, and to see whether or not it could possibly be improved. Otherwise, why set it at five years? You made your decision then. You could have had it ad infinitum rather than looking at a five-year contract. It's proper planning and it's good planning, and for that I guess I congratulate you, because you were Minister of Agriculture at that time.

So we're carrying out a review of farm income assurance, Mr. Chairman, at this particular time. Good planning - we'll need it for the 1978 crop, and by that time we will have something in place which I think everybody will be satisfied with.

The member has also mentioned: "What's this minister doing?" Well, the farm income assurance review may be one. The food study by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture is another, and it's a very comprehensive study, with hearings throughout the province. MLAs in this House are going to be traveling for several weeks, day and night, to try and touch every base they can and to get input from industry, consumers and all those people who are concerned about the cost of food or the poor return for agriculture. That's a good step forward by this government and by this ministry. At the same time, we are getting research done. Those are a few of the members who will be traveling, I guess, Mr. Chairman, and who support this.

We are also having discussions with the federal government on the new ARDA subagreement. I can tell you that we're doing our best to make sure that we get a good deal with the federal government on the new ARDA programme, so that we can promote the agricultural industry in this province; good programmes for irrigation; drainage for range reseeding; and range development for our beef industry, in order that we can have a viable beef industry in this province.

So those are steps forward and they are positive steps, Mr. Chairman. I'm quite proud of them. I've only been in this ministry for several months, but I can assure you that I've met with every commodity group which I could possibly meet with. I've gone out in the field and met with the producers. I've walked through their orchards and vineyards. I've visited the dairy producers as well. I've had meetings with the wholesalers and retailers, and if you don't think there's co-operation between this ministry and the retailers, wholesalers and commodity groups in this province, then just take a look at what happened when the effort was made last week on the hothouse tomatoes; the fact is that we moved hothouse tomatoes. The consumers even co-operated; everybody got to work and we got those hothouse tomatoes moved and everybody is satisfied. As a matter of fact, I guess that now we're probably a little short. We did too good a job, possibly, and possibly we'll get criticized for that, Mr. Chairman.

We talked about the effect of quotas and the fact that the price has gone sky-high. But that former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) knows, Mr.

[ Page 3104 ]

Chairman, that the cost of the quota is not in the cost of production. It doesn't affect the cost of production.

MR. STUPICH: I never said it was.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, then, why are you concerned about the high price when you say the cost of production is not even in there?

Again, the previous minister knows that it's a CEMA policy; it's a national supply-management concept in which the federal agency sets the quota for across the land and it is distributed to the provinces and throughout the provinces by the provincial marketing boards. The policy came down -- an increase in the size of the flocks for the egg producers. But isn't that good? It reflects increased growth in the province's supply and demand situation and, of course, increased efficiency in the producer.

Yes, we're concerned about the value of quota, Mr. Chairman, and I'm hopeful that, with the co-operation of the Federation of Agriculture and the producers, we'll be able to put a handle on this. It concerns me, and I would be foolish if I said it didn't.

The food study. Comments were made about what I said in the food study, and that'll probably get the first line of press coverage tonight. I don't appreciate those types of remarks, Mr. Chairman; they mislead rather than inform the public. What I really said, Mr. Chairman, at that food study - and I can't quote it verbatim; if I had Hansard here I probably could -was why does it take the delay in making a decision on an application before the Land Commission? Why six months, a year or two years to get that result? Whether the answer is yes, you can take it out of the land freeze, or whether it is no, let's have an answer! That member knows full well that that's what I meant by my comments at that hearing.

Mr. Member, I'm trying to go down these as you asked them, just to fill you in. Income assurance. You're incorrect when you say the rate is $6 an hour for a farmer; it is now $6.50. That's something that this minister brought into being with consultation and discussion with the central bargaining committee, if I'm not mistaken. The other rate, for the unskilled labour, is $4.30. That's an agreement, after discussion. I have met with the central bargaining committee on a number of occasions; with the beef bargaining committee, if you want to call it that, with the potato committee; and also with the board of the Federation of Agriculture on a number of times. This minister and this ministry have brought in two additional programmes on farm income assurance. One was potatoes, which is effective retroactive 1975 and 1976; the other is raspberries. Those two have come in.

I'd suggest that my ministerial staff meets constantly with the Federation of Agriculture, the central bargaining committee and the commodity groups to get their input - because it's valued - and to make decisions that will improve the lot of the agriculture industry in this province.

Then we go back into farm income assurance. I'm sure that former minister will be quite happy to get up and tell the Legislature here today that when that programme was devised and brought in, one-third of the premium was paid by the producer; one-third was going to be paid by the federal government; and one-third was to be paid by the provincial government. That's how the planning was set up and that's the way he thought it was going to be. But he got caught and that isn't the way it turned out.

The way it turned out is that he gets one-third from the producer, two-thirds from the provincial government and nothing from the federal government; that's one of the problems. We have been trying to work with the federal government to harmonize our programmes. That is why we're having this review done - to ensure there is harmonization between the federal and provincial plans.

A case in point is the cow-calf stabilization programme announced by the federal government in which this province got only 50 per cent coverage. Other provinces that didn't have income assurance plans or stabilization plans, or whatever you call them, got 100 per cent coverage. So we were discriminated against, and I spoke very strongly about that at the time.

Crop insurance. I can tell you that we brought in alfalfa crop insurance. I can tell you that we have continuous insurance coverage in our orchards and, I think, some other commodity groups whereby the coverage is continued and the farmer doesn't have to concern himself about re-establishing or resubmitting an application every spring when he's busy. It continues until he advises us that he doesn't want the coverage. That is a new move we brought in to speed up and make sure that the farmer isn't caught off base and hasn't got the coverage. We're prepared at any time to discuss crop insurance for new crops with the producers.

The Egg Marketing Board. I'm just going here by the last comments that the member made. We recognize, as I'm sure he does as well as I, that there are supply management boards like the egg board and the turkey board that are national in scope. The national agency sets the quotas, distributes them to the provinces, dependent on population, et cetera, and they distribute them throughout their producers. Then there's the provincial marketing board that has quota, like the Broiler Marketing Board, which sets the quota and distributes it among the producers.

Then we have the other one, which is the marketing board, as I guess what you'd probably call the central selling agency like B.C. Tree Fruits. It doesn't set quotas but it does act

[ Page 3105 ]

as a central selling agency, and has acted very well over the years.

So those are all concepts. I would say to the member that I am in agreement with him; I can find no fault with the marketing-board concept. I have no disagreement with it.

The marketing-board concept gives the producer in this province the ability to be able to put his product through that central selling agency. We've got 18,000 or 19,000 small family farms in this province. It's pretty difficult for a man who operates a family farm to, first of all, get his product to market; secondly, to advertise it; and, thirdly, to transport it there and make arrangements, whether it's export market or whether it's into communities 300 or 400 miles down the road or whether it's in the next province. He would have very serious difficulties. His crop may not come on stream as quickly as the man next door or the man farther up the valley or down the valley, depending on how far south it is. He'd have more difficulty in getting his crop to market at the prime time. So the producers got together and they developed a central selling agency concept and I think it's working well.

I think my biggest problem, Mr. Chairman, is probably trying to educate the consumer on the basis that the farmer isn't getting all those dollars that the consumer is paying at the retail store. I would say to the member that if he read Hansard for Friday on the discussions that I believe the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and I had, he would see that we were basically in agreement with what he is saying.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the farmers wanted reassurance, they sure got it this afternoon. "Income assurance - we'll put something in its place."

MR. BARRETT: Debts!

MR. STUPICH: "We're going to study it. We'll think about it and we'll come up with something. We don't know what it is; we have no idea, really, whether we're going to continue the concept, whether there will be any assurance programme, whether we're really determined to keep agriculture as. a viable industry in the province. We'll do something."

If I were a farmer, I wouldn't take very much reassurance from that comment on the part of the minister.

Why a five-year contract? Well, of course, Mr. Chairman, you were in the House at the time and he wasn't. You have the advantage of having heard the discussions in this House. At that time we did raise the question of why a five-year contract. I pointed out then to the members in the House and to the farmers outside of the House that as the Minister of Agriculture under an NDP government, I had been advised that we could go as far as five years in committing the community to a programme with the farmers. Since we were a government subject to re-election, we had better not try to enter into anything longer than five-year agreements for that kind of a programme.

Sure, we wanted five years to see how that programme was going to work. But I did reassure the members in the House and I reassured the farmers outside of this House - farmers all over the province. When I spoke in other provinces I told the farmers there that it was the policy of the New Democratic Party government to maintain and expand upon a programme of farm income assurance. It was not a five-year programme as far as we were concerned; it was to be a programme as long as we had any influence over the political affairs in the province in British Columbia. It was intended to be a very long-term programme. It was a five-year contract, initially - five years during which the farmers might tell us what they thought of it as well. They did, you might say, on December 11,1975. Perhaps some of them have regrets about that now, especially when they hear the minister say: "We'll do something." It doesn't occur to me that the minister thinks it's very urgent when he talks about doing "something."

I have one more word on marketing boards. We set up the British Columbia Marketing Board in November, 1974. It was a board that was going to hear appeals that anybody could bring to it, and it heard a lot of appeals. Mr. Chairman, can you recall to me one instance where any consumers' group or anybody else in the community appealed to that provincial Marketing Board against a price set by any commodity marketing board in the province? The opportunity was there, but apparently they felt that the prices being set by the marketing boards were fair. There was not one single appeal in two and a half years against the price set by a marketing board to the best of my knowledge, and I don't know if you can recall any. Yet there's so much concern out there. I feel as though the minister shares some of that concern that marketing boards have too much power to set prices. I don't know of a single case when anybody appealed to the provincial Marketing Board against a board order setting prices.

I know the price of quota is not in the cost of production, Mr. Chairman, as the minister said - and I never said it was. I do think it's bad when the price of quota starts running away in the way it has. I do know that egg quota in particular was being traded in 1975 at $400 and now at $2,000. That has happened in a fairly short period. I don't know what the next two and a half years is going to bring - if this

[ Page 3106 ]

government lasts that long - but that does bother me.

It was the minister who said last Friday, if I recall correctly, that he would welcome advice from the other side of the House as to what might be done. He has suggested that increased quotas have been given to the large operators because there was a general increase in the total production quota for the province. Now, Mr. Chairman, if he really means that B.C. has a larger quota allocation than it had previously, I'd like him to say. .. .

HON. MR. HEWITT: Got 5 per cent back out of the 10.

MR. STUPICH: Got 5 per cent back? Yes, they took it away and gave a little bit back. Now that's not an increase, Mr. Chairman. In no way does that justify, to me, allowing the 200-case operators to go up to 300 or 250 - I'm not sure of the figure. I'd welcome information from the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're in birds now.

MR. STUPICH: It's in birds now. Sure it's in birds. But you can transfer it, or at least your deputy can. I couldn't expect you to any more than I would under the same circumstances - but your deputy can.

I assure you that one of the things that boosted the price of quota was saying to the large, well-established, wealthy operators: "You can go out and buy quota. We'll let you buy more of it." The price goes up. There's a very limited supply and a very large demand when you allow that to happen. The minister hasn't dealt with that question. He hasn't said why, if indeed there was an increase in quota. . . . He admits now, in the discussion back and forth that Hansard won't record, that there was an increase only because there was first a decrease and then a partial re-installing of the decrease. There was a net decrease, in effect. But there was at one time an increase.

Why wasn't that given to the producers or made available to the producers in the outlying parts of the province? There was a deliberate policy of the Department of Agriculture under the NDP minister to increase egg production on Vancouver Island and in the areas of the province other than the lower Fraser Valley. Now that policy has apparently been changed because the only places where we have 200-case quotas to any extent, are in the Fraser Valley. It would appear as though, under this Socred coalition government, the policy of the government is to centralize egg production more and more in the lower Fraser Valley. I'd like some explanation from the minister if there is any other understanding of that situation.

Mr. Chairman, I quoted his remarks and I have to come back to this Parksville hearing. If I had my Hansard with me and he had his here we could argue about it, I suppose, but I still say that the question he asked was: "How do we change things to make it easier and quicker?" Now perhaps what he was saying was what he wanted. Maybe that's what he wanted to have happen. "How can we speed up the process?" But that's not what he said at Parksville; it may be what he meant. Today I gave him an opportunity to set the record clear - that all he was talking about was speeding up the process. That's fine, if that's what he's talking about. But the way he phrased the question at Parksville was: "How do we make it quicker and easier to get land out of the reserve?" -not to make changes in the reserves, not to put land in if you want to put it in, and some do. "How do we get land out easier and quicker?" - that was the question asked.

Income assurance. He said I was incorrect in saying that the labour income figure was $6. When I said that, I said the latest figure negotiated under my term as minister was $6. I had hoped there would be a change since. I now know there is a change to $6.50. That's great - 50 cents in two years. But it's progress.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Well, the millionaires got to leave with their taxes. That's progress.

MR. STUPICH: And we're making progress in farm income assurance, too. Two new products brought in in only two and a half years - that's pretty good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two last year, too.

MR. STUPICH: Four?

MR. BARRETT: Well, there's more fertilizer than ever before.

MR. STUPICH: I do know that in both cases the calculations and the negotiations started during the time that I was Minister of Agriculture. It only took some two years to bring those to fruition, and that's pretty quick for a Socred coalition government. 1: wonder what other products are being discussed, if any, at the present time.

One-third of the premium is paid by the producers, one-third by the province, and one-third by the federal government. Sure, we knew that was the programme. Again, Mr. Chairman, he wasn't in the House. You were in the House and you knew that when we were doing that we didn't really expect the federal government to come running along with their one-third premium. Sure, we put it in there, hoping that they would eventually.

[ Page 3107 ]

Mr. Chairman, one thing that delayed the federal government participation in farm income assurance programmes in this whole country was the re-election of this government, without its dedication to farm income assurance.

MR. BARRETT: He was still a Liberal then.

MR. STUPICH: There was not the pressure on the federal government to continue with these programmes, once they didn't have a government -one government in the whole country - that was firmly dedicated and resolved that there would be a programme of farm income assurance to give the farmers in this country a chance. The pressure was off them when the NDP government was defeated in 1975. So there hasn't been the progress.

We knew we were risking something. I told him in the House at the time, Mr. Chairman: "Sure we know we're putting up two-thirds of the premium. Sure we know we're putting pressure on Ottawa to come along with some kind of a farm income assurance programme that will cover all commodities, that would eventually cover all farmers in the country." But until such time as there were moves in B.C., I said to Mr. Chairman during the debates in the House, until such time as we had at least one of the major central provinces - either Ontario or Quebec -solidly committed to a programme of income assurance, until such time as we had at least one or two of the prairie provinces and the province of British Columbia.... In short, Mr. Chairman, we had to have at least three of the largest provinces in the country with a programme of farm income assurance before we could ever hope to have the federal government coming along with it.

B.C. was certainly carrying the load on this. B'C. was the initiator and it's up to the initiator to carry the load.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: We knew that we were going to be paying two-thirds for some time to come but that time would have been shorter, Mr. Chairman, had there been a government in office in the province of British Columbia that was dedicated to improving and proceeding with farm income assurance programmes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I was asking for reassurance about several items when I stood up to speak earlier. I asked the minister to reassure the farmers that he really believes in marketing boards. I suggest they take no reassurance from his sort of casual remark about farm income assurance: "We'll do something." They can take very little reassurance from the minister's comment about marketing boards when he said, and this time I took it down as he was saying it: "I have no disagreement with the concept." It seems to me that to say that is something far short of reassurance to the farmers who are wondering whether or not their organization is going to be wiped out. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the minister can do better than that!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind the hon. members that May at page 459 specifically says: "It is out of order to refer in debate to evidence taken before a select committee until the report of the committee has been laid before the House." This is just a reminder to all members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have too much to ask the minister. I have just a brief couple of questions in response to his very thoughtful exchange with the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) . I appreciate that the exchange takes place without any heat from the minister, who is sincerely dedicated to growing all kinds of crops.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Except hair!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, I was impressed by your comments about the committee. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I will not make any reference about the proceedings of the committee itself because, as you're rightly pointed out as a student of the rules, it would be improper for anyone to do that. So I wouldn't do that, because I share your studious commitment to the rules.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, the minister said to this House that the hearings were all over the province and they were getting co-operation and they wanted everybody from all walks of life to that committee. I think that's good. How did the minister feel when the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) were not allowed to go on that committee? How does the minister feel? I would like an answer to that before I go any further.

Does the minister think that the people of this province are being served well when two important political leaders were denied the right to sit on that committee, which is looking for non-partisan solutions to serious problems? Does the minister think that was a wise decision? Would you like a little recess to think about it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, carry on. I'll catch you later on.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, I can move a motion and give you some time to think about it. You're the fellow that's standing up here, and I'm persuaded that

[ Page 3108 ]

you're sincere.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Talk to the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to cast any aspersions or any questions on the minister's sincerity. He appeals to this House and says that everybody has to play a role in fighting the farmer's battle. I agree with him. He said the committee is co-operating and hears from all these groups. I agree with him. We saw a petty little political game go on in this House when his boss excluded the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the Conservative Party from their right to participate in the committee and to serve the people that they got elected to serve. Cheap, petty politics foisted on that minister, and what does he say? Nothing! Turn down the lights! It's getting a little redder over there! A little more blush, a little more embarrassment! Not a thing has grown over there.

HON. MR., HEWITT: Vicious attack!

MR. BARRETT: You're getting pushed around by the Premier. I have no quarrel to pick with the dedication and commitment of any MLA elected in this House, even if they are misguided and stand on platforms and policies that I don't agree with, or even if they stand on policies and platforms that don't exist, such as the government. But when the leader of the Liberal Party is elected to represent that party and the leader of the Conservative Party is elected to represent that party and they are denied the right to sit on a parliamentary committee, then I say this minister is forced to peddle humbug in this House about co-operation on that committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ah, you know that's not true.

MR. BARRETT: Humbug - there is no insurance against that crop. There has been an abundance of it ever since December, 1975.

It's humbug to go around saying that this committee is to hear from everyone, to participate and to share in the development of problems. The political committee was made political by this government when they excluded the hon. leader of the Liberal Party and the hon. leader of the Conservative Party. Aren't you embarrassed as a former Liberal, through you, Mr. Chairman? That whole group over there is a bunch of former Liberals. They were embarrassed to have another Liberal with them. He might pull out the old membership list and show where they used to belong to the Liberal Party before they joined that conglomeration of nothings.

Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat embarrassing for the minister. Does the minister want a little adjournment to go into the hallway and call the Premier, if he's down there snoozing in his office, and say: "Look, Bill, I think we goofed here. Maybe we should put these two guys on the committee"?

Want to do that? I won't tell anybody. Mr. Chairman, I won't tell anybody. If he wants a little recess to overcome this embarrassment, raise your hand - you can leave the room.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I beg your pardon?

MR. BARRETT: Well, you know how it is -through you, Mr. Chairman. That's exactly the way they operate in cabinet. They raise their hand for permission to leave the room, or who can we put on committee?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Is that what they used to do when you were Premier? Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, every member of this House had a right to participate fully in every committee of this House when we were government. There was no denial of freedom. We even let Socreds come on. We'd even hire Socreds if we could find one who was capable of -taking a job.

Two members of this House, leading two major political parties in this country, were denied the right to sit on a parliamentary committee! I don't see any screaming editorials about that. I want to tell you, if the NDP had done that there would have been editorials all over, saying: "Socialists Deny Free Choice of MLA to be on Committee." There would have been Socreds running up and down this province: "The Socialists won't let us on! The sky is falling! The sky is failing!"

It isn't the socialists who've been cut off; we're on the committee. But who's up fighting for freedom? Who's up expressing the right of every MLA to be on the committee? It's the socialists fighting for the Liberals and Conservatives. And who cut off their freedom? That minister and that government. I know it will be headlines right across this nation, especially in The Vancouver Fun. The rights of two MLAs have been denied by this government to participate in this committee. You've made that committee a mockery. It's nothing more than a political front for Social Credit when you say that the people, even though they've elected a Liberal and Conservative, don't have the right to have that Liberal and Conservative on the committee. I say it's pretty shameful, petty, disgusting, cheap, narrow-minded Social Credit politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's old news, Dave.

MR. BARRETT: That's what it is! Cheap, petty, narrow-minded, backward Social Credit politics. Two

[ Page 3109 ]

citizens of this province who represent two major political parties, who stood openly and honestly in election, were elected on the basis of their philosophy to serve the people of this province and this House, and they have been denied the right to sit on that committee. Mr. Minister, you have been exposed, more than just your chapeauless....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Watch, now!

MR. BARRETT: I'm bilingual. I said chapeauless.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I got you. I understood.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, stand up and tell us that you personally were disappointed that the Premier refused to let those two members on. You stand up and tell this House that it was an embarrassment for you. I want the minister to say that if he had his way, he would have had every member of this House who wanted to be on that committee, regardless of party, on that committee.

Let me go home tonight feeling that democracy is safe in this province under Social Credit. Anything less, Mr. Minister, will lead me to believe that democracy has been emasculated by humbug. You wouldn't want me to go out spreading the word that Social Credit is humbug, through you, Mr. Chairman. I do it on my own, not through the Chairman.

Stand up and tell me - through you, Mr. Chairman - that you were sorry that they aren't on that committee and that you will make an effort to see that they get on the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, after the vicious attack on my chapeauless head here....

MR. BARRETT: He's not here today, Chabot.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're covering old ground in regard to the two members who are not on the committee. However, when there was a debate in this House about the Liberal and the Conservative members not sitting on the committee I did read out a letter. I am reluctant to bring it up when the member's not in the House, but it's in Hansard, I read a letter out that went to the selection committee for the standing committees in which the hon. Conservative member asked to be taken off the committee. He was on and he asked to be taken off. That's a matter of record. So I don't think there's any great problem there.

MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. LEA: A technicality!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now there's one other thing maybe I should mention for the hon. members on the other side of the House. I hope, hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) , that this committee will work as well as the committee for the selection of the auditor-general. We go there with a task in the same way as a municipal alderman and in the same way as a regional district director goes to a meeting with a task. That task is to carry out his job to the best of his ability. I would suggest to you that the opposition members and the government members who sit on that committee will have as their one aim to carry out the tasks that they were given, which is to find out as much as they can with regard to the problems in agriculture, the problems with the cost of food, and the problems in the distribution system. I would sincerely hope that we don't get into a petty political debate at that committee level.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to point out that the minister is a very gracious person in reading other people's letters. At least that minister had, unlike other members of that government, a public letter. Your government reads letters they find somewhere else, but we won't deal with that.

You talk, Mr. Minister, about making the committee non-political. The first time in my 17 years in this House that a committee has become political is over this issue. I have served on committees of this House for 17 years. I've been a member of this House for 17 years, and never once in the history of my experience in this House when a committee sat did any member have his request to represent his party on any standing committee denied by any previous government.

Now I know what happens at the committee meetings, Mr. Chairman. Those fellows - there are only two of them, one each representing those two parties - can't be on every committee. They said, like other minority parties do, Mr. Chairman, when they arrive 'at that committee meeting: "If a standing committee is called and my name is not on it, I will take- my name off the committee at the standing committee selections as long as it's understood that if a committee's called I can go on it." I take the word of those two hon. members, Mr. Chairman, that that's exactly what they said to the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , as has been the case with every Provincial Secretary chairing that standing committee selection committee.

Those two MLAs have stood in this House as hon. gentlemen, as hon. members of this House, and said they both wished to go on any committee that was going to be struck into action by the House. To play - I can't help but use the word - chippy little politics to keep them off, you turned the committee into a political vehicle. That's the first time in my

[ Page 3110 ]

experience in 17 years when there was a fight in this House about who should or who shouldn't go on. I saw a chippy little performance by the Provincial Secretary and an even chippier performance by the Premier saying that those two members couldn't go on.

There are farmers and people out in this province who are Liberals. They may be misguided, but they're Liberals. There are farmers and people out there in this province who are Conservatives. They may be misguided, but they're Conservatives. There are farmers out there who are Socreds, and they are misguided. Nonetheless, they're out there. Now they have not only a right to express their attitude toward the farming community, the pricing and the structures of food, but also a right- to be heard at that committee level. They have a right to participate in the political process of this country.

It does not help your stature, Mr. Minister, to stand up and refer to a technical letter. Show your bigness. Show your openness. Show your sense of security. Surely to goodness you're not worried about being dumped from that portfolio. You've got it made. It's the other guys down there who are trying to hassle you out of your job, not me. They meet down there, Mr. Chairman, over coffee and wonder why old Cyril isn't back in his job - he knows more about farmers than the present minister does - or even the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , who is an outstanding farmer. He should have an opportunity to participate. And there are others out there I can promote. There's one fellow who has been turning soil for years and never once raised a crop, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) .

HON. MR. HEWITT: He plants them.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, right. He plants them. Put down that tape measure. I told you to cut that out. (Laughter.)

The point is that you have been trapped, Mr. Minister, by the petty politics of the Provincial Secretary and the Premier. I suggest to you that it would go a long way to improving your image to stand up in this House, stop playing that pretty little game about a letter, and say you regret, on behalf of all those farmers out there who might be Liberals and Conservatives, that two hon. members of this House who asked to sit on the committee were refused the right to sit on the committee and the committee was turned into a political committee because of that. It can't be any other way, Mr. Chairman. You can't have it both ways. Straighten it out. Clean up the mess. Stand up and say that you think those two members should be on the committee, as I do. Even though they may be misguided souls politically - and I forgive them for that - they got elected nonetheless, and they have a right to be on that committee. They have every single right to be on that committee, just as you have a right to be on that side sitting in that chair and I have a right to be in this chair. The people decide that and the people asked those members to work for them.

Mr. Minister, please stand up and say you think it's a mistake and they should be on the committee-and you'll do your best to see that they get there.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, just following the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I agree with the minister that technically, politically, the Conservative leader and the Liberal leader can be kept off the committee. There's no doubt about that, and they've proven that. Acknowledging the fact that technically they can be kept off the committee, and politically they have been kept off the committee, the one thing - because we've been fighting about that - the government has never said in the House is why. Why did they feel it necessary to take advantage of the technicality to keep those two hon. members off the committee? They have yet to say. By keeping this particular area of debate open, the government has managed to slip through without telling us why they felt it necessary to take advantage of the technicalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe they've got b.o.

MR. LEA: No. What is it? Maybe, Mr. Chairman, this could all be cleaned up very nicely by the minister. If the minister has a good reason, or the government has a good reason to keep them off the committee, I think we'd all be happy to hear it and if it's a good reason, we'd accept it. So would the minister now, Mr. Chairman, tell me why the government felt it necessary to take advantage of the technicalities to keep the members off the committee? If there's a reason, we'll accept it.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, the Chairman has to recognize the first member standing, and he was definitely the first member standing.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I recognized him. Will the member for Esquimalt kindly proceed?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: I bet you change the subject. A buck says you change the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[ Page 3111 ]

DIR. KAHL: To change the subject for a moment, this could be discussed, perhaps, under vote 96. But I'll deal with it now because I've spoken with the minister about it before. I would like to know -through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister - the status of the negotiations that his ministry is currently having with the Capital Regional District regarding the Domestic Animal Protection Act.

As you're no doubt aware, I have mentioned this before in the House. It might not be of concern to some of the members of the opposition, but it is certainly of concern to a number of my constituents who have small farms in the more rural area of my riding. If the minister could bring us up to date on that I'd be very pleased.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, the member for Esquimalt has discussed the Domestic Animal Protection Act and the concerns of his constituents regarding dogs attacking domestic animals.

We have had discussions with the Capital Regional District. Late last year I advised all the regional districts that we were prepared to have dog control administered by regional districts and we were prepared to give them some assistance in setting it up.

I would say that my ministry has no budget for it; the only funds we use are the income from licensing. Of course we pay, I believe, the approximate market value of slaughtered animals if an animal is killed by dogs.

We suggested to the Capital Regional District the last time we met that we would be prepared to carry on with the one protection officer we have at the present time - which is in your riding - under their administration. We would pay for it in their budget and carry on. They would have the licensing responsibility, the fines and the dog control officer under their jurisdiction.

The concern is that basically we have dog control in the Central Okanagan regional district and we also have dog control in a lot of municipalities across the province. We feel that dog control is far better administered by regional districts as opposed to the province. They have people in the right place at the right time, responsible to the local government. That is our concern. We've expressed that to the regional districts and I'm hopeful that we'll have a number of them take up our offer and go into the dog control business, as opposed to us being involved in it,

MR. LEA: Oh, you forgot mine?

MR. KAHL: I can appreciate the answer very much, Mr. Minister, and the discussions which we might have had on this before. But my concern goes just a little bit further than that.

My concern deals with the administration of the Domestic Animal Protection Act and who might be looking after that while these negotiations are going on. That's of concern to a number of my constituents. That service is not being provided as well as it possibly could be. I agree with you; I think it's a good move to negotiate with the regional districts to have them take that under their jurisdiction. I think that you're also correct in supplying some funds to them for the initial stages of this. But at the same time, I feel it's not fair to those constituents of mine - who, as I mentioned, might be small farmers - who are left without that service. If the ministry has to provide the service until the regional districts are willing to take it over, that's what they should be doing. If they have to supply a larger grant to the regional districts to take it over initially, then that's another alternative.

You see, it's not quite as easy to administer that in my constituency because of the large population involved in the western community. That population is without any real form of local government other than regional districts. I think that if you take a close look at the regional areas - those that have regional boards for local government - in the province of British Columbia, you'll probably find that the Colwood-Langford-Metchosin area in my constituency is by far the most heavily populated of any. That's a very significant factor to consider, I believe, whenever your ministry should take a look at the transfer of this service to the regional boards.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the member's concern. At one time, I think, we did have two or three part-time employees on the dog control. We have one full-time staff member on it now. The Domestic Animal Protection Act deals with animals. Basically it does something to reimburse those people who have had livestock destroyed, slaughtered or seriously injured by roving dogs.

The problems that we are talking about today, as far as I can see when I discuss it with the Capital Regional District and other people are people problems. You just said it: the urbanization in your area that used to have a few farms scattered around and the odd dog now has hundreds of people around with hundreds of dogs. It ends up that the people who own those dogs don't keep them under control.

Just as recently as last week we had three dogs shot, two big ones and one little one called Tippy, I think. It was in the Victoria Times or the Daily Colonist. The farmer went out and shot the three animals because they were harassing the sheep in the corner of the pen. The father of the young girl whose dog was shot felt very bad about the fact that the farmer did this. The farmer said: "They were on my land and I have a licence. I shot to protect my animals who were being harassed. Once the dogs gets the fun of the chase in its head it will continue to do it." So he shot and killed the dogs. It is unfortunate,

[ Page 3112 ]

but the question really is: why was the dog out roaming around loose when it was some child's pet? They should be under control in the home yard.

In the urban areas dog control is administered by municipalities and, in some areas, regional districts. I'm suggesting that dog control should properly be administered at the regional district level. Yes, we would give them assistance to start out. I'm hoping that we will get some response. I think there would be much better control over dogs roaming around and much better control over the people who own those dogs. The regional district would be able to tell the owner, "you have to have a licence for that dog because we want to be able to identify it, " rather than have the province of British Columbia come up after the fact and have to reimburse people or have staff that really can't control the whole province.

I feel very strongly about this and I suggest that although the municipalities pretty well do it now, regional districts are going to have to look seriously at this.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Chairman....

MR. LEA: We'll get back to it sooner or later.

MR. KAHL: Well, it's going to be later, I can tell you, Mr. Member, because I'm on my feet.

I agree with a number of things you've said, Mr. Minister, but the question still is: who looks after the Act and who looks after these problems during this transfer period? I agree with you that the regional districts should look after it. I agree with you that you should give them a grant to start the service. But I want to tell you that it has been longer than one year since I raised this issue with the previous Minister of Agriculture and some of your senior staff members. I have spent a lot of time talking with a lot of people in my constituency in attempting to solve this problem.

It is a simple matter of continuing to administer this and doing a good job of it with those people who are in the field while this transfer is going on. It's only this period that I'm concerned about, because I'm sure that when the regional districts get hold of it and license the dogs properly and have some staff to look after this, they'll do a good job of it. I'm not concerned about it when the regional district gets it. I'm not concerned about how it was administered and carried out before. But I am concerned about this transition period, and so are a large number of my constituents. That is the question I would like you to address yourself to, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the member that we have one full-time staff member for dog control in the constituency of Esquimalt. It is the only place in the province that has a provincial dog control officer.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back for a moment or two to the fact that the Liberal and Conservative leaders were not put on the agricultural committee. I've said that we completely understand that the government was within its technical right to keep them off. What I'm asking is: what were the government's reasons for taking advantage of the technicalities?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, this has been well canvassed before in debate at the time the appointments were made. I don't have the time in front of me, but it seems to me that the selection committee was appointed in January, the notices went out to the members - all MLAs - asking what committees they would like to serve on, and the response came back from all members, saying: "These are the committees on which I would like to serve." I don't know about the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, but the member for Oak Bay included agriculture as a committee on which he'd like to serve. At a later date he withdrew from that committee. I guess the member for Vancouver-Capilano didn't wish to serve on it, so that was it.

I've been talking about a review of food costs and marketing boards. The Federation of Agriculture was talking about the study on food costs from the farm gate to the dinner plate. These comments were made as early as November, 1976, at the Federation of Agriculture meeting in Richmond. There was ample opportunity for everybody to be fully informed.

Now the selection committee was appointed, people put in their requests, the decision was made and that was the end of it. When the food study came on, these two members who are not on said they should be on. I think I'm repeating exactly what the Premier said, but if we're going to change around and shift everybody who wishes to go where they wish to go, we'd be in utter chaos in this assembly.

MR. LEA: The minister, I think, misunderstands me. I concede everything the minister has said in giving the background. The question I'm asking is: why did government feel it necessary to take advantage of the technicalities to keep those two members off? Why did government feel it was necessary that they not be put on, regardless of the technicalities? What are the reasons? I mean, why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just before the House continues, there are two points that the Chair would like to make. One is that sitting in this position in the House, it's impossible to have total peripheral vision. I often miss the second member for Vancouver Burrard (Mr. Levi) when he's standing, and others.

[ Page 3113 ]

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): He just came into the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he was standing the last time. Therefore it is difficult when there is some quarrel as to who was first standing on their feet. The Chair just has to call them as the Chair sees them.

Secondly, the points that are being canvassed are not really under the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. The subject has been reasonably well canvassed. I would suggest that the subject would be better brought up under the terms of reference of the committee.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I want to put a hypothetical situation to the committee. Assume for the moment that there was a total vote in this province of 1.2 million people who voted in the last election. Assume for the moment that 635,000 of those voted for one party and almost 650,000 voted for three other parties. Those three parties together hold the majority of the votes in the province of British Columbia.

Now assume that subsequent to that election the government of the day was formed of the party holding the most votes, even though three parties hold more. The one party holding the most votes was the one holding 635,000. They formed a government and they embarked upon one of the most major inquiries in the history of the province. When we're looking at this situation, we say to ourselves: "Well, who's being represented on this inquiry committee?"

Assume that the committee has appointed seven MLAs from the governing party - that is, the party that got 635,000 votes. The combined opposition vote, which was 650,000 - the majority of the people of British Columbia - only got three places on that committee. Beyond that, two legitimate national parties which are also represented in this Legislature were excluded from the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must draw your attention to the fact that we are on vote 93, which is the Ministry of Agriculture, minister's office. The line of debate which you are currently engaging in does not come under the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask you to adjust the debate accordingly.

MR. LAUK: I'm using the example - and I'll draw it into the administrative responsibilities of the minister in a moment, Mr. Chairman - just to make clear to the committee what has been done here and what role the minister has played in the appointment of this committee, which I'll get to in a moment.

Of the two splinter parties.... We call them splinter parties, but let me remind the committee that the Liberal and Conservative parties got 144,000 votes in this province; 144,000 British Columbians voted for the two members who were excluded from the committee.

All right, now what's my point? My point is simply this: a number of factors relate to the minister in his responsibility here. One is that the selection committee is chaired by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . When it is traditional that a committee concerning the portfolio of a minister is being chosen, that minister is consulted. So one of two things have come into play here. If the minister was not consulted, it's an abdication of his responsibility to his ministry and a serious breach of his administrative duty. If he was consulted and he acquiesced or agreed or even proposed that the Liberal and Conservative be excluded from the committee, then he should resign.

The majority of the people did not vote for the government party. This is one of the most serious inquiries into the agriculture industry that we have ever had in this province. Two major parties have been excluded and the opposition is outnumbered seven to three, even though opposition parties combined hold the majority of votes of British Columbians.

I find that a disgraceful act on the part of the minister. The minister should examine his conscience. If he proposed or acquiesced in the exclusion of those two persons from the committee, it's a serious breach of his responsibility to the people. They want to dominate and whitewash that committee, Mr. Chairman. That's what they want to do. They want to have a minimum number of opposition spokesmen on that committee because embarrassing questions about government, and in particular that ministry, will be raised.

Let me get to the other point. We are arguing a question of principle here and it relates directly to the Minister of Agriculture's responsibility. If he acquiesced in the exclusion of these two members, then he is altogether too weak, I say with respect, in personality to be in that portfolio. He should not be in that portfolio and I think he should be replaced. But because he is weak I don't expect him to resign -that's an act of courage.

On the other hand, I prefer to believe that this minister directed, as a political act, the exclusion of the Liberal and Conservative leaders, and that is a serious breach of the democratic system in this province. The minister has explained in his response to the committee today that he had talked prior to the appointment of the agriculture committee of a thorough-going investigation into the food industry.

MRS. WALLACE: So did everybody else.

MR. LAUK: Well, yes, The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat states: "So did everybody talk

[ Page 3114 ]

about it." I might say that everybody talked about an investigation into land development and municipal rules and regulations. We waited patiently for a committee to be appointed from the House to investigate that. Instead, this government appointed a one-sided government committee, headed by the then MLA from Victoria, the Hon. Sam Bawlf, who was then appointed to the cabinet. He went around the countryside and gave a report to the government. The opposition, which was supported by the majority of the people of British Columbia, had no part to play in that committee.

So is it any wonder that the Liberal and Conservative... ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Could we please get back to vote 93? You are getting ...

MR. LAUK: ... pretty far afield.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. LAUK: I agree. I'm drawing that analogy to say: is it any wonder that Liberal and Conservative... ? When it comes to the agriculture committee, we couldn't assume one way or the other that the minister was going to act on what he said; or if he did act on what he said, he would act in the way that the Minister of Municipal Affairs acted and appoint a secret, back-room committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LAUK: So what was the choice? They had to wait. They also relied on the bona fide - that is the good faith - of the Provincial Secretary and this government in the appointment to that committee, whether or not it would be active or not. That major reliance, Mr. Chairman - and this is where it comes -lies on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture. He's the one who says whether we're going to proceed with an active agriculture committee or not. He's the one who advises the cabinet as a whole that they should proceed in that direction. He has the control and he also says who goes on that committee. It's his responsibility. If he doesn't have that power, then he's a weak minister and should resign anyway.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, shocking! Vicious attack!

MR. LAUK: Well, the minister is treating this in a very flippant style.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, it's serious.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): You don't deserve any better!

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Machinations says that we don't deserve any better. This is the typical arrogance that we get from that rather well-endowed minister from the Kamloops area.

HON. MR. MAIR: That was the nicest thing you have ever said.

MR. LAUK: That's right - endowed with land, girth and arrogance!

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, it's better than being shut out, Gary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could we get back to vote 93, please?

MR. LAUK: If anyone should be on that committee to advise them on the consumption of food, it should be the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Low! Below the belt!

MR. LAUK: What belt? Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs knows I mean no personal offence.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't know that at all. I'm cut to the quick!

MR. LAUK: Now this hypothetical case I've been talking about actually happened in the province of British Columbia. If you told it to the other democracies in the Commonwealth, they wouldn't believe it! They would say: "What kind of an arrogant, high-handed, dictatorial government is this?" We would reply: "The Social Credit kind."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs kindly wait their turn in this debate or conduct their battle out in the hall - either way?

MR. BARRETT: Are you suggesting that we go out in the hall?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is calling for order, and it would be much more orderly if you did.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister should indeed be embarrassed about this, but I fear he's not.

[ Page 3115 ]

He probably feels that he's very lucky to have a portfolio in the first place. I don't know whether he was a Liberal or Conservative prior to his appointment to cabinet.

MR. BARRETT: Liberal.

MR. LAUK: Was he a Liberal? Well, he wasn't lucky. As a matter of fact, if he was a Liberal he had his place by rights, as a matter of course. Everybody knows what the agreement was when this coalition took place. The agreement was that we will not have any old Social Credit on that cabinet. We're going to have turncoat Liberals, and Tories, and land developers, and car salesmen, and we're going to leave the rest of you good people in the back bench.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's confine the discussion to vote 93, please.

MR. LAUK: And speaking about the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , under this vote, there is a man who had one of the most far-reaching committees. He chaired a committee across this province represented in this House, investigating the monopoly oil and gas industry in this province. That was the kind of fair committee that got results in this province in the good tradition.

Now even if that committee that's presently constituted comes up with a good report, is anybody in this province going to accept it as being valid, with only three NDP on it - three opposition members and seven of the government - when the vast majority of the people who voted for the opposition parties are unrepresented on this committee? How are they going to look at that report, even if it's a good report? Even if those three hard-working NDP MLAs do their best and get some good things into that report, how are the people in this province going to accept that report if they know that the committee is not representative of the people of the province?

Why open up that committee's report? Why condemn it before it starts? Why make a self-fulfilled prophecy out of it? Why not have full representation on that committee, Mr. Chairman? It's a terrible think that's been done here in the last few months. It's a terrible thing. I suppose it doesn't catch the fancy of the public at large right now because they feel maybe it's just a squabble in the Legislature. But it's more than that; it offends this democratic system. It's an offence to it. And the hon. Minister of Agriculture knows full well his complicity in this sordid affair.

Is that Provincial Secretary running this government or not? Is she the one in charge? She's the one that took the Captain Cook bill away from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this point has been extremely well canvassed, and you are now veering quite substantially from vote 93. I would ask that you return to vote 93.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that these back-bench ministers should get pushed around by the Provincial Secretary. That's the point I'm trying to make. Cabinet is a collective kind of decision-making process and they shouldn't get pushed around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, this is not the proper place to make that point. We are discussing the Minister of Agriculture's estimates -the minister's office.

MR. LAUK: What I'm trying to ask, Mr. Chairman, is: who is the real Minister of Agriculture here? Is it the Provincial Secretary or is it the Minister of Agriculture who's in his seat? Didn't he have anything to say about it? I say that he probably did. And I say that it was his decision that excluded the Liberal and Conservative from that committee. Until he can deny that, he is condemned forever in British Columbia history as being the man who was that arrogant and dictatorial enough to prevent the two smaller parties in this House from being represented on a very important committee. He stands condemned for that action.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, here we've got the minister of consumer services and corporate machinations and monopolies.

HON. MR. MAIR: Have you won a lawsuit lately?

MR. LAUK: I was recently acting for a very small company that won a lawsuit.

Mr. Chairman, I think this Minister of Agriculture has a responsibility to this Legislature and to the 650,000 people that voted for the combined opposition part to appoint the Liberal and Conservative to that committee. They'll receive the full co-operation of the official opposition. They will support him fully, and that committee will come down, I'm sure, with a report that everyone ran accept. But without the Liberal and Conservative leaders I find that before they even get off the ground they've got two and a half strikes against them.

MR. LEVI: The minister doesn't want to reply.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to hear your story first.

[ Page 3116 ]

MR. LEVI: He does? We'll have to colour him up a bit and then he'll get up.

What I'd like to discuss with the minister and get him to respond to is an area of concern that appears to be left out of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture - and that is specifically in the area of monopoly of the food industry.

Now I don't want him to tell me, when he gets up to answer, that they have a little section in there that deals with vertical integration and somehow that covers it. The minister should know we don't have standards specifically in Canada regarding what categorizes a monopoly, although you might get some assistance from your colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) .

The United States government uses a definition that if there are four or five firms that control 35 per cent of a particular industry, that constitutes a monopoly. Now in the good industry in British Columbia, sales for 1976 were $1.5 billion. I think the minister indicated on Friday that they're edging up. They'll probably wind up with about $1.7 billion or $1.8 billion this year.

The indications are that Safeway, which is a private company, doesn't really reveal - it's not a private company - too much information about itself, In its last annual report, the only information we got out of there with respect to British Columbia was that they have 92 supermarkets. We have really no idea what percentage of the sales they had. From other marketing sources, it's my understanding that they had 35 per cent of the food sales in British Columbia.

Woodward's has 15 per cent of the food sales in British Columbia. Then Super-Valu, which is a subsidiary of Weston, and all of the other Weston subsidiaries, together had nearly 45 per cent. When you put all that together you're left with about 5 per cent or 6 per cent of food that is being sold by corporations other than the three majors. They are the three majors here. Dominion, which is very, very large in Ontario- it has never been able to break into the west - is lucky to get 4 or 5 per cent of the market.

Mr. Minister, you have here a very serious situation. You have a monopoly situation in the food industry by three companies. Now, it's a serious enough situation and I would hope that, while this standing committee is meeting, that committee would take the opportunity to call some of the specialists in this area. Maybe you might call Dr. Mallen from Montreal, who did such good work with the Food Prices Review Board and in the study which he completed in 1976. It dealt with some aspects of corporate concentration in the food industry. You might go down into the United States to Washington and get hold of some of the people down there who know about it. The time has come in this province -

and certainly in this country - when we should start talking about the serious impact that the monopoly situation in the food industry has in terms of food prices. It's very serious.

I'd like the minister to comment on this. About 10 days ago the federal government issued its food policy statement. It was a joint statement by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. It really wasn't a particularly good statement because it was really a restatement of things that had been going on before; but that was their statement. The Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs, Mr. Abbott....

AN HON. MEMBER: Consumer and Corporate. Get it right.

MR. LEVI: Well, yes. I'm going to put it down on a piece of paper, Mr. Minister, so that....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same there as here.

MR. LEVI: Yes. Same there as here? Really. But you don't come from Brascan.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LEVI: You don't come from Brascan, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he checked his disclosure list?

MR. LEVI: That minister, Mr. Chairman, is not from Brascan, he's from Kamloops. But the federal Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs is from Brascan. He was a lawyer for Brascan for three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Consumer and Corporate.

MR. LEVI: Yes. Three years. And after he finished being the lawyer for Brascan, Mr. Chairman, he then became the chairman of the retail trades council. That's the industry's super council which has discussions with all of the major food companies and processors around Canada.

Then, of course, with all of that training in the corporate area and in the retail area - with all of the large firms - he becomes the minister to protect the consumer! He can certainly protect the corporate entity; I don't think he's had too much experience in the consumer end. I'm not commenting on our own minister; I'm commenting on the federal minister.

But the federal minister also said that 15 per cent of all the costs of food relates to the whole question of energy. Fifteen per cent of all the energy used in this country goes into the manufacturing of food. I was wondering whether the minister or the chairman

[ Page 3117 ]

of the committee intends to call the B.C. Energy Commission to make some observations. When they are looking at the prices of energy in this province, they should give consideration to its impact on food costs. It's very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to your mike?

MR. LEVI: Oh, I took it down. I was looking at the Minister of Labour and I took it down. I apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep it down.

MR. LEVI: I can't repeat what I've just said because I was watching the Minister of Labour over there. Did Hansard get it, Mr. Chairman, or... ? I can tell them after.

AN HON. MEMBER: Repeat it.

MR. LEVI: I would like the minister to make some observations about that, because certainly the policies which the Energy Commission makes in respect to the cost of fuel have to have a very direct effect on food prices. So I want him to comment on the question of monopoly. I certainly want to have him comment on the question of the energy situation.

I'd also like him to comment on Swan Valley Foods because he hasn't covered Swan Valley Foods yet. I'd like to ask him. . . .

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, God, Norm! You shouldn't have brought that one up.

MR. LEVI: Was he himself involved in discussions around the Swan Valley Foods and the sale?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You shouldn't have brought it up, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Did he meet with the various companies that were making offers with respect to Swan Valley Foods?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You shouldn't have brought that one up. Do you want to hear about Swan Valley?

MR. LEVI: Yes, we want to hear about Swan Valley. We sure do, We want to know, for instance, if the minister had a little chat with Robert Bonner and. . .

HON. MR. HEWITT: What? How the hell does he come into the picture?

MR. LEVI: ... whether he advised them on whom they should sell it to. Robert Bonner was involved in the sale of Swan Valley Foods, wasn't he?

HON. MR. HEWITT: What?

MR. LEVI: The minister says: "What?" Obviously the minister wasn't involved. So you don't know! I think that we must ask the minister, in respect to the Swan Valley Foods sale.... As I understand it, there's now a new company. It's called Creston Valley Foods. Sixty-five per cent of it is owned by a company called Federal Diversiplex, which is a subsidiary of a group known as the Hardee Farms, who are very heavily into the food processing business. It is my understanding that they bought the whole kit-and-kaboodle for $1.75 million plus some accounts receivable and all of the control of the various packing processes. Of course, if it doesn't all work out in three years, they can give it back to the government.

Twenty-five per cent is owned by Creston Agro Enterprises. That's the farmers in the Creston Valley; they have 25 per cent interest. Right so far? The minister nods. Obviously he's very cool; he's just a very normal fight colour at the moment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's my sunburn.

MR. LEVI: Ten per cent is owned by Canadian Venture Capital Corporation. Now that's the one I want to talk to you about, Mr. Minister, because Canadian Venture Capital Corporation is one of the subsidiaries of Triarc, which is one of the financial corporations of a holding company called Jonlab. Jonlab is made up of three companies. Twenty-six per cent is owned by a company called Canadian Cablesystems. The minister had heard of Canadian Cablesystems, I'm sure. He's as familiar with Canadian Cablesystems as his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , is with the John Henry'Schroder. Yet they both don't know too much about either - RoberL Bonner happens to sit on both boards. We heard from the minister the other day that he didn't even know that Robert Bonner was on the board of John Henry Schroder.

HON. MR. HEWITT: This is a 10 per cent equity? Shocking, eh? Oh, man!

MR. LEVI: Yes, 10 per cent. Oh, you don't think that's very significant? You don't think it's significant that a large company like Brascan should have its fingers in a pie like this.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, it's a good pie, I'll tell you.

[ Page 3118 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: A 10-per-cent-a-year catastrophe.

MR. LEVI: It's not a catastrophe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: Farmers didn't think it was a catastrophe.

Then the other day we had the minister telling us that we have to do something about the processing industry.

HON. MR. MAIR: Ever read the Clarkson Gordon report?

MR. LEVI: Yes. Let the minister tell us about how the arrangements were made for the sale of this. Let him go into some detail and let's understand exactly what they were doing. Let's understand all of that. Let's understand what kinds of plans he has for the processing industry in this province.

The other day one of his colleagues was asked about the processing industry in the fishing industry, which now appears to be firmly in the hands of two rather large multinational corporations with virtually no participation at all by a British Columbia company. Now that's in the food business. He must be familiar with the Queen Charlotte fishing company, the people who in the past have processed a great deal of fish, which is one of the foods in this province. That's closed down; fast disappearing; sold out to Swan Valley, to a group in Ontario.

So what kind of impact is he having when he says that he wants to agree with the agricultural people who say that we have to get the percentage of food that's processed and produced in this province up from about 40 per cent to 65 per cent? He knows that we're importing 60 per cent of the food this year. We were into the situation with food that because of the drought in the southwest, the costs of foods that were imported from the United States increased dramatically. That in itself should say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that these kinds of natural catastrophes, particularly in relation to the problem of water in the United States, are not something that's just going to go away. They have some very serious problems in respect to drought in the United States. They're looking to Canada to relieve them of this. So in the long run we can't continue to look to the United States for the bulk of the food that comes in here.

The minister has indicated that over the next 15 or 17 years we should try to get it up to 65 per cent. I agree with him. We should try to get it higher. We should do a great deal to create a kind of industry in the agriculture industry that provides a large number of jobs. But this afternoon, when my colleagues were talking, we were not too sure where the agriculture industry is going. We were not too sure where the farm assurance programme is going. He's not too sure either. I don't know whether he's expecting to get some direction out of the standing committee in respect of all of these matters. But he's been in the saddle for a few months now. He can speak with some impunity this afternoon. After all, the Provincial Secretary isn't here; he shouldn't get too nervous about that. He can tell us a few things, tell us specifically what he has in mind.

For instance, when there have been discussions on the federal-provincial level, has the province had any input at all into the development of that federal food policy? Has he made any contribution?

Has he written to the federal Minister of Agriculture and suggested some input into that policy? That's an important part of the minister's office in terms of policy development, particularly in relation to the very difficult situation that we have on the west coast and in relation to the tariff situation which often mitigates against any kind of improvement in our situation, particularly in relation to the farm industry. So what kind of contact does he have with the Minister of Agriculture?

I listened to the federal Minister of Agriculture last January when he was at the annual meeting of the agricultural federation, and he's really quite a character to have listened to. You wind up listening more to the way he performs than actually what he says. However, he speaks with a great deal of authority and experience on the basis that he is a farmer, has been a farmer for many years and has an interest at heart. He doesn't have too many kind words to say from time to time about marketing boards, but generally he's an outspoken kind of individual. Of course, I didn't pick up any indication that he had too much consideration for the farmer in B.C.

I want to talk about one other point with the minister. Perhaps he might give some indication as to whether he's aware of the kinds of impacts that may be down the road with respect to the grain industry. The minister may know that in 1972 when we had the so-called Russian grain agreement in the United States, it was after that grain agreement that we started to get very significant food cost increases, particularly in Canada. By the summer of 1973 our food prices had gone up almost 15 per cent, and the following year they were up almost 18 per cent. In fact Mr. Abbott in his statement on the food policy 10 days ago said that in three and a half years our food costs have gone up almost 50 per cent. When we examine the reasons for that in the very beginning, we find the impact of that incredible mishandling of the sale of grain between the United States and Russia.

Well, what I'm getting at, Mr. Chairman, is really

[ Page 3119 ]

the impact of the private companies in this situation. As the minister probably knows, there are five major grain companies that do all of the exporting -companies like Cargill, which in 1975 finally had to go before a Senate-House committee in Washington and reveal some information about its earnings because it's a privately held company. It's world-wide; it's multinational; it's a classical agribusiness. Their earnings in 1975 were $10 billion. That's their revenue: $10 billion. We have another company like N.B. Cook.

There are five majors that are handling almost 90 per cent of the grain. It was these five majors that were involved in the sale of grain to Russia and it was the five majors that were directly responsible for that increase in food costs. All of these five companies are operating in Canada. Cargill in 1975 bought National Grain out and controls about 280 elevators on the Prairies. They have a little operation in Mount Lehman, I think in the Chairman's riding, as a matter of fact, where.... It's not in your riding? I'm sorry, it's in the member for Langley's (Hon. Mr. McClelland's) riding then, I guess, where they have a hog-fattening operation. They have a chemical plant on the lower mainland; they have a granary up in Dawson Creek. They're in Canada. They're becoming very visible and they're part of a discussion that's going on both in Canada and in the United States.

There is pressure appearing to be brought in the United States on the Canadian government. Somehow we've got to do something about that Canadian Wheat Board, because it's getting into the way of our so-called free enterprise system. There is a lot of pressure being brought. These people are operating all over Canada, these five major companies, and they are starting to operate in British Columbia. We have to be careful of companies like this because, before we know it, they're going to start gobbling up some of the operations that exist in this province. Then we're going to have less control now in terms of the agricultural industry than we had previously. If we're looking, as the minister has indicated, for an expanding industry, then we have to feel sure that the major control of this industry, as presently, remains in British Columbia.

So we've covered a number of items during the afternoon. I would hope that the minister will comment on them. If he doesn't, I'll get up and remind him about them. Important things must relate, I think, to the whole question of the monopoly in the industry. That is extremely important. The monopoly exists in British Columbia ~With the three major companies. I would like to know whether the minister has any intention at all of perhaps coming back to the House to get some of the terms of reference amended for the standing committee so we can look at monopoly in a real way and not just the question of vertical integration. That does not cover the monopoly situation.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I would like to digress a bit, Mr. Minister, and to canvass for just a few more minutes the question of the two opposition members - the Liberal and the Conservative - being left off the committee, and ask a couple of questions about the principle of representation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this subject has been quite well covered. Unless you're introducing some new material, I'd suggest you....

MR. BARNES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do think that the aspect I'm going to introduce is not redundant and will be another aspect of the question for consideration. If the minister has no intention of reversing any decisions or appealing for a change in the conditions as they presently exist, perhaps he will in the future.

It's an unusual situation because normally, I suppose, when you're selecting members for committees, you assume that there will be enough individuals to sit on the various committees. There are, though, from time to time, situations that are unusual. When you have one member in a caucus -and, in this case, we have two parties with one member in each making two caucuses - then obviously they aren't going to be able to spread themselves any thinner than the regulations will permit. So if you have a rule that permits them to sit only on three committees, then how can they, in any reasonable way, know which committees will be the ones that will be sitting at the time? You know, it's sort of a matter of catch as catch can. You just guess and hope that you're going to be on the right committee,

Now as it turned out, the most important committee of this session to travel has been the agricultural committee. Had it been several committees, I'm sure that when you have only one member in a party he or she would want to sit on all those committees. Perhaps this is one of the short-sighted aspects of the rules governing how many members can sit on committees and also how many committees a member will be permitted to sit on.

In our caucus we have 18 members. Obviously we have enough to cover most committees. The argument that you use is that if you're going to permit members to jump from committee to committee you'd have no control and no discipline. Well, I can understand that. In our case, we can insure that the caucus will at least have representation by one or the other of our members on any of the committees at any point in time. This isn't the case when you only have one member. I think in the spirit of democracy, and the spirit of fair representation

[ Page 3120 ]

and sincerity, regardless of the regulations, when you have a situation where clearly a committee that is being struck will be vitally important and its investigations and deliberations will affect the lives and the economies of the various regions and districts in the community, and individuals, you'd want to insure that no representative would be omitted.

I think this is really the question: are you suggesting that it's just too bad that, by virtue of not having a crystal ball, those two members were unable to know which committees would be sitting and which ones would be important? Is it just too bad that the 144,000 people they represent aren't going to get representation? You know, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was quite correct in suggesting that the principle is the thing and not necessarily the regulations. In this case, I think the minister is duty bound, in terms of his own credibility and the credibility of the committee, to appeal to the selection committee and to this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt you? I want to remind the member that this debate was carried to fulfilment and a vote when the motion was passed. On that basis, I must rule the debate out of order. The Chair has been very, very lenient.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you have. That's true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the third time we have had this argument, even beyond that point.

MR. BARNES: That's very true, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to try and find ways of circumventing your ruling because I'm sure that you are trying to be fair. It's in the interest of the spirit of fair play that I'm acknowledging your recommendation that we move on to other points. I hope that by the same token the minister will recognize my appeal, because I'm also speaking in the interest of fair play.

I'm recognizing that the minister or the selection committee were perhaps short-sighted in not thinking in terms of this new perspective and dimension that I'm giving it. Clearly, when you have one member in a party, that one member should have equal rights on all committees, just as each member has a right to debate all bills. You aren't going to suggest for one moment that either the Liberal or the Conservative member would have no right to debate certain bills, that they would have to choose which ones they are going to debate in this House.

We have the right to debate all bills and all matters concerning the people. We can debate all issues and be represented on all committees. It should be incumbent upon this House to ensure that every member has the right to be represented on all committees in all business of this House. If there is only one, so be it; that one gets the full privileges. In this case it is a form if discrimination and selectivism - arbitrarily, I might add. I think it is grossly unfair and I think that a segment of the population is being denied proper representation because of this mechanical fault. I'm going to drop the matter, Mr. Chairman, so you can sit back and relax in your seat.

I know that you are getting worried. I know that the government is not going to reverse its decision. But the record should stand clear on this matter that it is most unfortunate that it hasn't had the capacity for flexibility to recognize this oversight and to correct it. In the end, the most important thing is that we get on with the public's business in an honourable manner, a manner that would be at least above criticism as far as its objectivity and credibility are concerned.

The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) questioned the present terms of reference that the committee is operating under and wondered if it perhaps should not revise or amend those terms of reference to be more comprehensive in dealing with the multinationals and some of the interests that are really influencing the marketplace in British Columbia.

I'm going to ask the minister a question. Perhaps I should be asking at least two ministers: the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , who I notice has left the chamber.... I think it overlaps; it deals with both of them. But it is my understanding that Canada Safeway Ltd. has a practice of demanding an exclusive clause in most of the agreements that it makes with the developers of shopping centres. In other words, before it opts to participate as a tenant in a new shopping complex that is being developed, one of the conditions that it makes is that there be no competition in selected areas. I'm thinking specifically now of the meat retail outlets.

Obviously that doesn't sound very much like a free-enterpriser operating in the spirit of competition and fair play in the open marketplace. It suggests that the idea is to control and to eliminate competition. There is no other reason I can think of why they would want an exclusive clause before they would opt to become a tenant in a particular shopping development.

There are many implications that I can think of that concern me and I think would concern the committee in its investigations of this matter. Not being an expert in the cattle industry or the question of developing livestock, I'm not perhaps the one who can speak on this question in the most persuasive way. But at least I would like to raise the question and have the minister give his response. Perhaps other individuals who have some personal experience with this question can.

It seems to be a dis-service to the community

[ Page 3121 ]

when they don't realize the behind-the-scenes deals that are being made to deny them access to various commodities. It seems to me wrong - if not wrong within the existing statutes of the province then just wrong in terms of fair play and free enterprise - to use your philosophy to permit a prospective tenant who will be selling to the public and who will be operating with a licence to sell to the public a commodity to acquire an exclusive rental arrangement whereby at no time in the future can any prospective retailer come in and compete. That just seems to me to be contradictory. I'd like to know what the rationale behind that is.

Certainly knowing the control that many of the large conglomerates have over the production of goods and the importing of goods and their interest in other resource areas, this could conceivably mean that local products are being completely bypassed.

In the question of providing livestock, perhaps Safeway has outlets that rarely include the people who are producing local stocks. And the public has no opportunity to make a choice.

Now I've mentioned Canada Safeway because it is my understanding that they are represented by 50 per cent of the retail outlets in the province, or perhaps better. They have that much control. They and perhaps Super-Valu and Shop Easy are the ones that are primarily guilty in this regard, not necessarily other industries that are indigenous to B.C. For instance, I understand that Woodward's is just the opposite and they encourage the competition from other suppliers. I've shopped at the one place - I think it's the Town & Country on Government - and I know there's a little meatmarket right across the hall from their main store.

This isn't exactly an encouraging situation. And I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure this is an accepted policy among large conglomerate structures. The corporate thinking is to talk about free enterprise but to control it as much as possible.

I would like the minister to indicate whether or not the committee will be looking into these kinds of questions and giving a report back to the House as to the implications of it in terms of the cost of living, in terms of the stimulation for development and the stability within our own economy of resources that are indigenous to the province.

In other words, how much does this kind of contracting support "Buy B.C."? How much encouragement does this give to the smaller operator, the individual who is hoping to have some outlet in the market, and also some fair chance to have an outlet in the more attractive communities - not to just have to try and find a cheap accommodation in the corner store, but be able to go into some of the more populated and more active, high-exchange locations?

I would also like to ask a question. I could raise this under the vote a little further down; I think it's vote 98, if my memory serve me correctly. But this is an aside to this question of beef. Is it not true that there are places in the province where beef is not inspected by provincial or federal inspectors - that is, in the slaughterhouses? I understand that there are certain economic reasons for the lack of inspection -that is, the inspection of live weight - certain standards that would raise the cost, make it a prohibitive factor for certain communities because of the outlet potential to invest in this kind of apparatus in order to do a proper job of inspecting the beef products a lot when it's live.

Now apparently there are examples though of a problem such as this also when animals have been slaughtered. Not all areas are being inspected even after slaughter. Now I don't know if that much is true; if it is, I would think that that would be rather alarming. I have some doubt about not having an inspection at the live weight because you still have a problem of diseased animals that could conceivably be slaughtered, marketed and carried through the process, and there is just room there for error. This is the question.

But is it also true that there are cases where when an animal has been slaughtered, it's possible that the consumer will be purchasing beef that hasn't been inspected? If that's the case, where are these places, how prevalent are they, and does this not constitute a health hazard, even if the odds are somewhat minimal? There is a possibility that there could be a repeat of the incident that happened in Ontario when people were eating hamburger that had been ground up from carcasses that had gone bad.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Was it Quebec? Anyway, it was a few years ago and that was a pretty alarming thing to think that that could conceivably happen in British Columbia.

With that, if you'd like to respond, I'll wait with any further questions, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The committee that will be investigating the cost of food, or the food study that's underway.... We talked about the selection. I think we'd just be repeating. The Chairman has indicated that it's really not under this vote regarding the selection of the members, so I won't go into it, but I would just say that it wasn't an appointment by the Minister of Agriculture. Every member had the ability to apply to serve on any committee they wished and the end result was that one applied and then withdrew again, and the other didn't apply at all.

Your comments regarding the competition in the marketplace.... I think what you're really saying is

[ Page 3122 ]

that in a shopping centre or a shopping mall there is some control laid down by the landlord as to who can go in. Is that correct?

That's quite true, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that from the retailer's point of view, if you had two, let's say, meat stores in one shopping centre, then you split the market because there are only so many people who are going to go in and shop at that shopping centre. As a result, you split the market that they have available to them, and you could have two stores fail as opposed to one making a reasonable living.

Secondly, on the side of the consumer, having a good selection of stores in a shopping centre is most important. Because if you don't have a good cross-section of retail stores, the consumer will not go into the shopping mall and will not do his shopping there. So that's another reason why I think the landlord or the developer or whoever it might be that sets up the shopping mall wants to have a good cross-section of retail stores to attract consumers.

In regard to meat inspection, there are some areas that are not inspected - that is correct. I can tell you, though, that we are at the present time and hopefully we're almost to a conclusion in negotiations with the federal government regarding federal meat inspection throughout the province. This will be a major step in ensuring proper inspection throughout the province.

I understand, though, that there has to be a bylaw passed at either the regional district or the municipal level requesting meat inspection. My staff have been carrying out negotiations with the federal people to get domestic meat inspection done by the federal people, which gives, you might say, the ultimate stamp of approval - the federal meat inspection stamp on a side of beef. We're hopeful we're going to correct that problem you've mentioned and have inspection throughout the province.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the prospect of having a more complete inspection, ultimately by federal standards, but you didn't answer the question of how many areas exist today. To what extent are we behind on inspection today?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Fifty per cent of the province.

MR. BARNES: Fifty per cent of the province is not inspected? At what stage of inspection does that exist? Does that mean live weight, or after slaughter, or where?

The other question was on the supermarkets and the exclusive clauses required by prospective tenants such as Safeway. I was thinking also not so much that the competition would be exactly the same but, say, a specialty like a delicatessen.... Now I know that

Safeway tries to cover a variety of specialties within its operation, but primarily it is dealing in the retail of regular meat cuts that people are normally using for their meals, not the specialty items. What about places that are dealing in catering or would be coming in and doing something different?

You see, apparently they don't accept anything resembling what they're doing. It seems to me that it would enhance the situation, as we found with farmers' markets and the Gastown concept. Is it not true, if you want to use the concept of free enterprise, that there is the idea of capitalizing on the masses by one attracting the other and people begin to exchange? Is it not true that the more activity you have the better chance you have of attracting the traffic?

I mean, in terms of theory, is that really a well-founded concept that they should ask for an exclusive? If you're a good free-enterpriser, would you not want to ensure that there was enough attraction by having diversity, by having specialty shops and all kinds of different things to appeal to the human interest? People like to have variety from time to time.

I just don't understand why we should let that go simply by saying they want control because of the investment they have to make. It seems to me that it would be rather counter-productive to exclude many of these small operations that might be on the periphery of what they're doing. It just doesn't seem to make a really good community project.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, any meat that comes into the lower mainland - the city of Vancouver, Fraser Valley, the lower mainland - has to be inspected either federally or provincially. There's your mass market. There are seven plants inspected provincially in the province and two federally inspected plants. What we are attempting to do, as I say, is ensure that those plants that you have mentioned that do not have inspection, that aren't serving the lower mainland-Fraser Valley area, can get inspection so all plants will be inspected in the province. We're negotiating an arrangement with the federal government.

MR. BARNES: How many are left now?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Approximately 20.

MR. BARNES: Twenty?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, but bear in mind that we mentioned to you that where the main portion of our population is - in the lower mainland, Fraser Valley, Vancouver area - no uninspected meat is allowed, you might say, in that area. So although there's 20 against seven provincial and two federal,

[ Page 3123 ]

population-wise there's a good percentage that are inspected.

MR. BARNES: Volume-wise, what would it be -50-50?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry. The deputy says that much more meat is inspected than not.

Now with regard to your selection of stores in a shopping mall and in the variety, et cetera, I would just suggest to you, if I may, that it's something similar to a football team in regard to the selection of their players. You select your players to get the best results, the same way as a developer selects the stores in his area to get the best results. Although you do mention variety, et cetera, I'm sure you wouldn't want basketball players or hockey players playing on a football team in order to have variety.

MR. BARNES: Well, we'll leave you for now.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with you that the issue of the select standing committee has been canvassed. I don't want to go over that matter again.

I do want to associate myself, however, with all of the statements made by the opposition members on this matter. The minister's comment that the two members had an opportunity to be on the committee and did not avail themselves of that opportunity is really the very sad thing about it. The fact that he refuses to recognize the extenuating circumstances at work here, the fact that they had no way of knowing ahead of time that this committee was going to be the one that would be working and is still not prepared to take that into account now that they've indicated that they're interested in being on the committee, is what is very sad, Mr. Chairman. Certainly his intractable- position diminishes the committee and makes it less than it should be.

However, my question to the minister has to do with farm workers. I know that the minister is very concerned about farmers and is doing everything that is possible - certainly that he is capable of - in terms of securing a decent basic wage for the farming community

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, the critic tells me I shouldn't be too sure about that, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt anyway.

I'm curious to know whether he's taking similar efforts on behalf of farm workers, on behalf of people who do not own a farm, but who in fact work on the farm. In that regard, I wonder what the minister is doing about the fact that farm workers are not covered by any of our labour legislation in this province. I want to bring to his attention that when the labour and justice committee traveled around the province, Mr. Chairman, this was a matter that was consistently being brought to our attention - the fact that people who work on the farm are certainly not covered by any of the major labour legislation. They are not covered by the Minimum Wage Act; they are not covered by the Hours of Work Act; they are not covered by the Payment of Wages Act; they are not covered by the Control of Employment of Children Act or the Maternity Protection Act; the Workers' Compensation Act - they have the option to be covered or not depending on what their employer the farmer wants to do; and the Annual and General Holidays Act. In fact, Mr. Chairman, what this business of excluding them from the labour standards legislation is is a lack of recognition of their contribution to the labour market. It results in extremely low standards of wages and certainly very poor working conditions. This is something that was consistently being brought to our attention when the labour and justice committee traveled around the province.

In 1976, Mr. Chairman, I introduced a private member's bill asking that farm and domestic workers be covered by the labour-standards legislation. But of course, because I'm just a member of the opposition, the bill was not accepted. I will be raising it again under the Labour minister's (Hon. Mr. Williams') vote, but recognizing that the Minister of Agriculture has more heart, I thought I might bring it to his attention to find out what he is doing on behalf of the people who work on the farms,

Does the minister, for example, realize that a number of farm workers are earning considerably below the minimum wage, especially those who live in? Figures were quoted to us of an average wage of between $1 and the minimum wage of $2.50 an hour. This would include living accommodation.

Does the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, recognize that farm workers, like farmers, usually put in a 10- to 12-, even a 14-hour day? Does he recognize that they often put in a six- and a six-and-a-half-day and that in fact there are problems with transportation? I'm talking primarily now about people in the lower mainland; I'm talking about the contract labourers who work on the farms in the Fraser Valley and in the lower mainland, although I realize this problem is true throughout the province.

What was brought to our attention, Mr. Chairman, was how long they often had to wait for their wages. In fact payment of wages were, in one particular instance, delayed for as much as six months. There's no holiday pay and there's no legislation covering the ages of children who are working on some of these farms. A number of the workers take their children -10 years old, or in some instances younger - to work with them on these farms and to work those long

[ Page 3124 ]

hours as well. There are firings without notice and also without cause. This is very common. So the whole basic insecurity in the job in terms of their working conditions, in terms of their pay, in terms of the length of the job, Mr. Chairman, is certainly something that must be of concern to the Minister of Agriculture.

There's a statistic, Mr. Chairman, that he's probably not aware of that I'd like to share with him. That is that 60 per cent of the farm workers in the lower mainland area, anyway, are women. A number of these are immigrant women; a number of the workers are immigrants. Of course, this whole business of low-paying, low-status, labour-intensive, routine, menial, temporary and insecure work is very characteristic of a lot of the work that immigrant women do.

This is certainly one area in which the Minister of Agriculture would be able to make some kinds of changes, if it's to do nothing else but speak to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and try to secure his co-operation in having these workers covered by the labour standards legislation.

A group of people of whom the minister may not be aware, who call themselves Labour Advocacy and Research Association, compiled a legal resource book for farm workers and for domestic workers. This came, actually, with some support funding from the Attorney-General's department through the Legal Services Commission. It's a very, very useful piece of information. I'm wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture is aware of it. If he's aware of it, is he going to make any effort in terms of helping with the distribution of this piece of material to farm workers?

It lays out in very simple terms things that should be included in farm contracts. It tells them about the kinds of legislation that they are not covered by but brings to their attention some of the legislation which covers them, such as the Human Rights Act, which I think is the only one, quite frankly, that covers them.

It's very basic, very clear; it's in English, but it is also going to be printed in a number of different languages. It certainly is a piece of information that the Minister of Agriculture should familiarize himself with and make every effort to circulate among the worker population of the agriculture business.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , brought up a number of things. In most cases the labourer whom you're talking about - at least as I understand from your comments - would be basically the casual farm labourer who would either go out to the farm for two or three days, may call in at the farm gate, go through our farm labour offices when the cherries are ripe or when pruning needs to be done and would be there for a short period of time. They are temporary in a sense that they don't establish tenure of any length of time with the farmer. Being on casual labour, they go in and work for an hourly rate and then leave the scene.

I would tell you that under our farm income assurance programme, we have an hourly rate for unskilled farm workers of $4.30. Now if you're telling me that my farmers are not paying a reasonable wage who fall under that farm income assurance coverage, I would be a little concerned. I think that if we're discussing with the farming community that unskilled labour is costing X number of dollars, I'm hoping that labour cost is passed on to the people who do the work. And I feel quite confident that it is.

You mentioned about some of the long days, the 12-hour days, the six and a half days a week work. Yes, I guess that's one of the things that maybe a lot of the consumers aren't aware of. It's not just for the farmworkers but for the farmer himself who goes out there and works long hours. When the demand is there he is there, and he is working those long hours.

Offsetting that, I guess, there's some of the quiet times when it's pouring rain and you can't work the field or it's the off-season and there's no work to be done other than possible maintenance and repairs. So on the average it is probably offset.

The Minister of Labour, I'm sure, is aware of some of the problems that you have raised with regard to certain pieces of legislation. I'm sure he'll be looking at that. He did catch your remarks before he went out.

I wasn't aware of the booklet you have. If you wish to supply me with a copy I'd be most interested in seeing it. If there is something that we can do to ensure that the farm worker, whether he be casual or permanent, gets a reasonable return for his labour....

MS. BROWN: I was really thinking of the seasonal worker - the person who comes in and stays through the entire season. What we discovered was that there are some people that turn up at the same farms year after year after year, and put in the same block of time. Although the farmer has the option to cover them by workers' compensation, usually that's not done. The payment of wages is a real problem, certainly. That wage you mentioned sounds good but we didn't run into too many people who were receiving it.

As far as the book is concerned, it's for sale. That's my copy which I'd like returned. It's for sale and I think it would be a good idea for you to purchase some copies.

MR. LEVI: I just want to ask the minister if he's going to comment at all on some of the questions I put to him. He was ready to go on Swan Valley. We're ready to go any time he is.

[ Page 3125 ]

I'd like him to comment on the food monopoly problem in the province. Also what kind of input did the government have in terms of the federal food policy? Also there's the problems of the five majors that are moving into the province. I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I forgot about the second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

He mentioned about Woodward's having 15 per cent, I think, of the retail sales, Safeway having 35 per cent, and Super-Valu and others having a 45 per cent, which totals about - I think my figures are right - 95 per cent, and the rest is small stores.

I mentioned this somewhat on Friday, I guess. Maybe it's a case of: what does the consumer want? In most cases, the consumer today wants a large shopping mall with lots of parking and a restaurant to go to in the middle of the day, a supermarket to do the food shopping, and the large retail store to do her consumer buying. I guess that's one of the problems with society today - we want all those things in one area. As a result, the capital investment to supply those amenities is substantial. As a result of that you can't get Bill Brown's clothing store to invest millions of dollars to create a large shopping mall to supply the consumers with those amenities that they wish.

'This is one of the problems which we have: we're getting into large areas, large stores, lots of attraction, night shopping, the whole bit. Transportation is included in many instances. The consumers are getting those things that they want. So you can't lay all the blame on those large~ stores that supply those facilities.

Price fixing. I'm sure you're aware that one of the areas the food study will look at is fair competition in the wholesale-retail area. We have the ability to call witnesses, under oath if it is so required. The effort there is to try and make sure that everybody understands why the cost of food gets up to where it is when the farmer is only getting 32 per cent of it at the bottom of the food chain.

Federal study. Yes, I'm aware of the federal study and I can say that we've made a considerable amount of representation, I think, to the federal people to give them some indication of how concerned we were. I'd like to think that B.C. led the way because we had our food study underway before the federal government came out with their policy. We made representation back to Ottawa with regard to tariffs and with regard to grading of import products. We have expressed our concern to the federal Minister of Agriculture concerning their cow-calf programme regarding agriculture stabilization. I'm just trying to find here in my notes comments that were made in the House regarding stabilization programmes. The federal minister mentioned that he wanted those programmes to be.... Here we are. "An immediate requirement is the continued efforts to co-ordinate federal-provincial stabilization programmes and to consult with possible revisions to the Agricultural Stabilization Act."

That gives you an indication that the federal government is looking at the same things which we are looking at. With regard to our income assurance programme, they are looking at their agricultural stabilization programme. I'm hopeful that the co-ordination here will give us an indication as to how we can harmonize those two programmes so that we don't get discriminated against in B.C. like we did with the cow-calf programme.

MR. LEVI: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm somewhat incredulous at the minister's remarks about the monopoly. He didn't comment on the monopoly situation! He seems to accept it as that's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be. Somehow he's using the consumer as the reason for this happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said it was a monopoly?

MR. LEVI: I pointed out to the minister that three major corporations in this province are controlling 90 per cent of the sale of food. That constitutes a monopoly! You're the government -the freedom-fighters for the free-enterprise system.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you going to do, close them down?

MR. LEVI: These people are controlling the food industry. They've got virtual taxing powers on the prices of food, and all he tells us is that they're the only people who can afford the large amounts of input of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you have monopoly if you've got three?

MR. LEVI: Oh, you can't have a monopoly. In the whole of the province you have three companies that are controlling $1.5 billion worth of food. My god, that's what's classified as a monopoly in the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: They aren't producing food.

MR. LEVI: Exactly. Don't let's get semantical. Three major companies are controlling more than 90 per cent of the food sales in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't force people to buy there.

[ Page 3126 ]

MR. LEVI: "They don't force people to buy there!" There he is - the great freedom fighter! Just incredible! Not one word has he said in defence of the small businessman. That's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: That's what I asked you - whether you were prepared to address yourself to this in the food inquiry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes! I just told you we would!

MR. LEVI: You know you're not looking at that kind of thing. How can you look at that kind of thing with the attitude you've got?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. LEVI: How can that be, Mr. Chairman, with his attitude in terms of "Well, that's the way it is." You're not there to just completely read into your excuses what the consumer wants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: The role of the minister is to take a look at the good of the consumer and to take a look at the free enterprise system which they're so proud of talking about. Well, there is no free enterprise system.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd have state stores if you had your way.

MR. LEVI: State stores! Ho, ho!

HON. MR. HEWITT: I got a sunburn yesterday. That's what it is.

MR. LEVI: That's not a sunburn. Now come off it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote, please.

MR. LEVI: Where's the member for Cranbrook? He has a sunburn.

Mr. Chairman, his remarks about the monopoly are completely inadequate in terms of an answer. We're still waiting for him to comment on Swan Valley Foods. Come on - let's go on Swan Valley Foods.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, you really don't want me to do that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have some grave concerns around this vote. The concerns that I have are aroused by having kept my eye on the minister just a little bit prior to and just after his having taken office as Minister of Agriculture.

Just to give an indication of where I think the minister's head is at, I watched him in a situation in the Okanagan Valley where a number of ranchers wanted to establish a feedlot in the town of Okanagan Falls.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's where your wife was doing all the talking. You didn't talk.

MR. COCKE: The minister must be getting nervous. He's starting to get rattled over there; he's yapping.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I never get rattled.

MR. COCKE: All you have to do is answer the questions after I'm finished.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Ask me an intelligent question. I'm waiting.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have this to say about the minister: the more he says, the less confidence I have in him or his ability to carry out the duties of the Minister of Agriculture.

I watched him in Okanagan Falls, identifying with a group that wanted to put a feedlot to accommodate 10,000 head of cattle - 4,000 at any one time - in a little town like Okanagan Falls.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you against the cattlemen? It wasn't in the town.

MR. COCKE: I watched him also identify with the group that wanted to have a slaughterhouse right alongside.

I thought to myself: this Minister of Agriculture bears watching. Let me tell you right now, I'm really watching him. He's identifying with a stupid government that is making stupid decisions in his own constituency around Eurasian water milfoil. He's got the Minister of . . .

MR. LEA: Minister of Pollution!

MR. COCKE: ... the Environment, which is the most ironical situation. the Minister of Pollution, the minister to encourage anything that might poison the environment, is that which we have in there.

The Minister of Agriculture has said nothing. He hasn't suggested that maybe the Ministry of Agriculture might decide to assist in harvesting some of that material to use for the land or whatever. He

[ Page 3127 ]

hasn't indicated that there is any interest on his part as an MLA or as the Minister of Agriculture.

The Minister of Agriculture, of all people, should certainly be aware of the hormone effects of 2, 4-D or 2, 4, 5-T. Yet he says nothing. I don't know what he is saying in cabinet, but I'll tell you right now what they are thinking of him in his constituency. Many people are saying of him: "He must be part of the same syndrome that the Provincial Secretary seems to accommodate - telling the people who live in the Okanagan Valley: 'Keep your mouths shut or move out.' " That's what the Provincial Secretary is saying. She is indicating that very clearly in the way she was talking to the people up there when she was there. "Smile, " she says down here, but up there she says: "Keep your mouth shut or move out, because what you might be doing is upsetting a couple of tourists."

The Minister of Agriculture has, I think, really disappointed a great many people in our province.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're a big landholder up there.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I am a landholder in his constituency. I'm in real jeopardy with a minister like that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What's this? Are you going to vote for me now?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there is one other thing that concerns me.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And it's waterfront land too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Waterfront land?

HON. MR. HEWITT: He's a large landholder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: Not only has he been pushed around by the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) - heaven only knows where he got the weight to push anybody around.... We all laughed when he took the portfolio. Unfortunately, most of us are not laughing any longer; most of us are crying.

The kind of influence that he had over the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to get that minister to coerce one of his best health officers is again ironical. He's got that same kind of influence over the Minister of Agriculture because he's kept the Minister of Agriculture at bay on this issue. Surely he's kept him at bay. Otherwise why would he go along with it in any event?

However, the real problem that I see in this minister is that he has shown his wares so well when he knuckled under to either the Provincial Secretary or the Premier of the province in not having on his committee the Liberal and Conservative members. That showed right there that he really didn't have any interest in the outcome of that report - no interest whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, had he had any interest in the outcome of that report, he would have insisted that those two members and their opinions be on that committee. But no, he didn't. Mr. Chairman, he knuckled under again. He knuckles under to small pressure groups, as I indicated, with an obvious faux pas - a suggestion of a slaughterhouse.

He knuckled under to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , showing that he didn't have enough concern or enough courage to protect the environment in his own area, in the Eurasian milfoil question over 2, 4-D. He knuckled under to either the Premier or the Provincial Secretary in his lacking the courage to insist that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) be on that committee.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about this minister; we're concerned about his vote. Why would we be inspired to provide the minister with his vote when everything he does indicates to us that not only is he weak but he is thoughtless. Not only is he thoughtless but he doesn't even care about his own constituency and its problems.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I'm interested in getting back to the questions which my colleague, the member for Vancouver Burrard, put to the minister. I was particularly interested in the minister's indication that somehow the farm income assurance plan is designed to provide a certain basic guaranteed wage to farm and agricultural workers in the province. I'm certainly not familiar with any such provision in the farm income assurance plan. To my knowledge, that simply provides a basic guaranteed income to the farm operators and owners without any incumbency upon them to provide a basic wage to their employees, be they temporary employees of the transient kind or be they permanent farm labourers. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, agricultural workers are still exempt from the labour standards legislation in this province which would guarantee a minimum wage, which would regulate hours of work and overtime and statutory holidays, and which would provide a mechanism for wage recovery in the instance of failure to pay wages.

That's no small matter, Mr. Chairman, because in the industrial sector in this province the labour standards branch collects about $1.5 million a year of wages that are not paid by employers on a regular basis. They do that through court action. So I can only assume that the same kind of dilemma faces

[ Page 3128 ]

farm and agricultural workers. There is no mechanism to include and protect them with any statutory provisions.

The minister's response to my colleague from Burrard demonstrated a lack of understanding for this whole problem. It's true to say that many farm workers are transients and they work for a particular farmer for only a short period of time to harvest a crop such as cherries, tree crops and so on, as well as field crops. But it should be recognized that over the season those employees move from farm to farm; they travel with the currency of each crop that comes on stream. Therefore they're employed in the agricultural industry for many, many months of the year. That migratory aspect of the industry in itself should not deprive them of the protection that other workers in this province are entitled to.

There are areas in the industrial sector that have the same migratory aspects about them. Certainly the construction industry is an example. Within that area there is no continuity of relationship between an employee and the employer. The relationship only lasts as long as the current contract. Sometimes it's a matter of weeks, sometimes a matter of months, and then the workers move on to the next contract. That does not absolve the construction industry of the obligation to meet minimum-wage standards; it does not absolve them of the obligation to meet hours-of-work regulations, overtime regulations, statutory holidays and so on. That's a pale excuse for the minister to proffer to this House.

I'm concerned that he apparently is so ill-advised with respect to the jurisdiction he holds in his own department that he gives out erroneous information in this House. I know he's a bit of a rookie as a politician, Mr. Chairman, but I would hope that he would learn his department over a period of two years a little more effectively.

I wonder if the minister is prepared to support the recommendations of the labour and justice committee, which were conducted, I believe, in the summer of 1975, where hearings were held around this province with representation from all political parties in this House.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The New Democratic Party government of that day did not believe in depriving the Liberal and Tory of a seat on that committee like the current government does. We allowed representation of all political persuasions and points of view. We conducted hearings with maximum dialogue with the farming community, farm workers and everyone involved in the industry. From those committee hearings around the province, a recommendation was made to this Legislature that labour standards legislation be extended to cover and protect agricultural and domestic workers. I want to hear from the minister whether he supports that recommendation, and whether he intends to recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , that action be taken in this regard.

The minister is responsible not only for the owners of farms and large food-processing chains; the minister is responsible for the workers on the farms who actually do the work and get the crops off so that British Columbia has a supply of foodstuffs. I'd like to hear what the minister's attitude is towards extending the minimum protection to these people who are the real hard workers in terms of making the agricultural industry go in this province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the comments that the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) made, I'm not sure I fully understand what he was getting at with regard to the hourly rates paid. What I can tell him is that the Federation of Agriculture, in discussing their farm income assurance programme, indicated that the rates we showed for unskilled labourers would be the prevailing rates. Now we're talking different circumstances with casual labour that comes in and works at harvest time, but bear in mind that the cost of production in the farm income assurance programme does include some of that type of labour. So I'm not just sure what you were attempting to get at. I really couldn't follow your argument, but we know that our unskilled labour rate in that model farm is $4.3 0.

You have mentioned a number of things regarding the labour and justice committee and legislation. The Minister of Labour is responsible for the legislation. I would certainly like, I guess, to become a little versed in what the farm labourer's protection is under that programme. I would certainly like to follow that up and just see what is there, what can be done and if there are any shortfalls. But I'm sure the Minister of Labour is well versed and well informed as to what changes he may wish to make in that legislation.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to make to the minister, and I'm sorry he has trouble understanding, is that it's my understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong - that the farm income assurance programme is designed to provide a basic income security to farm operators and owners. It's my understanding that it does not extend to provide any basic income security to farm workers. Is that not correct?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just to clarify it, the model farm concept shows all aspects of the cost of production that goes into producing a commodity. Included in that cost of production are costs incurred

[ Page 3129 ]

by the farmer for the farm operation. Part of those costs relate to farm workers, skilled and unskilled, so that's part of his cost of production. If it shows there as part of his cost of production, it would follow that that cost would be income in the hands of the worker who was working for him. So no, it doesn't guarantee income for the worker, but it does say that the farmer, in our consultation with the commodity group, has said: "This is what it's costing me for workers." As a result, I'm assuming that that is a cost which, of course, would become income in the hands of the worker.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is rather startling revelation. What the minister is saying is that the operators of farms are allowed to show the wages of workers as a real cost of their production. I wonder if the ministry has any way of following up, through accounting techniques or through audit, the real wages that are paid to those workers, rather than having the eventuality where an income payroll was padded to result in a higher income-assurance payment to the operator.

While I think this would be unusual circumstances - because I believe most farmers are honest people, as most business people are - to give the minister some glimpse of the extent of the problem in British Columbia, I point out that $1.5 million in wages weren't paid at all to industrial workers in the average year in B.C. There are unpaid wages of $1.5 million that the Department of Labour had to recover.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Not farming - industrial. Get on to farming. All farmers are honest.

MR. KING: That tells us something, Mr. Chairman. That tells us that while employers agree to pay a certain rate, in many cases legal action has to be taken to obtain that money. That's a legitimate and a long-existing function of the Ministry of Labour.

Within the minister's jurisdiction there is no such statutory protection for farm workers. He is saying that because we are paying a certain rate to the farm owner calculated on his cost of production, this will be voluntary inducement to pay the farm workers well. It's unrealistic, it's naive, and it has proven to be completely ineffective by the experience of the Ministry of Labour.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, that's a Ministry of Labour problem.

MR. KING: I urge the minister to consult with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who presides over the collection of unpaid wages to workers in this province. It's a very major problem.

Again I say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that the minutes of the hearings that were held around this province by the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice where testimony was presented to that committee in Terrace, in Armstrong, in Cranbrook, and areas such as that, revealed that farm workers experienced the same problems. To suggest some voluntary method of guaranteeing to them protection with respect to payment of wages, rates of pay, hours of work, overtime, statutory holidays, and so on, is the height of naiveté. I hope the minister will actively shoulder his responsibility as the Minister of Agriculture not only to protect the corporate food chains that dominate the industry, as pointed out by m y colleague, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , but also to accept the responsibility to protect the farm worker, who has traditionally held the basic food production together in this province. That's the minister's responsibility. It's not good enough to shrug it off and say: "Well, that's the Minister of Labour's terrain." Those people are in the agricultural industry and the minister should be acting as an advocate for their protection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I guess we could carry on this debate because the former Minister of Labour thinks that things can be changed overnight. Where were you in 1973 and 1974 and 1975? You came back here and you raise the same issues all over again. You haven't changed. All you can do is just talk a lot. I would say to you that this ministry is responsible for the farmers and, through the farmers, is responsible for the farm workers. We know it, and you know it. If there is any improvement to be done with farm labour legislation, I'll be more than happy to work on it.

But we're talking a number of different facts and a number of different figures. When you start talking about what we're doing with the farmers, you're almost attacking the farming community in this province. You almost attacked it five minutes ago.

So yes, I'm concerned about the farm labour and I'm concerned about the farmer.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that kind of small-time outburst is not going to divert my attention from the issue. The minister is either not listening or he's deliberately avoiding the question. Under the reign or under the term, I should say, of the New Democratic Party....

AN HON. MEMBER: Reign! (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Well, forgive the remark. After all, my name is King, you know.

The fact is that the foundation was laid for legislative protection for farm workers and domestics. If the minister asks what was done, I'll draw it to his attention.

For the first time in history, Mr. Chairman, farm

[ Page 3130 ]

workers were allowed to organize and obtain the protection of trade unionism.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I know that. We have the first one.

MR. KING: In fact, the first agricultural unit in Canada was organized and certified in the province of British Columbia just a few weeks ago under the legislation that was brought in by our administration. We did move to extend protection to these people, as well as domestic workers.

But I want to say to the minister that we had laid the foundation through the committee meetings. We had invited and enjoyed the broadest dialogue and participation of the farm community. On the basis of that report, legislation in fact was being prepared. I ask the minister what has happened to it. I ask the minister to simply give me an indication of where his views and support are.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Were you preparing it?

MR. KING: Yes, indeed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well then, ask the Minister of Labour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister kindly wait until the member for Revelstoke is finished?

MR. KING: He's anxious to answer from his seat but he's not too articulate when he gets on his feet.

Mr. Chairman, I simply ask him: does he accept his responsibility to urge upon his cabinet colleague that protection be extended to these people who work within his jurisdiction? The legislative jurisdiction, I agree and I acknowledge is under the Minister of Labour, but the workers requiring and needing that protection reside in the Minister of Agriculture's department.

Now I don't believe that the two ministers are sulking at each other and refusing to talk to each other. It's not too much of a problem to say to the Minister of Labour: "Look, I agree that people in my jurisdiction as workers should get similar protection to industrial workers." I'm simply asking him for his attitude. I'm asking him to give a commitment to the House that he will vigorously pursue this kind of protection for farm workers. I'm not looking for political outbursts. The minister's not even very good at that. He should have listened to Phil Gaglardi on the Kamloops hotline on Webster's hotline last week. If he wants to indulge in political outbursts, I think he could stand a lot of instruction yet. I'm simply asking him what his own view is and what he's prepared to recommend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Shuswap.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get permission to stand up?

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): On this side of the House, we don't require permission, Mr. Member. I can also say, you'll be happy to know, Mr. Member, that I'm not going to speak on those things which are probably going to be coming up under the responsibilities of the agricultural standing committee. But there are one or two things that I would like to bring up to the minister.

One of them is the question of aid to agricultural fairs. I thank the minister for supplying grants on a yearly basis - relatively small grants - for the fairs in my riding. But it seems to me that there are other things that are necessary. We really need a long-term programme so that those organizations which would like to embark on something that was going to cost a substantial amount of money over a period of time, would have some assurance that the yearly grants from the department would be forthcoming over a long period of time. They could plan in advance for greater capital expenditures than they can at the moment.

MR. LAUK: How much were the grants this year?

MR. BAWTREE: The grant to the fair in Salmon Arm, Mr. Member, was $3,000, as it was last year. This was more than they got under the previous government.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that's not true! Will you resign if that's not true?

MR. BAWTREE: The other thing that I would like to point out is that we do have some problems in this province with moving a lot of animals around from one part of the province to another because we don't have the suitable abattoirs in some areas. Vancouver Island is a good example and the interior is another example. I would suggest that we try and develop a programme which would give greater encouragement to either have federally inspected abattoirs in more areas of the province, or else try and, somehow or other, meld the two types of legislation. Have the regulations between the federally inspected abattoirs. and the provincial ones together so that they are more compatible. If this was done, then we wouldn't have to move quite as many animals all the way from Vancouver Island over to the mainland and then ship the carcasses back. This is also happening in the interior.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up one final thing. I see that the Minister, under his ARDA programme, is spending a considerable amount of

[ Page 3131 ]

money in encouraging and providing greater range opportunities in this province. I know the ranchers are most happy about this programme. But at the same time that we are doing this, we are allowing tens of thousands of acres of potential and actual grazing land in this province to deteriorate every year. I'm talking about the lands under the jurisdiction of the B.C. Hydro. I think that the minister should be very firm with B.C. Hydro and instruct them that they must retain the grazing potential on those tens of thousands of acres of land that are on their rights-of-way. Much of this land is on farmland; much of this land is on private land. Spraying with herbicides is as good and effective a way - and has been proven down through the years to be as cheap and effective a way - of doing it as any other. I would think that the minister should be encouraging Hydro to make sure that this land is available and is retained for the cattle industry.

As I say, there is no point in spending millions of dollars to bring new lands into grazing at the same time that we're allowing an equal number of acreages or maybe a great deal more to go back to its natural state under these power lines. It isn't good enough just to think that we are going to periodically go in there with a power saw and cut down these trees as they get too large, because that doesn't improve the grazing in that area.

There's only one thing that'll do it, and that's either cultivation - and much of this land is too steep to cultivate - or the use of herbicides to control the brush and the trees on this right-of-way.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the minister would take these three under his advisement.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, we did increase the aid to agriculture fairs this year from $3,000 to $5,000 on class C fairs, and from $8,000 to $10,000 on class B fairs. We also have prize money and funds for judging up to a maximum of $3, 5 00.

Going through the years, we don't have a long-term commitment. It's a comment that I think is valid - where you're looking at expanding a capital improvement on a fair, maybe we could look at a longer-term approach. We have - and I have a list of them here - a number of fairs that are being assisted on an annual basis, but they do have to apply annually. So it's something we might look at.

Federally inspected abattoirs are a problem. As I mentioned earlier, my staff are having negotiations with the federal officials to attempt to get federal inspection throughout the area. It would then be an hourly cost, but we would have federally inspected plants across the province.

Your comments about B.C. Hydro certainly would warrant investigation in regard to the fact that they should maintain cleared rights-of-way by seeding or by using herbicides to keep them clear for grazing purposes, which is what you're concerned about. They're overgrowing and as a result the cattle can't use it.

MR. LEVI: I just wanted to remind the minister that he had an awful lot to say about Swan Valley Foods in the press. We've got two very loud-mouthed ministers over there who want to talk about Swan Valley - one is the Minister of Agriculture and the other one is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs - and neither of them said anything. Are you going to talk to us about Swan Valley Foods or have you got something to hide? You've been asked about five times this afternoon. You've had a lot to chip away at. Are you going to discuss Swan Valley Foods? You've been asked to comment on it, so let's hear from you.

Interjections.

MR: STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I know I have your attention, but I don't seem to have anyone else's.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I bang this little gavel perhaps they'll come to attention. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . . . . We don't often see you here, sir; we're delighted you're present this afternoon. Perhaps you could be quiet while the Member for Nanaimo continues on vote 93.

MR. STUPICH: I would associate myself with your remarks with respect to the Minister of Education, except for the part where you say you're delighted to see him here, I agree in every other respect.

I'd like to come back, though, for a moment to this business of egg quota, Mr. Chairman, that I raised earlier. To my mind the minister did not give a satisfactory answer. I ask again as to why he stood idly by - or perhaps sat idly by - and agreed to an increase in the maximum quota.

He said it's not cases any more; it's birds. But I believe it used to be approximately 15,000, and the maximum has now gone up to 20,000. I deny that there is any increase in efficiency in going from a 15,000 to a 20,000-bird farm. I submit the only thing that has happened since then, to the best of my knowledge, is that the marketprice for egg quota has gone from some $500 a case up to $2,000. The only tangible result from allowing that increase to take place has been that those producers who previously had a 200-case quota have seen the value of their quota go from some $400 or $500 a case to $2,000 a case. Their quota alone on the market is now worth $300,000 more than it was before.

Now I ask again, Mr. Chairman: what did the minister have in mind when he allowed that change to take place with his appointed board? Does he have in

[ Page 3132 ]

mind allowing that figure to go higher yet?

MRS. WALLACE: I am quite happy to yield to the minister, if he wishes to answer the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) .

I've been very disappointed this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped that the minister was going to have some answers for us, but instead we have seen a minister who has waffled and been vague about every single point that has been raised. When we talked about the standing committee and the fact that the Liberal and Conservative leaders were not able to sit on that committee, the minister indicated that it was okay, it was a technicality. He wouldn't stand up, Mr. Chairman, and say one way or the other that he was in favour of that or against it. He hid behind the technicality and he indicated to this House that he was happy to see the select standing committees of this House operate on the same basis as a game of Russian roulette. It's a very big disappointment to me, Mr. Chairman, that that minister would take that stand.

And then we come to farm income assurance. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked the minister if he would make a firm commitment to the farmers of this province that he supported the concept of farm income assurance. He would not give that assurance, Mr. Chairman. He said that something would be in place, something would happen, but he gave no firm assurance that we would in fact have the farm income assurance programme in place. This was a disappointment to the members on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. It was a personal disappointment to me because I had hoped that minister was going to change the tack that was indicated by the Premier when he said not too long ago that farm income assurance was not an invitation to feed at the public trough.

That's the attitude that this government is taking and that's the attitude that this minister has failed to correct. He has failed to come out and say that he disagrees with those kinds of statements, Mr. Chairman. It's an extreme disappointment and a very discouraging development as far as the farm community of this province goes.

MR. LAUK: It's an attack on the honest farmers of this province - that's what it is.

MRS. WALLACE: He has indicated he's not opposed to the concept of marketing. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it's not good enough for the minister of the Crown who is charged with the responsibility of protecting the farmers' rights in this province. It's not good enough, Mr. Chairman.

The records show that the farm sector has continuously received the smallest portion of the economic pie in the province of British Columbia. It also shows, Mr. Chairman, that the prices have held stable. The farmer has not used his marketing board and he cannot use his marketing board to up prices above the going price. There is no way that that can be done.

A recent survey taken by the federal government by Galfarb Consultants indicated that only 8 per cent of the people across Canada knew what a marketing board was. It was better than that in British Columbia; it was 14 per cent. But only 8 per cent across Canada and only 14 per cent of the people of British Columbia knew what a marketing board was, what its purpose was, how it was formed. People thought that it was, you know, a provincial body. They thought it was a federal government body. They thought it was private enterprise. But only 8 per cent realized that it was the farmer's method of controlling his production and his supply.

If you think, Mr. Chairman, and if that minister thinks that farmers are about to give up that right, I suggest that you're very mistaken.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

APPENDIX

S9 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following -question:

Which bonds of the Crown agencies, for which the Minister is fiscal agent, are denominated for repayment as to capital and interest in United States dollars or other foreign currency, and in what years, and in what amounts, do the principal repayments come due?

The Hon. E. W. Wolfe stated that in his opinion the reply should be in the form of a return and that he had no objection to laying such a return upon the Table of the House, and thereupon presented such Return.