[ Page 3165 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Tampering with public accounts committee witness. Mr. Stupich –– 3167

Mr. Lauk –– 3167

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Fourth quarterly financial report. Mr. Barrett –– 3168

Government participation in traps experiment. Mrs. Dailly –– 3169

Hiring for British Columbia Games. Mr. King –– 3170

Payment of legal costs of McKenzie commission witnesses. Mr. King –– 3170

Industrial development on Cowichan Bay. Mrs. Wallace –– 3171

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 93. On vote 96.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3171 Ms. Brown –– 3190

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3173 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3190

Ms. Sanford –– 3173 Mrs. Wallace –– 3191

Ms. Brown –– 3174 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3191

Mr. Mussallem –– 3177 Mr. Skelly –– 3192

Mr. King –– 3178 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3193

Ms. Brown –– 3178 Mr. Lloyd –– 3194

Mr. Skelly –– 3182 Mr. Skelly –– 3195

Hon. Mr. Hewitt 3184 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3195

Mr. Cocke –– 3185 Mr. Stupich –– 3195

On the amendment to vote 93. Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3195

Mr. Cocke –– 3185 Mr. Levi –– 3196

Mr. Lea –– 3186 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3196

Mr. Lauk –– 3187 Mr. Barnes –– 3196

Mr. Barrett –– 3189 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3197

Division on the amendment –– 3190 On vote 97.

On vote 94. Mr. Stupich –– 3197

Mrs. Wallace –– 3190 Hon. Mr. Hewitt 3197

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3190 Division on vote 97 –– 3198

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers,

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it's a rare opportunity for me to introduce first of all a colleague, then a guest, and then some visitors. First of all, the colleague. He's a former member of this House, a prominent British Columbian and one who has given a great deal of public service to this province as an MLA for many, many years - Tony Gargrave, formerly the MLA for Mackenzie.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a visitor. She's a former member of our press gallery and one who has gone on to greater things, something which is infrequent among that group. Miss Linda Hughes, who is visiting us today is on leave as a reporter from the Edmonton Journal, after having won the prestigious Southam fellowship for further studies in Toronto. Everything that I can say about it is positive except the location of the further studies. We wish her well.

And, Mr. Speaker, in the galleries are a number of people who have come to Victoria to see how the people's business is done. They're hoping and praying that the business of the people will be done well and that their interests will be served. These are people who are protesting against certain legislation. They are Elaine Murray, Helen Bodner, Florence Hawkinson, Rubi Ritley, Bob Newman and Lea Brooker, and I ask the House to welcome them and wish them success in their petition.

HON. F.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I have the pleasure to introduce four visitors in the gallery who are here representing the Vancouver-Little Mountain Community Resources Board. They visited me in my office earlier this morning and here is their chairman, Mrs. Margaret Mitchell; Betty Backman, who is a delegate from the Vancouver Resources Board on the Community Resources Board; Cyril Miller, who is co-ordinator for the Canada Works programme, and Dr. Mutannah. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I also have the pleasure to introduce a number of guests; Mary Duchenes, Connie Kehoe, Mrs. Chalmers, Roxanne Cernos and Kay Carson. They also are in Victoria protesting against the very brutal demolition of the Vancouver Resources Board by the government. I welcome them to Victoria.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the members this afternoon visitors in our gallery who are the executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association: President Cliff Adkins; Dave Kendall; Rubymay Parrott; Eileen Fletcher; the chief factotum of the office in Vancouver, Dr. Henry Armstrong; and, of course, Mr. Alan Nicholls, who is here every day.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, may I also welcome as an old friend and colleague Mr. Tony Gargrave. He had the most infectious laugh in the House and 111 be very disappointed this afternoon if we don't hear it at least once.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I have the honour to introduce six people who were part of the demonstration here today against Bill 65: Mr. John Turvey; Lois Vickery; Vrishki Lund; Don Rosenbloom; Linda Wheelf; and Jean Walker. Would the House make them welcome?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming the members of the Vancouver Resources Board who are here participating in the demonstration against Bill 65. That includes the president, Mr. Ron Fenwick; the government's appointee, Pam Glass; Alderperson Darlene Marzaril- Mary Ann Fowler; and David Pratt.

Also among the group, Mr. Chairman, and making a stand for democracy in this province, are David Schreck, the regional manager of the Vancouver Resources Board, and John Linn, who is the publicity director of the Vancouver Resources Board.

MRS, B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): It gives me great pleasure today to introduce six visitors from Vancouver who are here in support of the continuation of the Vancouver Resources Board. They are: Laura Sing-, Mark Paul; Pat Feldhammer; Gert Schmidt; Lynn Rush; and Gurdip Attewell. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming six members of the same group who are here to take part in a demonstration opposing what could only be termed as a legislative holocaust by that group. The people I'd like to introduce and have you welcome are Bonnie Won, -, Angie Dennis, Margaret White, Gayla Reed, Susan Hoeppner and Darlene Jewitt.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Together with my colleagues I'm proud to introduce to the House today six people who are standing up and fighting for democracy in the social services in this province. They're here putting their names and in some cases their careers on the line to protest the brutal destruction of the Vancouver Resources Board. Their names are Elizabeth Harris, Valerie Sys, Harry Innes, Laurie Shaffer, Craig Turner and Gerry Windsor. I ask the House to make them welcome.

[ Page 3166 ]

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce some persons who are over here today in an effort to stem the letting of the lifeblood of the Vancouver Resources Board. They are members of the staff of the resources board, and some are members of the Vancouver Status of Women: Marie Deninson; Carol Bruning; Veronica Thompson; Dave Aquila; and Len Custock. I would ask the members to welcome them.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce six people who were fortunate enough today to get a bus, considering the curtailed bus service to this city. Their names are Jean Bird, Lorri Rudland, Johanna Hertog, Libby Davies, Bruce Erickson and Jean Swanson. They are with the same group that have been introduced before.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to welcome all those people that have been missed and are not demonstrating against anything.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome five people who are here to demonstrate against Bill 65: Jean Walker; Marie Deninson; Joyce Rideaux; Bruce Yorke and Mark Budgin.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): This is just a note to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford): had he been out there this afternoon, lie would have had a list as well, I'm sure, because there were no people from that side of the House present when that group was out there speaking.

But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I also would like to have an opportunity to introduce a few people.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Who was there, Mr. Member -you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Yes - hiding in the bushes.

MR. BARNES: Did you make a speech?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the hon. member proceed with introductions and not speeches?

MR. BARNES: I'd like to introduce Margaret DeWees, Tony Colishaw, Bernie Lynch, Mike McNeely, George Martin and Anna Potter.

MR. L B. KAHL (Esquimalt): I'd like the House to welcome some people who are here demonstrating today also. I'd like them to welcome Norm Levi, Karen Sanford, Emery Barnes, Charlie Barber....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member knows the rule of the House, and that is that you do not refer to other members of the House by their names.

MS. BROWN: He does not know the rules of the House.

MR. KAHL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My sincere apologies.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo) Mr. Speaker, I too would like to ask the members of the House to welcome some visitors in the gallery today: Angel Jarvis, Ethel McIntyre, Florida Garneau, Nancy Bosomworth, Louise Scott and Pam Chestnut. In welcoming them, I would ask the members to join with me in wishing them every success in trying to convince the government that the way to deal with opposition is not by use of the guillotine.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): There are people out here today who are demonstrating and I would like to introduce a few to the House. Part of the concern of this group here today is the brutal decertification of a trade union through the introduction of this Bill 65. The people who I would like to introduce, Mr. Speaker, are Chris Archer, Brenda Bolster, Harold Fry, Jackie Gillot, Santosh Midha and Ursula Wintrup.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, from my constituency today are three people who are visiting. They came over with the demonstrators because they, too, are very concerned about Bill 65: Mr. and Mrs. Svenningsen and their son Neil. Would the House please welcome them this afternoon.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): It's nice to be reminded by the member for Esquimalt what we're here for. We are here on this side of the House to protest any kind of injustice that takes place. We are fortunate today to be assisted by almost 500 people outside. I would like the House to welcome Irene Behtmann, Doris Elliot, Lean Murphy, Darlene Martin, Chris Eve and Maxine Wesa. They are here to protest the legislation in the time-honoured democratic fashion that I'm sure the members over there would not like to cut off.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House people who are protesting nothing more than my absence from

[ Page 3167 ]

home: my wife Audrey; her mother and father, Mr. and Mrs. James; and her sister, Mrs. Hogg, from Ottawa. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the public accounts committee, I have a matter of privilege. I have a statement I would like to present. In line with a request from the committee, I addressed a letter to Mr. M.C. Norris, dated March 24,1977, inviting him to phone my office to agree on a date for him to appear before the committee. A copy of the letter is attached to my statement.

Mr. Norris' office phoned my secretary April 1,1977, and, considering the possibility of an Easter recess, agreed with my secretary that he would appear before the public accounts committee on June 7,1977. During the Easter recess, when it became obvious that the House would not be sitting on June 7, my secretary phoned Mr. Norris' office and informed him that the meeting would have to be rescheduled. When word was received as to the reopening of the legislative sitting, my secretary phoned Mr. Norris' office and arranged for the~ meeting to go ahead on Tuesday, June 28, at 9 a.m.

On Monday, June 27,1977, at approximately 3:30 p.m. I was informed by Mr. George Kerster, MLA for Coquitlam and acting secretary of the committee, that none of the Social Credit committee members would be able to attend the meeting on Tuesday morning. In discussion with Mr. Kerster, I volunteered to contact Mr. Norris' office. A copy of Mr. Kerster's memo is also attached.

I went to my office to phone Mr. Norris' office, only to learn that he had just, minutes before, phoned my secretary to confirm his appearance before the committee on Tuesday morning. I established that all four members of the NDP caucus would be able to attend the public accounts committee meeting and replied by memo to Mr. Kerster to the effect that the meeting would be proceeding as scheduled. This memo was dictated at 4:30 p.m. and sent to Mr. Kerster during the evening sitting. A copy of that memo is attached as well, Mr. Speaker.

At the time of the dinner adjournment I was informed by my secretary that Mr. Norris' office had phoned again at 5:30 p.m. to inquire as to whether or not the meeting would be proceeding on schedule. The meeting was reconfirmed.

The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday. Although several Social Credit caucus members of the committee were near and some looked in, none of them attended the meeting. Mr. Norris did not appear. At approximately 9:45 a.m. I received another call from Mr. Norris' office to the effect that he was en route back to Vancouver since he had heard that the meeting was cancelled. I was since informed that he had heard this from Mr. Kerster's office.

It is clear to me that Mr. Norris, a duly summoned witness, was improperly persuaded from attending a duly constituted meeting of the public accounts committee. Therefore there is prima facie case of breach of privilege to be considered by Mr. Speaker. If you find it to be a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker, I would propose to move the following substantive motion: that this matter, namely that Mr. Norris was improperly persuaded from attending a duly constituted meeting of the public accounts committee, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills for its consideration and report back to the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: For what purpose is the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre standing at this time?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I wish only to refer to two or three citations in two different editions of Sir Erskine May, if I may proceed, in support of the hon. member for Nanaimo.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Would you quote your citations?

MR. LAUK: My first citation, Mr. Speaker, is Sir Erskine May, 17th edition, page 129, under the heading: "Tampering with Witnesses." I refer you to the first paragraph thereof:

"To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either House or any committee of either House or to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege."

HON. MR. McGEER: Has the motion been ruled out of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have not ruled the motion either in or out of order. It would be improper to do so, even at this time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A question of privilege is raised before this House; the member stated his question of privilege. He also stated the motion that he would be prepared to move if in fact the question of privilege is found to be in order. Now there's nothing to prevent other members of the House, if they wish to advise the Speaker of certain citations within the rules of the House or within the references that we have before us, from stating those citations with respect to the question of privilege that's before us. This is what I am presently listening to.

[ Page 3168 ]

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, 17th edition, May, page 129. I have that, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The heading "Tampering with Witnesses" and specific reference, if it please Mr. Speaker, states:

"Corruption or intimidation, though a usual, is not an essential ingredient in this offence. It is equally a breach of privilege to attempt by persuasion ... of any kind to induce a witness not to attend, or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence." That's going on to page 130.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, I wish to listen to the citations.

MR. LAUK: The other citation, Mr. Speaker, is in the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. The first page to which I wish to refer is page 139 of that edition, the paragraph entitled: "Disobedience to Orders of Committees." It states: "Disobedience to the orders of a committee is a contempt . . . " and which would be an ancillary investigation arising from the member for Nanaimo's proposed motion.

I wish to also advise Mr. Speaker that other pages, 644 to 646, also are relevant in a consideration of this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: In the same edition of May, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: In the same edition of Sir Erskine May.

Finally I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the motion on page 11 of the Journals of the House for this year, January 13, where the motion empowering Mr. Chairman to summon witnesses was passed unanimously by this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, speaking to the request for a motion and the matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo, it is a matter that deserves the fullest consideration, and that I intend to give. I reserve my decision until I've had ample opportunity to investigate all of the circumstances which you have alleged in your statement to the House, because breaches of privilege, if they do occur, are serious matters and must be dealt with in that light. Therefore I will reserve a decision until I've had an ample opportunity to study your request.

In the meantime I would just make this observation to the hon. member for Nanaimo who is the chairman of the committee: I do not see that a reserved decision in any way impedes the operation of the committee on any other purpose or any other matter that may be before them or may be about to come before them.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome your taking this so seriously, and I will co-operate with you in any way at all in discussing this matter further to get at the roots of the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Oral questions.

FOURTH QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Could the Premier inform the House why the government has not yet released the fourth quarterly financial report, which is now long overdue?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I appreciate that, Mr. Premier, but last time it cost us $1,000 for make-up for you to release one of them. I just wondered if we're going through the same thing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition mention that. It cost us $80,000 to get him back into the House after the people had removed him. The quarterly financial report is something this government brought in - it had never been instituted before - to keep the people informed on the finances of the province and the Crown corporations, so they'd never be faced again with the financially disastrous news as a bombshell that they received when the last government was defeated and the accounts that had been kept hidden from them, Mr. Speaker, by that government. As such, quarterly financial reports have been released every quarter by the Finance minister (Mr. Wolfe) , Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition didn't direct his question to the right minister, but I'll help him in his error, to save time.

As he knows, there is a year-end financial report that is due. It is an audited report, and as such it will be the major report for the year-end. We are dealing now with the year-end report that's due. That traditionally used to come down in July or August until 1975, when the report was very, very late for obvious reasons, once we concluded the election. The reports will come on the regular time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: You still haven't answered the question. It's already late.

[ Page 3169 ]

MR. KING: You're covering up.

GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION

IN TRAP EXPERIMENT

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I understand that the Woodstream Corporation, which is a private trap company, requested that the B.C. government do an experiment on stress on muskrats caught in leg-hold traps. I know the minister must be aware that this company is a private American company with a branch in Canada. They produce most of the leg-hold traps for the United States and Canada.

Among other things, Mr. Speaker - and this is necessary preamble to the question - muskrats were trapped and taken from the wilds of Manitoba. They were transported to the University of B.C. Some of them were strapped to boards, put into leg-hold traps and submerged until dead. I understand that in some cases this took well over 24 hours.

Now the Woodstream Corporation contributed $2,000 and the B.C. government went ahead with this experiment at a cost of an estimated $18,000 to the B.C. taxpayer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I am of course very, very concerned about what I consider this unwarranted cruelty, but I'm also concerned on other questions. The first question I have to the minister is: why is the B.C. government using $18,000 of the taxpayers' money to do a private trap company's experiment? My second question is....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I think we have to deal with one question at a time, hon. member. If as a result of the question a supplemental is in order, I'll listen to it at that time.

MRS. DAILLY: Fine.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I've given the hon. member ample opportunity to state her original question.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I thank the hon. member for her question. The fact is that the government of British Columbia is not contributing any money to this corporation mentioned. The government of British Columbia is supporting research for more humane trapping. Indeed, we are involved in a British Columbia institution of considerable note in that work. I will recall for the House the fact that most members opposite raised the very great need for research into more humane trapping methods, and therefore we are proceeding.

MRS. DAILLY: I will accept, naturally, the minister's word that this government is not contributing directly or indirectly to this leg-hold trap testing. Is that the correct interpretation of your answer, before I proceed with the next supplementary?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I said the government of British Columbia is not contributing any money to this corporation.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the government contributing money to the experiment which was stated and asked for by the company?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the government is contributing money in several ways to experiments in public institutions in Canada for the development of a more humane trapping method, and the University of British Columbia is one such recipient.

MRS. DAILLY: Now we're aware again that the government is partaking in this very inhumane action going on at the University of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we have a B.C. resident who is one of Canada's top humane trap inventors. My question to the hon. minister is: why is your department not supporting this man instead of following along in help to this United States company?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's his name.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't have his name, but I thought the minister might know. I will provide the name for the minister. I will provide it to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is it?

MRS. DAILLY: Conibear, I believe.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to answer a question without any foundation in fact. Surely I'd be pleased to answer it in due course when the facts are provided.

[ Page 3170 ]

HIRING FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA GAMES

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I understand from press reports that a Mr. Ron Butlin has been hired to head up the British Columbia summer sports programme - and winter sports, for that matter. I wonder if the minister could explain to the House why he found it necessary to hire someone from the province of Alberta rather than many of the well-qualified athletic staff within the province of B.C.

The Premier doesn't have to counsel the minister. I would hope the minister, at that rate of pay, can answer for himself.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, in establishing the British Columbia summer and winter games, we are the last province in the country to do so. We are trying to catch up to the neglect that the province in the field of sports suffered under the previous government. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in canvassing possible candidates for the job we discussed this with British Columbians.

There was no question, including the acknowledged view among those people we met who are British Columbians, that a leader in Canada in this field is Mr. Butlin. He is a leading Canadian, and as a Canadian citizen he is certainly well qualified to lead this programme in British Columbia.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm not questioning Mr. Butlin's qualifications, but with the 100,000 British Columbians unemployed I think we can find many qualified British Columbians.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're being parochial -just parochial!

MR. KING: Will the minister answer whether a competition was conducted wherein applications for the job were invited from the general public, particularly within the province of British Columbia?

MR. BARRETT: What happened to Harry Jerome? He was qualified; he ran as a Socred.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to that member that his unemployment statistics are out of date.

MR. KING: They are heavier now!

HON. MR. BAWLF: They applied more properly and more consistently to the period in which his party was in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I've already replied to a previous question that we did indeed interview British Columbians for this job and sought the advice of leading sports groups.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. I wonder who the "we" is. Was that a political employment programme or was it done through the Public Service Commission of the provincial government?

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the Alberta games programme is under scrutiny with a view to reorganization to bring about more accountability for the public dollars that are spent? I wonder what kind of a recommendation that is to base the British Columbia programme on. And I wonder what inquiries the minister has made to the province of Alberta with respect to the organizational work done by Mr. Butlin in that province.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I met with my counterpart, Mr. Adair, the minister from Alberta, and his deputy and discussed their programme. As a matter of fact, a society which was established at arm's length from government is being disbanded in this connection. Mr. Butlin was offered a contract for a further period of five years by the government of Alberta, as they felt that he had done an outstanding job. They were most disappointed to lose him to British Columbia.

MR. KING: On another supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell me what discussion and dialogue he has had with the northern area of the province where a northern games was already established and is now subject to having the minister's heavy-handed programme superimposed upon it?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the member is obviously referring to the British Columbia Northern Winter Games for which I have attended meetings with the executive and assured them that the British Columbia Northern Winter Games will continue to have the support of the province of British Columbia. Certainly any involvement in sequence with the British Columbia Games will be a matter of their prerogative.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL COSTS

OF McKENZIE COMMISSION WITNESSES

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to the Premier. I asked a question three months ago of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . The quote was:

Counsel for the McKenzie commission has said that many employees and former employees of B.C. Rail are afraid to testify for fear they may be made to

[ Page 3171 ]

suffer. As the minister is aware, the NDP government agreed to pay all legal expenses for Mr. Joe Broadbent in the MEL Paving case based on Mr. Broadbent's written assurance that all of his actions were taken under orders of the B.C. Rail board of directors. The question is: will the present government agree to pay all legal costs on the same basis to enable Mr. Broadbent to give evidence before the McKenzie commission on B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll remind the minister of the question.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the Premier of the province cannot give this kind of undertaking. His minister has refused for three months to answer the question. This is a government of increasing coverup and secrecy! It won't answer questions!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: It has complete contempt for the question period in this House! Complete contempt and coverup! You're hiding the quarterly report, you won't answer questions - you're making a mockery out of this House!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. member who has just taken his place is showing contempt for the members of this House ...

MR. KING: I certainly have contempt for that government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ... in standing on his feet, not asking a supplemental question, but gaining the floor with the pretence that that was the purpose in mind.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

ON COWICHAN BAY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On August 18,1976, the Minister of the Environment advised the Corporation of the District of North Cowichan by letter as follows: "The policy of the government on the matter of industrial expansion in Cowichan Bay is unchanged from the status quo decision reached by the Environment and Land Use Committee in October, 1974."

In view of recent developments, Mr. Speaker, which includes such things as the Western Forest Industries and their possible development on Cowichan Bay, which includes a proposed expansion to the existing Doman sawmill, and includes the shake-and -shingle mill's application to establish itself on the south arm of Cowichan Bay, I would ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to stand behind his statement of August 18 in which he said there would be no further development in Cowichan Bay.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the question from the member changed course midway through the question; you started off with the status quo and now you're speaking about "no future development." The two are not necessarily the same, according to the interpretation of the ELUC at the time of the decision. It may require a legal interpretation as to what is meant by that recommendation, not by an order of that former Environment and Land Use Committee. There are no two people who have been able to get together that agree as to what was meant by that cryptic status quo comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll tell you what it means.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you very much; perhaps you might write it out. I would say to the member that if she is familiar with my correspondence, perhaps she might acquaint herself with the most recent correspondence to North Cowichan on the matter that relates to our present situation.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, last night in committee there was a request made to file reports, and I would like to file the following reports at this time: first of all, the Swan Valley Foods Limited Review of Operations, August, 1975, by Woods Gordon and Company; secondly, the summary of the sales efforts done by the people attempting to sell Swan Valley Foods; thirdly, the orders-in-council in which $7.5 million in debentures were authorized, S2 million loans approved and some $400,000-odd share equity in the company. Also there's a memo dated August I and August 20 - the August I memo concerning the minister's comments regarding the fact that he had not seen the report; secondly, the memo to the deputy minister advising that the Swan Valley Foods report done by Woods Gordon and Company frightened him and he would like to have it proven wrong. I would like to file these reports, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

continued.

MRS. WALLACE: I might, by leave of the House,

[ Page 3172 ]

take this opportunity to introduce a friend who has come into the gallery since the opening ceremonies. Mrs. Isabel Williams, together with two of her children, is sitting in the gallery, and I would like to welcome her to the gallery at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a reminder to all members: leave cannot be granted in committee; however, the hon. member has had her way.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are most understanding.

I would like to introduce a different subject into the minister's estimates this afternoon. It has to do with two different Acts: the Pound District Act and the Trespass Act. I don't know whether or not the minister is aware of the sort of interpretation that is being made of these Acts and the effect it's having on various people concerned. It's perhaps not entirely under his jurisdiction, but I just really don't know where to raise this particular problem other than under these estimates.

The situation, Mr. Chairman, is that the Pound Act specifies that when a pound district is declared, there are certain responsibilities placed upon a person having livestock in that area. Of course, as the minister is aware, that livestock cannot range at large. If it does, if there is a pound-keeper, there are certain fees assessed - $25 per head or something like this -for the person involved to bring the cattle back on his own property. The problem occurs that there is nothing said in the Pound Act about the fact that the farmer is responsible for the fence.

When we come to the fencing, we go to the Trespass Act, which indicates that any line fence is a joint responsibility. This situation is very difficult where you have the interface of the rural and the urban. There is a great problem in trying to enforce the Pound Act without the fence, and the farmer indicates - and rightly so - that he is only responsible for building the fence providing his neighbours decide to build a fence also.

I recognize that it's a difficult situation, and I'm not suggesting that we should force the farmer to build the whole fence; but I am suggesting that there seems to be a bit of a gap there. There is no provision to ensure that a fence must be built, that there has to be a fence. This could be an instance of several private individuals adjoining a farm. It's part of the whole interface problem, and I don't have any easy answers. But I wanted to point out this question to you to show that there really is some real difficulty in trying to enforce those two pieces of legislation and that there certainly is a great deal of misunderstanding.

The RCMP, for example, are telling people that the Pound District Act provides protection, and yet the people in the minister's department - the agricultural representatives - are saying that there is no way that the farmer is obliged to build a fence under the Trespass Act. So there is the problem of interpretation of these two pieces of legislation, and I think it's a public relations job as much as anything perhaps. But it is a problem that is occurring out there and it doesn't relate just to the farm population I know; it's a problem that relates to any situation where you have this interface of rural and urban. As I say, it's probably as much a problem of misunderstanding and PR as any other specific thing.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the $5 million. In his remarks the other night the minister indicated that - "I can tell you that from January 1 to the end of March we paid out under the programme" - there had been no cancellation of that programme for the aid to developing countries. I have here a photostat of a letter written to one of the applying organizations. It's dated February 18,1977, and it's signed by the deputy minister. It reads, Mr. Chairman, as follows:

"Your project application for funding from the B, C. agricultural aid fund has been received. The present situation with the fund is that Treasury Board has requested a hold on further grants to non-government organizations submitted during the current fiscal year to the end of March, 1977. At the moment we are seeking a clarification of this policy from the Treasury Board."

Now to me, Mr. Chairman, this doesn't sound like there was no discontinuation of that fund. It says: "The present situation with the fund is that the Treasury Board has requested a hold on further grants." It goes on to say:

"In the meantime we are holding all project applications now on stream. We also request that no further projects be submitted for the time being. When clarification has been received on government policy and funding for 1977-78, a further communication will be sent to all organizations."

And that. communication is signed by your Deputy Minister. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Now I think, despite what the minister said, that there has been a holdback; that is why the amount expended in the last fiscal year was lower than the amount expended in the previous fiscal year. As I pointed out last night, how can you expect the voluntary organizations to continue to put together their programmes and to raise their funding in the face of this kind of a letter from the ministry responsible for handling the government's share of the funding? That is why that project was lower last year. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the projects the minister so kindly outlined the other night for my information were, in fact, picking up those older

[ Page 3173 ]

applications which were already there and waiting and should have been processed in the preceding fiscal year, rather than being left over until this fiscal year.

There is, it would appear, no intent on the part of this government or this ministry to carry out the concept of the Aid to Developing Countries Fund, which was established not by the NDP but by the former W.A.C. Bennett government in 1969. It was added to - it's correct - by the NDP, but times have changed.

The minister has said, Mr. Chairman, that there hasn't been a cutback and that despite the $5 million being down, they're still spending more. Mr. Chairman, in effect it is a cutback because they are not allowing any more money than would be the normal amount allowed for inflation. Excluding the $5 million cutback, that's all that budget amounts to.

Along with that, we have two more income assurance programmes on the books and hopefully we're going to have more. We've had no assurance from the minister that that's forthcoming. He has given us a lot of vague comments and no firm assurance. The dollars don't look good, Mr. Chairman. They don't look good for the farmers and the ranchers in British Columbia and they don't look good for the countries in the Third World which are very much in need of the kind of programmes that we're talking about. Instead, we get vague assurances about some food that's going to be distributed.

I have another letter here, Mr. Chairman. It's not from the minister's office, but it is from one of the back-bench members, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) . It's a two-page letter, and it tells the whole story about the cutback of the $5 million. This is the solution that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds offers. He says:

"Assistance can still be made available in areas struck by disaster, and the decision to grant assistance in these instances will be made by cabinet on the basis of need. It is the government's plan to provide foodstuffs rather than cash where the need warrants."

Is that the government's plan, Mr. Minister - to provide foodstuffs rather than cash? Is that the interpretation that this government is putting on that very valuable and well-founded programme to provide foodstuffs? Those are the programmes that have caused so many problems, Mr. Chairman, in the whole concept of aid to developing countries where we've had tons of food going to waste on the docks, rotting for lack of facilities to transport, not being able to got those foods to the people who need them. There has been problem after problem.

It's been recounted many times. I don't need to go into the record of those kinds of things where the people who actually use those foods are not the people who need them, or else they just simply waste or they're eaten by rats. Tons of grain have been eaten by rats on the wharves and on the docks and in the boats around those Third World countries where the docking facilities and the storage and transport facilities bear no relation to the kind of thing that we know about here in North America.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that this minister has reneged on his duties and has not stood up to the cabinet. He has not stood up for the kind of programmes that have been established and have been a credit to the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to the Pound District Act and the Trespass Act, as the member knows, the area is petitioned. If there's no objection, then the area goes under a pound district. I'm interested in your comments in regard to the confusion. I think maybe we could look at that to see how it could be improved. I recognize it's not always equitable for the farmer to fence in his stock, probably just because of the size and the lack of neighbours in the area. I would suggest that we would certainly take those comments that you've made, and my staff have made notes of them.

With regard to the aid to developing countries, the comments I made the other day still stand. If you recall, that letter that you just read out was a "hold in abeyance" seeking clarification from the Treasury Board in order to proceed with the applications we had received. From January I to March 31,1977, we paid out $401,199. From April 1 to May, I believe, the committee has met and dealt with applications which I referred to last night totalling $121,000. You're quite correct in the comments that you've made. The Premier stated during his estimates, I believe, when the member for Vancouver-Burrard raised it, that we would certainly look at world disasters - incidents of disaster in countries - and give them assistance.

In regard to foodstuffs going where they were needed, I can tell you that under the old programme the same thing was done because early this year there was $40,000 worth of milk powder which was sent to the victims of the civil war in Lebanon. That came out of my ministry's estimates under that programme in products of B.C. - milk powder going to people that were affected by that civil war.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to follow up for just a moment on the minister's statements with respect to the $5 million for aid to developing countries.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a measure of the maturity and the compassion of any society is the government's willingness to recognize developing countries and to do everything possible to assist that development. But it's more than that. It's acting in Canada's own self-interest and in British Columbia's own self-interest to ensure that the groups that are

[ Page 3174 ]

working in an attempt to aid the developing countries are, in fact, encouraged and promoted by that government.

Mr. Chairman, it is in our own self-interest, because unless we are willing to give the millions and millions of people around the world who are currently facing starvation day after day after day the kind of assistance that's needed now, those people are not going to sit back forever and look at this wasteful, affluent society and sit there and accept it.

Mr. Chairman, it's exceedingly important that we put the kind of emphasis - that is absolutely essential at this time - on aid to developing countries. But here we have a government penny-pinching and the treasury holding back, worrying about whether or not we can spend the small amount of money that has been set aside at this time. It's narrow-minded, Mr. Chairman, and it certainly doesn't show the kind of compassion that I think a government should show in this day and age.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the member show under what vote perhaps this should be discussed?

MS. SANFORD: We're doing the administrative responsibilities of the minister, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just looking under any vote in this particular ministry for aid to developing countries.

MS. SANFORD: Aid to developing countries, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not been able to locate it. I'm just asking for assistance. Perhaps the minister could explain.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just for clarification, the vote comes under vote 94. If you look at "deputy minister's office - agricultural aid to developing countries, " and then I believe.... If you look at last year's estimates, Mr. Chairman, you'll see under vote 97 the $5 million; this year there is nothing in that vote. I think you can see it there at the bottom of vote 97.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for assisting the Chair. I would like to make a suggestion that this particular debate perhaps should better take place then under vote 94. Does that meet with the committee's approval?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the debate centering around this whole issue has been going on for several days under this minister. We've attempted again and again to point out how important it is that we show the kind of compassion that a government of this day and age should be showing to the developing world and, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed on that basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. SANFORD: Earlier this year we saw religious groups and concerned citizens throughout the province put on quite a campaign which they called "Ten Days For World Development." At that time, these groups were attempting to educate the people of British Columbia with respect to the food problems, the overpopulation and the land-use problems that exist in developing countries. One of the things that they were attempting to do was to convince the public of the importance of this particular issue so that the public, in turn, would make their views known to the provincial government. It was in the hope that perhaps we could get this $5 million, which is now missing out of this year's estimates, back into those estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I appeal to this minister to fight for additional moneys to be put into that vote and to also encourage the groups that are now concerned about the developing world. I ask it in the name of compassion, of understanding, of maturity and, finally, in the name of the interests of all of the people in Canada.

MS. BROWN: Speaking on vote 93, Mr. Chairman, I'm reading a book about some people who live on a legendary planet called Ata. One of the strange things about this planet was that they discovered that there wasn't enough food to go around for everyone. So they got together and met with the wise person and said: "If we divide the food and decide who should eat and who can't eat, then half of our people would be able to eat and the other half would die." The wise person said to them, Mr. Chairman, (under this vote) that the sensible thing to do would be for each person to feed someone else rather than feeding themselves. They discovered that when they embarked on this programme of feeding the other person rather than feeding themselves, everybody got something to eat and everyone survived.

Now this is modern, but in fact it's very old. It's the story of the loaves and the fishes again, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? It's the old recommendation about casting your bread on the waters, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? And really this is all, if you put the aid to developing countries fund in its historical perspective, that this fund has been doing. For this government to wipe out this fund is a way, in a spiritual as well as economic sense, to break with our historical past. As a nation and as a province we've always had this link with the rest of the world. When the Minister of Finance stood up two years ago in this House and read his budget speech and said that that government

[ Page 3175 ]

was going to recapture the $5 million - which was our way of casting our bread on the waters and our way of dealing with the loaves and the fishes, Mr. Chairman - it was a break. It was a break with our historical and spiritual past. It was to our shame and we are diminished as a result of that decision.

Now the minister tells us that by putting $350,000 in the fund under vote 94, Mr. Chairman, really nothing has changed. Yet I have on my desk a letter that was written in June - not in March but in June. It was written to someone who was applying to the fund. It says that the decision to curtail the funding was part of an overall programme to reduce expenditures. There is a contradiction here. How can the minister in June write a letter admitting that there was a reduction in expenditures, and still in the month of June assure us that there hasn't been a reduction in expenditures?

In fact, there has been a reduction in expenditures. The $5 million which is going to disappear from vote 97 is really what we're talking about. The fact that $350,000 suddenly appears under vote 94 doesn't deal with the reality of that fund being there and the interest accruing to that fund to be drawn on by those countries that need it.

There's something else, Mr. Chairman, that I don't know whether the minister is aware of or not. But the money that used to come out of the fund to these countries didn't ever finance completely and totally any of the projects. It was just a part of it. A part of the money used to come from the federal government; a part of the money used to come from the community at large through the Miles for Millions march. As you know, Mr. Chairman, down through the ages fewer and fewer people participated in the march, with the result that this year the decision was made to terminate the march. What that means is that the sum of money that used to come out of the Miles for Millions budget to supplement the money that came from the aid fund is now lost.

Now what a compassionate government would do would be to absorb the money that used to come from the Miles for Millions in with the aid fund. But in order to do that, you can't diminish the fund; you have to expand it. There's nowhere under this vote to indicate that the government has taken that into account.

Every single one of the agencies that the minister has mentioned - Save the Children, the YMCA, the Tibetan Refugees, UNICEF for the children, Oxfam to deal with food, CARE, CUSO, Crossroads -depended on the Miles for Millions to supplement what they got from the provincial government. That money is now gone; it no longer exists. So when we appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, we appeal to him with this knowledge of which he's probably not yet aware. There is a desperate need for money to be added to that fund rather than for money to be taken away from it.

The Premier has said that in case of an emergency, in case of a disaster, there will be money forthcoming. But hunger is a disaster, poverty is an emergency. It's not a matter of waiting until hunger reaches the proportions where people are dying and then saying we will add money to the fund or waiting until poverty reaches the proportions where people are dying and then adding money to the fund. The fund was there. If that fund is replaced, Mr. Chairman, just the interest that accrues to it each year would be available so that the aid could be continual and the battle against poverty and the battle against hunger eventually could be won. But we're not going to win it if it's done on an ad hoc basis like the song says: "Little bit of business here, little bit of business there." It can't be won that way. There's got to be the continuity. That's what deals with it down through the years, Mr. Chairman - chipping away at it, helping people to help themselves.

That's what the fund is all about. It's not a package of powdered milk; it's not a package of powdered potatoes. It's not some dried codfish, Mr. Chairman. The fund used to go to help people to help themselves.

We have a report here from Dr. Lotta Hitschmanova. In her Christmas report she's talking about the egg circles in Lesotho:

"We offered money to build egg circles, which are really marketing co-operatives, entirely run by 1,450 village women in nine districts. According to the Lesotho Ministry of Agriculture, this project is the most spectacular success on record in the field of food production. It has made eggs an excellent and cheap protein substitute for meat, which is very expensive, available in rural and urban areas at a very reasonable cost."

She ends it by saying:

"We are grateful to the government of British Columbia, which generously funded part of this imaginative project."

This is the kind of project that is going to die, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the decision made by that government to, in its own words, "recapture" - they are at war with poor people and with poverty - the $5 million from which the money was available to help this kind of project.

Mr. Chairman, I have another letter here from someone who is involved with the churches. She wrote to the Premier of this province, saying that the $5 million was a good start in providing funds for very important purposes and asking that this be continued. She said: "As a member of the Anglican Church of Canada, I have been distressed that it has not been possible for us to obtain matching grants from the British Columbia government for donations made by our members to the primate's world relief

[ Page 3176 ]

and development fund." This is something that the fund used to do which has now been discontinued because the money has been cut back.

There are so many people, Mr. Chairman. Here is another letter to the Hon. W. Bennett and it says:

"May I add my voice to those who wish this provincial assistance - both the original perpetual fund of $5 million and the subsequent yearly grants - to be continued? My reasons are simple. We are tremendously well off by comparison. If inflation and world economic crises have hit us, the result is a mere scratch compared with the wounds inflicted on poorer countries where the result is the death of thousands of people."

I don't see how the minister can write a letter to someone in view of this kind of information and say: "We're really trying to reduce our expenditures. Once things are a little bit better, we'll see what we can do about it." We're not dealing with paper. We're not dealing with things, Mr. Chairman. We're dealing with people.

A group of people met with the minister and presented a brief to him. These are the same people the minister mentioned: CARE, World Vision, Food for the Hungry, UNICEF, Red Cross, Save the Children, the Tibetan Refugees Fund, the Canadian-Vietnamese Friendship Society, the Mennonite Society, the YMCA, Oxfam, CUSO, the Unitarian Service Committee, Frontiers Foundation and the Wycliffe Bible Society.

Mr. Chairman, they presented a brief in which they dealt in some detail with the B.C. agricultural aid and disaster fund. They talked about the history of it and the fact that it actually grew out of the compassion of former Premier Bennett in 1968. He was the one who originally recognized our need to have this link with the rest of the world in terms of casting our bread upon the waters. He established this $5 million fund. They talked about the fact that when the previous New Democratic Party came in, it increased the fund. They went on to talk about the decision in 1976 on the part of this present government to disband the $5 million but to leave the $350,000 in the fund.

They pointed out in quite excellent detail why this was just not good enough. They talked about the development relief and said that only in rate or emergency situations did the fund support relief efforts but was, in fact, concentrated on projects which have an ultimate goal of allowing the recipients to improve their chances of self-sufficiency, particularly in food.

This is the old saying, Mr. Chairman, that you are familiar with: give a man a loaf of bread, you feed him for a day; give him the tools and you feed not just the man, you feed the whole of the community for a lifetime. In fact, if you give those tools to a woman you can feed more than the community for a lifetime.

It goes on to say that the fund and the non-government organizations have worked very well together for the past eight years. Both have felt and acted upon the advisability of offering aid, Mr. Chairman, rather than relief, with hopelessness.

Then it deals with this business of shipping food instead of aid, and it brings out a very important point. Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that when we as a nation give food to a country, they have to pay the shipping costs? Did you know that? That's right. We say you can have some powdered milk or you can have some wheat or whatever, but you have to pay to get it from here to where you are. What this group of people pointed out was that the shipping cost of the food, in many instances, is equal almost exactly to the total cash contribution.

There are so many instances where the food is available and the country is too poor to pay to ship it from here to there. That is one of the strange things about when happens when we give food. But it deals with other misconceptions too, such as the fact that any feeding is better than no feeding; if the government gives free food that it goes to the needy; and these kinds of things.

That's not what these countries are asking for. They don't want to be fed continually by other countries. What they're talking about is the ability to develop themselves and the ability to feed themselves. That is what their concern is about and that is the reason why they ask that the government send aid, Mr. Chairman, rather than food - aid to help them develop their own resources rather than aid in the form of charitable donations.

The fund pointed out, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, that in fact what comes out of the aid is usually just a small portion of the total value of the project. It points out that there are also contributions from the private sector in British Columbia, that CIDA also makes contributions, and that in fact the federal or state government of the country which is in receipt of the funds also makes contributions. So this is really a co-operative venture on the part of a number of groups.

We are just part of the cycle; we're just one spoke in the wheel, Mr. Chairman, of what makes the thing go round. We are pulling that out; we're damaging the ability of this kind of system to work. We're not alone. We can't act unilaterally, but we have. We've made a unilateral decision that we are going to - in our words or in the government's words - recapture this fund, wipe it out. That leaves the community at large, the federal government, CIDA, the state government of the country in receipt of it, and the villages themselves in receipt of it with that hole there. That piece of the pie is missing, and that is the memory of British Columbia that is being damaged

[ Page 3177 ]

out there.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister once more that what we're talking about is not that there is presently $350,000 under vote 94; that is not the topic of discussion. What we are talking about is that $5 million, which was set aside in 1968 by the previous Social Credit government and the previous Premier Bennett with the implicit instructions that the interest from that particular sum of money was to be distributed to projects - not to people, not to individuals, but to projects in underdeveloped countries.

This present government has terminated that and by so doing this government has rendered a disservice to the people of British Columbia. They have ruined our reputation in the world, which is not important. But what they have done is to ensure that the slow, painful, tenuous job of helping those countries emerge out of their poverty is being slowed down and may even be stopped as a result of this decision. Surely the minister can see that, Mr. Chairman, and surely he can get his government to rethink their position and reinstate this fund.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for me to find fault with anything that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is saying, because she is indeed a lady of passion and conviction. But there are some things she knows a lot about and some things she knows very little about. On the subject she's on at the present time, her information is sadly wanting. I had the honour to represent this province at a conference in Mauritius just about a year ago at which nations of the British Commonwealth were assembled. A great deal of discussion was centred around the subject now under discussion. Far from what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard says - that we have been looked upon with shame and we should hang our heads in shame - I want to tell her that Canada was looked upon with a great deal of pleasure.

MS. BROWN: I was talking about B.C., not Canada.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You can be proud among the nations of the world to be Canadian and also to be a British Columbian, because British Columbia contributes ...

MS. BROWN: Let's keep it that way!

MR. MUSSALLEM: .. . more than its share to the national effort toward these countries that need our help and consideration. The hon. member shakes her head; perhaps she does so because she does not know.

Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important that this House should know that Canada is among the leaders of the world in giving to disadvantaged people. Canada has committed itself to 7 per cent of its gross national product to help the developing nations. Of this, British Columbia contributes a large share ...

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. MUSSALLEM: ... because we're one of the have provinces. We, Alberta and Ontario contribute more than our share. The hon. member still shakes her head; she obviously does not know what she is talking about.

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is this: it is extremely difficult to give anything to some of these countries; it is extremely difficult to get the product, or even the money, or even the expertise to those that want them because there is a great deal of internal subversive politics. The federal government has the wherewithal and understanding on how to deliver this aid, and is doing so with help and with care and with understanding.

I tell you this: for every crocodile tear that falls in this room today, let it be clearly understood that these people are not so badly off as we think. According to our standards they do not have everything, but they are well fed, in most cases.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just give them an example.

MR. COCKE: Are you speaking for the minister?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm speaking from what I know and in defence of our position, because our position is right. In the country of Belize, in southern North America, if you know where that is, you'll see pictures of poor little children sitting there with extended stomachs, in rags, and it's said the poor child is starving. There is very little starvation in that country - food is everywhere. The need is medicine and education; the need is know how. That is what the Canadian government is supplying. They do not need food. Food is the thing they do not need.

MS. BROWN: That's what I just said.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This is what you don't understand. Food grows there aplenty. Some countries need food, and food is being sent to these countries. It's being distributed with Canadian expertise that is considered a leader among the nations of the world. This province contributes its share. I say that these crocodile tears falling here are uncalled for. We should be proud of the work we're doing, the effort we are making as Canadians and British Columbians.

Oppose the minister if you wish, attack him if you

[ Page 3178 ]

want to; but please attack on a subject where he's vulnerable and not on this subject. In this area we are strong and we are good.

Mr. Chairman, they would have us give $5.2 million or whatever the case may be to somebody in Vietnam, to somebody somewhere. Throw our money. This is the socialist system. But what happens is that they don't know where it goes, they don't know how it gets there, they don't care what it does. All they are concerned with is the personal satisfaction of saying, "We gave to the poor." I tell you, that's a deadly attitude, that is a mistake, and that gets us nowhere. But a businesslike sensible attitude....

I'm pleased for once to be associated with the federal government in their massive performance in this area - a leader among nations. We are part of that group, as British Columbians, giving more than our share. They will say: "We want to give them something." Throw it around, pass it over. You can't do it that way, Mr. Chairman, because there are culprits within these countries who are prepared to take anything you give.

I'll give you an example. We sent expertise over there to show them how to operate lumber mills. I happen to know the engineer on that job very well. He told me that it was a sadness, with $2 million from the federal government, and more. What happened? We built that mill in Canada for a private concern that was using slave labour from his own country. That's what happens to the money that you send over there; that's what sometimes happens to expertise. But the Canadian government learned a lesson from that, and they are taking more care.

I am proud to be a Canadian; I am proud of the help we are giving disadvantaged countries, because we are a leader. Mr. Chairman, may I ask, with the greatest humility, to let us stop these crocodile tears? That's what they are - nothing but.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, members of the opposition are accustomed to looking with some kindness and affection on the member for Dewdney as an elder member of the House. But I want to say that distortion of speeches in this House by other members, whether that distortion comes from the member for Dewdney or elsewhere, is equally repugnant.

MR. BARRETT: Shame on you, George!

MR. KING: We have the Hansard record - a verbatim record of debate in this House now - and if the member has difficulty hearing, he might refer to the Hansard record of the first member for Vancouver-Burrard's comments when she recommended the very kind of assistance to the developing nations which the member for Dewdney endorsed.

I'm getting a bit tired, Mr. Chairman, of having members of the government get up and deliberately distort and twist statements that are made on this side of the House. As I say, fortunately there is now a verbatim record for review. The member displayed a rather shallow appraisal of the problem, as well as a contempt for the intent and sincerity of other members of this House. It's wearing a bit thin, despite the veneer of innocence and inoffensiveness worn by that member.

MR. BARRETT: Take away his whip!

MR. KING: I'm shocked and surprised at his comments that the people are relatively well fed. I think he said most of them are well fed and only a few are starving! That is a comfortable statement coming from a very rich car dealer in the province of British Columbia, from a government of car dealers and millionaires who show absolutely no sensitivity for the poor and the suffering in British Columbia, never mind the rest of the world.

MR. COCKE: Who flies his own airplane!

MR. KING: I don't think it behooves that member to get up with his pompous statements distorting presentations that were made in sincerity and intelligence by other members of this House.

MR. BARRETT: The Cadillac king.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all that I am certainly very proud of the contribution that Canada is making toward the developing countries and other countries in terms of helping them to help themselves. I certainly am very proud of that. I'm not attacking the minister. I am saying that I am not proud of the fact that British Columbia, which from 1968 until 1976 could hold its head high in terms of its contribution to helping people help themselves, is now in a position where we are ashamed because the present government h-as wiped out the fund which was introduced by the previous Social Credit government.

If he is talking about crocodile tears, if he thinks that $5 million is crocodile tears, those crocodile tears were introduced by the previous Social Credit government, Mr. Chairman, and not by anyone else. We have that member stand there and say: "You give money away and people don't know what is happening to it." Is he suggesting that Dr. Lotta Hitschmanova of the Unitarian Service Committee is absconding with money that has been given to her? Is he suggesting that the Anglican Church of Canada is absconding with the money that is being given to it? Is that what he is suggesting? He has the gall to stand

[ Page 3179 ]

up in this House and suggest that there is no hunger in this country, and he accuses me of not knowing my facts?

Mr. Chairman, I want to share some of these facts with you. Eighty per cent of the people in the developing world have no work. That is how high their statistics are - 80 per cent of them. Half of those people do not get enough to eat, and they suffer from malnutrition. But worst of all, along with malnutrition, Mr. Chairman, is the disease. There are 11 million people in this world suffering from leprosy. That is in a world that has enough food to feed everybody suffering from leprosy. We're talking about 600 million people with trachoma; that is what we're talking about. We're talking about 250 million people with filariasis. We're talking about malnutrition and disease caused by not enough food to go around. Of course those countries can feed themselves. I'm not suggesting we send them powdered milk. That was the Premier's suggestion. If he's talking about crocodile tears, that is where those crocodile tears came from. I am suggesting that we continue a precedent established in this province by the previous Social Credit government under the father of the present Premier which was ...

MR. BARRETT: He had a heart.

MS, BROWN: ... to aid these countries in aiding themselves, and giving them the tools and the expertise and the assistance so that they could help themselves. For that member to stand here and talk about people running all over the world and giving away money and not knowing where it's going is to cast an aspersion on the church! That is what he is doing. Then you have the nerve to refer to us as Godless socialists.

Then he talks about exploitation of cheap labour. What is he talking about? The countries, Mr. Chairman, in which labour is cheap are being exploited by multinationals from this country. It is when our people go to Brazil and exploit the people down there, it is when Canadians go to Jamaica and exploit the workers down there that we are exploiting the cheap labour in those countries. That is where the exploitation is coming from. We have gone so far, Mr. Chairman, as to introduce legislation in the federal House to bring cheap labour here! That's what we're doing. We're bringing migrant labour into this country to undercut our traditional workers and trade unionists here because we don't want our workers to make decent wages. The last people in the world to talk about exploitation of cheap labour have got to be the Social Credit government in this province - the very last people in the world!

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I wonder why that member doesn't go back to Jamaica!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Racist!

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there are standards of decency in this House that exclude statements like that one made by the member for North Okanagan. I ask her to withdraw those comments made against the first member for Vancouver-Burrard - an unequivocal withdrawal, please.

MRS. JORDAN: What was the slur?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I did not hear the statement made but I will ask the member for North Okanagan to withdraw any improper phrase or impugned statement.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I respect your request, but to my knowledge I did not make an improper statement. I asked if the member was so concerned about the people in these countries, perhaps it would be wise for her to go back to her own country where they needed her help so badly.

MR. BARRETT: She is a Canadian citizen and a member of this House, and that is a slur!

MRS. JORDAN: I think that in Jamaica, Mr. Chairman, they have a great deal of slave labour.

MR. BARRETT: She doesn't even know when she's slurring.

MRS. JORDAN: They have a great deal of poverty and they have a great need for educated people like that.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Absolutely disgusting!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am a Canadian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I am dealing with the point of order brought by the second member for Vancouver East and the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask the member for North Okanagan to simply withdraw any statement made against the first member for Vancouver-Burrard -without equivocation. Simply withdraw it, please.

[ Page 3180 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your request, Mr. Chairman. Which statement?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if she doesn't know, if she is ignorant of the slur she has made against that member, that's her fault, but she must withdraw at the request of a member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw any improper statement that you made.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely necessary that I clarify for the member for North Okanagan. She cannot withdraw the statement, because she obviously is operating under misinformation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: This is my country, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have asked her to withdraw the statement first. When that statement has been withdrawn, whatever the statement was -and the Chair has no knowledge of it - then I will recognize your statement.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and respect your wishes and I would suggest that if it's an insult to the member to suggest that Jamaica has poverty, has need of help . . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: . . , has need of her assistance, then I withdraw without qualification.

AN HON. MEMBER: Racist attack!

MR. BARRETT: Absolute bigotry!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Absolutely shocking, Mr. Speaker. What does that member think she's... ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: We're all Canadians.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair can only recognize those people who are standing, I have recognized the member for Alberni. If the member for Alberni wishes to leave to the first member for

Vancouver Burrard....

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I defer to the first member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the rule of this House. . ..

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I haven't recognized you yet. I have asked the member for Alberni, who was on his feet, if he would take his place for the first member for Vancouver-Burrard, and he has indicated he would do so. So I recognize the first member for Vancouver-Burrard. However, if you're on a point of order, please state your point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, when a member asks for withdrawal, that withdrawal is to be given unequivocally. That is what I'm asking for - an unequivocal withdrawal of those statements by that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I asked the member for withdrawal and she withdrew.

MR. BARRETT: Not unequivocally. She did not withdraw unequivocally. All she has to do is stand up and say: "I withdraw the statements."

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, there are rules for everybody, even you.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Shame on you! You're contemptible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have asked the member for North Okanagan for an unequivocal withdrawal.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is my understanding. Could I have a confirmation please from the member for North Okanagan that her withdrawal is without qualification?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a very difficult position. I wish to bow to your wishes and the rules of this House. I do not feel I made any improper suggestion to that member, and if I withdraw after the histrionics and antics of the Leader of the Opposition, then I am admitting guilt

[ Page 3181 ]

which is not in existence. I am not a racist. I did not mean it that way. That member chooses to interpret many comments that are made in this House as racist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask you to simply withdraw any improper statement.

MRS. JORDAN: In respect to you, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw, but in no way should it be interpreted as a bowing to the suggestions of the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's acceptable to the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognized the member for Alberni on vote 93.

MR. BARRETT: Now we know where you are.

MR.- SKELLY: I'm amazed, Mr. Chairman, at the transaction which has just taken place in the House, the comments from the member for North Okanagan. I think it represents an underlying bigotry ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: ... in the Social Credit Party that occasionally surfaces in this House. In fact, it surfaces in this House all too often.

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the member for Alberni to withdraw that statement. It is without foundation and is personally offensive to this House and to the member for North Okanagan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member for Alberni, the member for North Okanagan has found your statement to be personally offensive and I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't mean it in particular reference to the member for North Okanagan, Mr. Chairman, but I unconditionally withdraw any statement that she took to be personally offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, hon. member. As all members of the House would appreciate, the job of Chairman is sometimes a little bit more difficult than others and today is one of those days. I would recognize the member for Alberni and appreciate it if we could discuss vote 93, which is the Minister of Agriculture's estimates. But I see we have another point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply sorry to draw to your attention the comments made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. They are offensive to this House and offensive to the member for North Okanagan and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: Let's all withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: I don't know what I said that calls for withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second member for Vancouver East, I must ask you to withdraw any improper statement that you made.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't even speaking!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to withdraw the item. Would you please let me know what it was that was offensive to the member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has had to ask many members to withdraw statements and the Chair has only the record of Hansard to go by and Hansard is not yet printed. I must ask you to withdraw, as I've asked all other members who have made statements to withdraw, whether the Chair heard them or not. So....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would gladly withdraw if I knew what I was withdrawing. Please inform me what I'm to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Okanagan has stated that you made statements which she found offensive and I would ask you to withdraw any improper statement that you made.

MR. BARRETT: To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, I have not made any statements offensive to that member. If I have, I'd like to know which ones they are so that I know what I'm withdrawing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could we just have a simple withdrawal?

MR. BARRETT: For what? I want to know what I said to withdraw. I haven't said anything offensive. What can I withdraw? I know what she said; she knows what she said and she tried to qualify it. Now if you tell me what I've said that's wrong, I'll withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member for North Okanagan could clarify the point that she wishes the

[ Page 3182 ]

Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It won't be on Hansard because his microphone wasn't on. But the member for Alberni made statements which he subsequently withdrew and which, I believe, is appreciated and respected by this House and certainly by this member.

The former Premier and Leader of the Opposition said: "Even if it is so, and we know she is." I would ask him to withdraw those comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would ask you, if you made those statements, to please withdraw them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what she's talking about; neither does she. I withdraw anything she thinks was improper in reflection to her and this House, but we still do not have an unqualified withdrawal about her racist remarks regarding that member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognized the member for Alberni on vote 93 and perhaps the debate of the House could be more constructive if we stuck to the Minister of Agriculture, minister's office, vote 93.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I think that the debate will become more constructive the less the member for North Okanagan participates in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry. The Chair counselled you as to the subject and the subject is vote 93. Perhaps if we just started right off on something to do with the Minister of Agriculture the temper of the House will be such that we can get on with the business.

MR. SKELLY: I intend to pursue that subject, Mr. Chairman.

The subject we were dealing with was aid to developing countries. One of the statements that came across from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) was the fact that Canada is doing a fine job in aid to developing countries, and I go along with that. The member for Dewdney also pointed out that lack of food isn't the problem in many of these developing countries, and that's precisely the case.

Many of those countries grow food and export food to those countries such as Canada, in which 6 per cent of the total world's population consumes something like 60 per cent of the total of the world's resources. So there is a tremendous imbalance.

Mr. Chairman, my family came from another country to this country. They came from Ireland and they came a long way back; something like seven generations of my family have lived here. They came during a famine, a time in which more food was exported from Ireland than at any time in its previous history. This is exactly the case, Mr. Chairman, in many of the developing countries today - those countries grow food for the greedy countries on earth. There Canada stands condemned. Despite the fact that we spend, as the member for Dewdney pointed out, something like .07 per cent of our gross national product on foreign aid, we consume, in our greed, something like 60 per cent - a tremendously disproportionate amount - of the world's food resources. You may be aware that some of these developing countries grow food that cannot be consumed in those countries: luxury foods such as spices, coffee and sugar, Mr. Chairman. Those foods are imported to Canada, They are luxury foods that cannot contribute to the well-being of those people throughout the world. To say that people around the world are not starving, are not suffering from malnutrition and are not suffering from disease related to malnutrition is to deny the facts - facts produced by such organizations as the United Nations.

I'd like to quote some of those facts as well. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has, but I think they bear repetition. Of the 97 developing countries, 61 had a deficit in food supplies in 1970. In all the developing countries 460 million people, over half of them children, were suffering from malnutrition because they do not have enough to eat to pursue daily activities. Children are handicapped mentally and physically and are vulnerable to diseases as a result of this malnutrition. So although Canada is doing possibly more than other nations in expending 0.07 per cent of its gross national product on foreign aid, through its greed, through the greed of our people and our excess demands, we are actually cancelling out the amount that we spend on foreign aid and foreign food distribution, and in fact we are taking more away from those developing countries than we are spending to assist them.

I'd like to change the subject to another topic, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about small farms here in British Columbia. On January 27, the Minister of Agriculture made a speech to the House in which he outlined the problems facing small family farms. Perhaps you could draw the minister's attention to the debate, Mr. Chairman. He mentioned that one of the problems was the size of the farm holdings in B.C. because of our narrow valley type of topography and the traditions of settlements that have built up in British Columbia. We have some fairly small holdings - You mentioned 10- and 20-acre plots. Because of the small size of those farms, it's extremely difficult to manage them in an economically viable way and for the owners of those plots to remain in the agricultural industry. Many of them, in fact, have to

[ Page 3183 ]

supplement their incomes through working in the forest industry, working in the mining industry, or through part-time business occupations.

You mentioned at that time that you were developing programmes to make small farms in the province of British Columbia more economically viable. This is a real problem in my riding, Mr. Chairman, where many of the farm holdings are very small family-owned holdings. Many of the people involved in those farm enterprises are small farmers who can't really become involved in the food production industry on a large scale or an economically viable scale. But they do contribute a great deal to the food production of the Alberni, Qualicum Beach and Parksville area, and they are very concerned about the lack of support to the small and part-time farmers.

Many of these people go into farming in their early years at 30 to 40. They buy a small parcel of land; they have some dreams and some plans to develop that land so they can work it full-time as they get older, as they develop some equity in the land and some machinery and livestock. I feel that small and part-time farmers in the province are being discriminated against by provincial statutes and by the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture because not enough assistance is made available to them, I wonder what the minister had in mind to assist small farmers and part-time farmers throughout the province when he made that speech back in January.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) once quoted from a report of a United States Senate subcommittee on migratory labour - I believe it was published back in 1971 - in which there were listed some of the benefits of two communities of small, privately owned farm holdings. It made a comparison between the communities where farms are small and privately, owned, as opposed to communities where there are large-farm operations or possibly corporate owned farm operations. I'd just like to read again for the benefit of the House some of the advantages of small-farm communities....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I don't mean to interrupt your speech, because I know it disturbs your train, but there is an enormous amount of chatter in the House. It's a lot quieter now than it was 10 minutes ago, but perhaps if all HON. members would just take their turn and carry on their conversations outside in the hall or elsewhere, it would be a greater assistance to the Chair and to the member speaking.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll just go through some of the items that were indicated in that report, where small farms contributed to the benefit of the community as a whole. This is from page 376 of that report.

The small-farm community supported 62 separate business establishments to 35 in the large-farm community, a ratio of almost two to one. The volume of retail trade in the small-farm community during a 12-month period was $4 million as compared to $2 million in the large-farm community. Retail trade in the small-farm community was greater by about 61 per cent. Expenditure for household supplies and building equipment was three times as great in the small-farm community as it was in the large-farm community. Small farms support in the local community a larger number of people per dollar volume of agricultural production than an area devoted to large-scale enterprises, a difference in favour of small-farm communities of about 20 per cent.

People in small-farm communities have a better average standard of living than those in large-scale farming communities. Over half the breadwinners in small-farm communities are independently employed businessmen. Persons in white-collar employment are farmers. In the large-farm community the proportion is less than one-fifth. Less than one-third of the breadwinners in the small-farm community are agricultural wage labourers; nearly two-thirds are in a large farm community. That contributes to a lack of stability in the work force in those communities because the average employment of a labourer on large farms was 80 days out of a total year.

Physical facilities for community living - paved streets, sidewalks, garbage disposal, sewage disposal -and other public services are far greater in the small-farm community than in the large-farm community where many of these facilities are entirely wanting. Schools are more plentiful and offer broader services in small-farm communities.

Recreation. There are twice the number of organizations for civic improvements and public recreation centres. Small-town communities support two newspapers compared to one in the large-farm community that was analysed by this committee.

Churches: two to one in the small-farm community.

Facilities for democratic decision-making on community welfare through local popular elections were available to people in small-farm communities, but not to those in communities that are dominated by large-scale agriculture.

So I think the Minister of Agriculture understands the contribution to the way of life and to the economy of this province of small farms and small-farm communities. However, as I said before, in terms of assistance provided to that type of agriculture and that way of life, there is very little from the provincial government. The minister has stated that he was considering ways of making these small-farm operations more viable.

Another thing arises out of a study done in Manitoba entitled, "In Search of a Land Policy for

[ Page 3184 ]

Manitoba: A Working Paper." I'm quoting from page 75 of that study:

"The largest 21.2 per cent of all farmers sold 43 per cent of all agricultural products, but they controlled 50 per cent of all agricultural land.

"The middle group: 53.7 per cent of all farmers sold 44.6 per cent of all agricultural products from 44.5 per cent of the land.

"The smallest group: 25.1 per cent of all farmers accounted for the sale of 11.6 per cent of all products but from only 5.5 per cent of the land."

It would appear then that as farms increase in size, less intensive use is made of the land. So there is an indication, Mr. Chairman, that small-farm units -because of the way they're managed, because of the fact that they're generally privately owned, and the families who own and operate them have more of an interest in those farm holdings and in the production from those holdings - have much greater productivity per acre and productivity per dollar invested. Productivity for man-hours is much greater on small-farm units than on the larger farm units.

Another thing is in terms of energy conservation. One of the reasons for the increased costs of food -and this has been pointed out time and time again -is that in large farms there is a higher energy input per caloric value output in farm produce than there is on small farms. Small farms use more organic techniques, more energy-conservation techniques. They don't have the high-energy-consuming equipment; they use more organic techniques and less chemically derived fertilizers. That's a method of conservation and a method of production that I think we should encourage.

Also many of these people involved in small farming - and I'm thinking of the Vancouver Island area that I'm most familiar with - are in fact protecting farmland, land that could possibly be lost to food production, by the fact that they're holding that farmland, farming it on a full-time basis and also working in other jobs on a full-time basis in order to maintain that land in farm production. They're providing not only a tremendous service to the community in terms of food production but for future generations by keeping it in farmland status.

I would like to ask the minister a question. In view of the value of small farms and part-time farmers in terms of productivity, energy conservation, a preservation of a distinctive Canadian way of life which is rural, independent, democratic, a way of life which we on this side would hope to preserve and have taken some steps to preserve through agricultural legislation and policy during our term of office, what exactly does the minister propose to keep these types of farm operations viable and to assist them in becoming more viable?

We received a representation from a group in my area - Coombs-Hilliers-Errington Residents Association - when they addressed the New Democratic Party caucus in an open caucus meeting in Port Alberni. What they were looking for are things like property tax concessions. I know the minister doesn't have jurisdiction over that but he is able to make representations to cabinet on behalf of these people. They're looking for other types of assistance such as concessions to beginning farmers - people who are just clearing land, starting farming in a small-time way; even though they have other full-time jobs, they are planning to go into farming on a full-time basis. Local farmers' markets are something they're looking at ... assistance for local storage and processing facilities. I'm wondering what the minister can give us in the way of assistance to local, small-farm organizations or small farms and part-time farmers. What plans does the minister have in mind?

HON. MR. HEWITT: To the member for Alberni in regard to the small family-farm units, I can say to you - and I'm sure the member is aware - the small family farm unit or the family farm does contribute a great deal to the agricultural industry in this province. We have, for the member's benefit, a programme under my ministry called the small farm development programme. The branch is administered by the federal-provincial small farm development programme involving seven advisers suitably located throughout the province. These specially trained people work closely with the district agriculturalists on farm economic programmes and provide intensive counselling to small and developing farmers. The programme is especially important in British Columbia because of the many small and part-time farmers with a marginal farm income and some off-the-farm earnings. So we do have that small-farm programme.

I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that almost all of our programmes that we have in the ministry are available to the small farmer. About two-thirds of the farms in B.C., as I understand from my staff, are basically a part-time operation, depending on the guidelines that are laid down, the various programmes. But basically they're all available to them - the income assurance, the agricultural credit, the extension programmes, the farm accounting programme. The only criterion on it really is that they must make a minimum of $1,600 gross farm income per annum, which is really a very small part of the income. So there would be a part-time farmer who would be possibly starting out or working at a mill or wherever it might be, but operating a farm and doing it after work. That minimum figure of $1,600 gross farm income is the only criterion. If he doesn't make that much, of course, he wouldn't fall under that category. It would be considered more as a

[ Page 3185 ]

residence than a farm. But $1,600 is very little when you consider it as a gross figure.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that there are some rather unusual and extenuating circumstances at this point in the debate. I believe that the minister, either through his own lack of understanding of his responsibility, or an aptitude to follow a government in their general direction of pushing people.... The heavy-handed kind of direction that has been applied to the people of our province, I think, has been epitomized by the present minister. The present minister, as part of his responsibility, provided the terms of reference for a standing committee of this House that was to act according to those terms of reference. The minister has not accepted what would generally be accepted to be good practice. That is to let those representing a significant number of people in our province be a part of that committee by virtue of their membership in the Legislature. But no, Mr. Chairman, the minister did not fight for them; nor did the government accept them as members on that committee.

MR. Chairman, for that reason and for a number of other reasons, I'm moving the following resolution, The resolution is that vote 93 be amended by reducing the salary of the Minister of Agriculture by $1 so that it will read $23,999.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the motion, I suggest that it is very unusual in a situation where a minister has been a minister for such a short time. And it may not be entirely his fault.

You'll notice the eloquent Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) making his usual remarks. However, he will have every opportunity during the debate of non-confidence, which this debate is all about, to stand in his place and in some way try to vindicate the minister's moves, particularly around the question of allowing elected members of the Legislature, who have no opportunity other than the opportunity provided by a government, to sit on a committee to represent the position of the Liberals and the Conservatives in this province. Neither of them, Mr. Chairman, were permitted on that committee because of an arbitrary act of government. That naturally leads us to move a resolution of non-confidence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I have to caution the member that this debate is reflecting on a vote that has already been taken in this session and therefore is out of order except for just a passing reference.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the vote that was taken was whether a standing committee with the terms of reference should be accepted by the House. And it was accepted by the House. What we're debating here is the minister's responsibility in seeing to it that a standing committee that he provides terms of reference for is given ample opportunity to be representative. And that, Mr. Chairman, is the matter at issue here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With great respect, hon. member, the standing orders provide that a motion, once having been taken and the House having taken its position on that motion, is not to be reflected upon. The Chair has been very lenient in this regard.

MR. COCKE: I'm sure you, as an objective Chairman, feel as I do: an MLA's main responsibility is to see to it that people's freedoms are protected. We've seen evidence that people's freedoms have been impaired by a government that is acting in an autocratic way. I say that the Minister of Agriculture is part of that autocratic team, and I say that the Minister of Agriculture should have his salary reduced. He should be shown that there is a lack of confidence in that minister, despite the fact it is almost unheard of that a minister with such a short tenure should be treated in this way.

We fought long and hard about this question, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Corporate Affairs, et cetera, and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , who so aptly reflects his kind of consciousness, indicated that that resolution came as a result of a debate that went on last night. That did not. That resolution was in my desk yesterday as the result of the debate around the putting on of the Liberal and the Conservative member on the committee, And if you call me a liar, come outside and call me a liar, because it's not a case at all. As a matter of fact, many of you saw me get that motion paper yesterday early.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the member has just stated that the reason for the motion that he was put - and he just finished making that statement - was on the basis of the selection of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is not part of my vote, and therefore that motion is out of order. I would like a ruling on that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on that point of

[ Page 3186 ]

order, the behaviour of a minister is part of his vote, whether that behaviour is represented by vote or whether that behaviour is represented by any other work that he has to do. His responsibility is to be a responsible executive council member, and we say he's not a responsible executive member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion which is before the House simply reads that vote 93 be amended by reducing the salary of the Minister of Agriculture by $1 so that it will read $23,999. That motion is in order. Now debate under that motion needs to be strictly relevant to this particular motion. It is every member's own responsibility to be sure that the material he covers under this motion and under this debate is valid material. The Chair will try to assist.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, some will choose possibly different aspects, but I have chosen, and chose some time ago, the question of the minister's behaviour with respect to his own committee, and so be it. So that is my presentation with respect to the lack of the minister's competence to carry out his responsibilities.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this motion because I believe that the opposition is presenting this motion on behalf of a great many people in this province - not all, but a great many. The people should be here, I feel, to see first-hand what a political party, through a minister, will attempt to do in order to do away with opposition, to government.

Mr. Chairman, it didn't only begin with this action by this government. It began before they were government, and is only reflected in the actions of this government. Thus this motion.

All over this province we had Conservatives and Liberals during the last election campaign being threatened by that party that sits across from us. We had a Liberal lawyer who was going to run for the Liberal Party in the riding of Prince Rupert. He was called in and told by other people in that firm that if he were to run for the Liberals there would be no more business coming to that firm.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LEA: Right from back then, that party and that government - and now that minister - were out to try and do away with two old parties in this province, the Liberals and the Conservatives. The odd part about this action is that the minister himself didn't always belong to the Social Credit Party. He was one - or is one - of those people who decided to cross political lines, to join another political party seeking power in this province.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that when you start to strike nerves in that collective body over there, they become a little unruly. When you start to point out the truth, the truth being that they are a government that not only dislikes opposition -because it's fairly normal to dislike opposition of your government - but that absolutely tries to do away with opposition in committee or in the House.... This government is not accepting its responsibility under the British parliamentary system. They're not accepting their responsibility, because government under the British parliamentary system will not work without opposition. It is designed to work and work well with opposition.

Admitting that there were technical reasons why government could keep the Conservative and Liberal members off that committee, I asked the minister yesterday not to tell us what those technical reasons were over and over again, but to tell us why government took advantage of those technical reasons to keep the Liberals and Conservatives off a committee. The answer has to be one answer only: it's politics. What are the politics of it, Mr. Chairman? The politics of it are this: once they formed their coalition government - once they went out into the community and found people who would jump from one political party to another for opportunistic reasons - they decided now that no one in this province should be allowed to be a Liberal or a Conservative, and thus such people don't have the right to be on a committee for political reasons that best suit government and the Social Credit party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you show how this is relevant to the motion that's before us?

MR. LEA: Yes. The motion before us says that we should bring about a $1 discount in the minister's salary vote because he is not carrying out his duties as a Crown minister but as a political person. He is letting politics influence his decisions. It is only politics that made him go against putting a Liberal and Conservative on that committee. I'm suggesting that politics has its place, not only in this House and in this province, but the government also has a bigger and larger responsibility, and that is a responsibility to be fair and uphold the democratic traditions of this province, of this country and of the British parliamentary system. They are not doing it, and this minister is part and parcel of that political plan.

It is a political plan. They don't want that Liberal and Conservative on that committee because it will become news that they are on there and they are saying something. They want people to understand that the Liberals and Conservatives are dead. They want them dead. They want those two parties dead

[ Page 3187 ]

for political reasons and they are using the rules and technicalities of this House to further their own political plans. That minister is one of the people in the forefront of this particular issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want them alive to split the vote. How do you like that?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) has something to say in this House, couldn't he for once take his place in debate and say it - just once, instead of sitting in his seat throwing shots across the floor and never rising in his place except to make a five-minute introduction to his own estimates, which I'm sure he'll be doing?

Mr. Chairman, I am personally disappointed in the minister. I'm personally disappointed because, knowing that member's background of belonging to and working for credit unions, I thought he had a sense of the co-operative. I thought he had a sense of fair play.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): The next thing you'll want is a five-year plan.

MR. LEA: I thought he had a sense of keeping politics at least within the realm of good taste. I guess, as the member for Vancouver Centre says, I just thought he had common sense.

I still have hope, Mr. Chairman, that there is one minister over there who will put taste ahead of politics. I believe that this act by this minister, in not defending the rights of two members of this House, is a tasteless act. It is tasteless and it is against all which every member in this House should stand for: fair play and the ability to speak out on issues because you have been elected to this House to speak out on issues as you see fit.

I believe that the Liberal and Conservative members are having their rights as democratically elected members of this Legislature taken away from them. That plan has been aided and abetted by the Minister of Agriculture, who is putting partisan politics ahead of his duties as a minister of the Crown of the province of British Columbia. I believe he is doing that. For those reasons I believe that this motion should pass this House. It's only a buck, but I'll tell you, it's a dollar that I think is very important, because it is a dollar that will be symbolic of the Social Credit government and its desire to wipe out all opposition to it.

They hate demonstrations; they hate the opposition parties; they don't like civil servants who have cartoons about them. There isn't anything in any form of opposition that that government will countenance, because they are the most insecure government within itself that I have had the misfortune to read about, to hear of or to sit across from. They are so insecure in their power that they trample upon the rights of members of this House. The basic insecurity within themselves won't allow them to have a sense of fulfilment that they are there and that they are in power by the will of the people of this province.

But they are not in power to trample on the rights of the representatives of the people who didn't vote for them. Mr. Chairman, that is what they are doing. This is what this $1 is all about. It is a symbolic dollar to show that that minister has not only crossed party lines; he has crossed the lines of good taste.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before we proceed any further, the Chair was waiting diligently until the member showed the basis of his reasoning and showed that the debate was relevant to the motion. I must observe at this time that the membership of the particular select standing committee that is being referred to was moved upon by this House and was constructed, indeed, by the House, and not as the administrative responsibility of the minister. The line of debate was out of order and cannot be permitted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister is being very frivolous; that's what I think. He's out of his proper chair and he's chatting and being very jovial with the Minister of Corpulent Affairs.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Say something of value and I'll listen.

MR. LAUK: The minister is a young man who has had some success in the business world. He had a good reputation - before entering politics, that is to say.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal of thought has gone into this motion of non-confidence by all members of the opposition. There was a great deal of hesitance in bringing forward a motion of this nature on a person who has been a minister - I'm quite serious about that - for such a short period of time. Indeed, it was a very positive experience that I had as a member of the auditor-general committee, which the hon. minister chaired. I think he did an excellent job. Insofar as his ministry is concerned, there are a number of points which have encouraged the opposition members to place this serious motion before you, Mr. Chairman, and before this committee.

The first point has been mentioned, and it's probably the most serious. It is an abdication of his responsibility, and that of his government, to the democratic process, if we were to say: "Oh, well, it's just a couple of guys who are sitting here with a

[ Page 3188 ]

minority, and so on. What the heck - we can do a job.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: If the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has something to say, why doesn't he get up and say it? He wanders in here on a sunny afternoon, for the first time this week....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: He hasn't been here for two weeks. He's not doing anything in his portfolio; I don't know why he isn't here.

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

MR. LAUK: Wherever he is, I'm grateful he's not in the House because usually he doesn't add a thing to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I think perhaps that tempered language might be a better selection, particularly in committee where debate follows very closely - one speaker upon another. Also, I'd like to remind the hon. member that the matter upon which he is now embarking has already been ruled out of order.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Minister of Mines just withdraw the words, "twisty ways."

MR. BARRETT: We'd like to see him stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. member was offended by the term "twisty ways, " I would ask the hon. Minister of Mines to withdraw it, please.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): If my learned friend across the way was genuinely offended, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's hard for me to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then behave yourself!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the second reason for this very serious motion is that in the short period of time that the minister has had this heavy responsibility, he has demonstrated an ineptitude that is clearly remarkable. Contrast, if you will, a man who comes from a credit union background, who has handled....

HON. MR. HEWITT: High finance.

MR. LAUK: Not high finance, but he's been in community finance and he knows something of the problems of small business people and so on. Now you take that kind of a person - a person, let's say', who runs a hardware store - and you put them in charge of a major democratic enterprise involving billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. You put such as the hon. minister in charge of enterprises that concern millions of dollars, hundreds of jobs, international markets. You've got to look more closely at the role that these ministers are playing. The great argument before the people in 1975 -which I still find moderately amusing - was that this was a businessman's government. If one is to interpret it that way - and I'm going to relate this to the minister in a moment - that there are businessmen in the government, the ranks of businessmen in that government are pretty thin. In terms of business on the level that the government must be in charge of, you don't call a hardware merchant or a car dealer a businessman. With great respect to them, you just don't to that. That's a community enterprise. They are not familiar with high finance, they are not familiar with international markets, and so on. Of course, those failings occur in every party. But they were the ones who argued that they were businessmen. Well, that was politics.

Land developers, by the way, aren't businessmen either. They just speculate in land and they make a lot of money. That doesn't require any great....

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about social workers?

MR. LAUK: As a matter of fact, I heard the minister of corpulent affairs - or corporate affairs -say once a person with sawdust for brains can make money in land development. He didn't say "sawdust." but words to that effect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the salary that we are discussing is the salary of the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not looking upon the motion with any degree of seriousness.

AN HON. MEMBER: Neither am I.

[ Page 3189 ]

MR. LAUK: The minister has not done much in his ministry. He has unnecessarily excluded two legitimately elected persons from a committee. He has sold a major enterprise for nothing, and he calls himself a businessman.

AN HON. MEMBER: A major enterprise?

MR. LAUK: Well, it's a major enterprise involving millions of dollars.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): No prospect of success.

MR. LAUK: I wish that the minister of consumer services and corporate whatever would stand in his place and make a statement and tell me about his great business expertise.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is interrupting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. members would assist the Chair greatly in maintaining order if we would observe standing order 17.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Corporate Affairs, of course, couldn't make a living practising law, so he had to make it buying land from widows. Now he calls himself a businessman.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's true. You can't stand the truth. It's utter nonsense. The Premier himself inherits a motel and all of a sudden he is a businessman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does this member intend to speak to the vote?

MR. LAUK: I intend, upon interruption, to direct my attention to the good people who are interrupting me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member now speaking should be debating the motion that's before us, the reduction of the salary of the minister.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: Now this so-called businessman, the Minister of Agriculture, took millions of dollars worth of assets and gave them away. He comes in proudly wearing his Smile button and says: "Look what I've done. Isn't that wonderful?"

What an absolute and utter disaster! What a sell-out for this province. I can't begin to catalogue the ineptitude that seems to be rampant within that cabinet, but certainly it's almost willingly symbolized by the actions of the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. LEA: Don is the only businessman, and he can't remember.

MR. LAUK: That is a very serious thing. The most crucial issue is that a man with a community background in small business and with some understanding of administration, and a man who is chairman of the audit or-general's committee, can make those kinds of business decisions, so-called, and then at the same time reveal to the people of this province his callous and complete disregard for the -democratic process by sandbagging and stonewalling the appointment of two legitimately elected parties to the agriculture committee. I urge every member of this committee to vote for this motion of non-confidence or stand up in his place and defend this minister instead of sitting down and taking pot shots.

MR. LEA: Who's got the material to defend him?

MR. BARRETT: Just a couple of brief words. I think the minister's vote has been canvassed thoroughly. I might say that personally I thought the minister was most positively responsive to many questions related to his department. I can't agree with the minister in some of his answers and responses but he does seem earnest in his job. I recognize that.

My objection is simply this: when the minister got up to speak about the committee, he called for public co-operation about the committee. I respect that and I agree with him. However, a decision was made to exclude two major spokespersons in this House from the committee which he raised in his estimates. He raised the committee in his estimates. As a consequence of his raising it in his estimates, I'm going to support this motion because it is the only way that we can show our displeasure to the minister and the cabinet and get a message to the people of this province that we believe the Liberal leader and the Conservative leader have every right to be on a committee with any other member of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the motion pass?

MR. BARRETT: No. (Laughter.)

Look at them. He said yes. I got 'em! You see that? I got 'em. They're lost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 3190 ]

MR. BARRETT: Let the record show that the Premier didn't even defend the minister. Where is your defence?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 16

NAYS - 24

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 93 approved.

On vote 94: deputy minister's office, $1,186, 506.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, as the minister and all members of this House are aware, this government saw fit to recapture the $5 million fund which was originally the source of the $350,000 included in this vote as aid to developing countries. When this minister's immediate predecessor, the part-time Minister of Agriculture in this government, was presenting his estimates to the House a year ago or more, he was questioned on the floor of the House and asked for an assurance that while he was minister there would be no reduction or removal of that $350,000, but that it would in fact be guaranteed to continue in the amount equivalent to the interest on the $5 million fund which was recaptured. That minister was good enough to give the House that assurance. I would ask this minister if he will unequivocally assure the House today that at least this $350,000 will not be removed from his estimates as long as he is the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, as I understand parliamentary procedure, I really can't commit future governments. But we recognize the assistance that is given and the need for education to developing countries. As I've mentioned earlier in my estimates under the minister's vote, dollars have been expended since the first of the year on the agricultural aid to developing countries.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm sorry. I am not coming across, I believe. What I asked the minister was: will he assure the House that as long as he is minister he will not cause to be decreased or removed this $350,000 that is still remaining as a last token in the agricultural estimates?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, let's say that this is a matter of policy, I would think, of this government in dealing with estimates as they are prepared.

But let me say this. I support the efforts that this money is used for in regard to the agricultural aid. The committee that administers this fund has done an excellent job in trying to get the best use out of these dollars and give assistance where it is needed. I feel it is a good programme.

Vote 94 approved.

On vote 95: general administration, $1,063, 149.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote that covers the hiring of agriculturalists, I think. I did some rough arithmetic and it seems to me there are approximately 133 agriculturalists hired. I wonder if the minister would let me know how many of these are female.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that's the next vote, hon. member.

Vote 95 approved.

On vote 96: production and marketing, $4,125, 391.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the agriculturalists are actually hired under a number of votes - 96, 97 and 98. So you have to add them all up and I'll put all of my questions in one. I got a total of about 133; I'm not sure about that figure. How many of that 133 are female? That's what I would like to know.

I also notice that there are four home economists. I want to know how many of those home economists are male.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My staff is just trying to come up with the figures that we have in regard to female employees. But I understand that it's either four or five that we have. I believe there are three home economists and one agriculturalist.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the number is four;

[ Page 3191 ]

four of the 133 are female.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you asking or telling me?

MS. BROWN: I'm telling you. Among the home economists, there are no males. So you're doing something really strange, Mr. Chairman, through you, in the department in terms of the hiring policies. All of the home economists are female.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three of the four.

MS. BROWN: Four of the four. Of the 133 agriculturalists there are four females. I'm curious about this because at UBC, one-third of the graduates in agriculture were female. Most of the agriculturalists in the province are hired by the government. Now if the _government persists in its present hiring policies, Mr. Chairman, we're never going to get on with the business of women in agriculture finding jobs. I wonder if the minister has a comment. I may have been wrong about the one male home economist, but I know I'm not incorrect about the agriculturalists.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member seems to have done some research. I will accept her figures if she's talking for agriculturalists and for home economists for a total of eight.

With the number of graduates which she has mentioned who are female, I think that's a good indication of how the women of this province are moving into these areas. Certainly with people applying, and people who qualify for the job, I would hope, and I can certainly make sure, that equal opportunity is given both to the females and the males.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question relative to the poultry branch and the staffing. I notice the staff is reduced by one person in the poultry branch. My understanding is that this represents a reduction in field personnel, and in fact the whole poultry branch is now consolidated in one centre without any field personnel available in the outlying areas. I would ask the minister to advise me whether or not that is a correct understanding. If so, is that the trend he's intending to follow - to consolidate in a central body rather than have field personnel?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Under the poultry branch it's been reduced by one. The one person was transferred over to the farm income assurance programme. Most of our operations are out of Abbotsford, but I would tell the member that the staff members of that branch do field Work; they do travel and do field work.

MRS. WALLACE: This is on a different subject under this vote. This is the temporary salaries, which have increased almost $100,000 from $187,000 to $280,000. I would ask the minister to give us some information on this. This seems to me to be a very dangerous trend and part of what could be a whole hidden civil service that we don't even know about. This government is indicating that they're cutting down on civil service, and bragging about the figures and so on, and here we have a $100,000 increase in one vote for temporary people. I would ask the minister to explain that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, on vote 96, if the member looks down at the bottom of the page under 1976-77 estimates, she will see a $500,000 I 'other expenditure." This year there is no miscellaneous "other expenditure." I've had the staff recode the other expenditure amount and place it in a proper allocation because that's basically where it was spent last year. So it's a recoding to give us better information rather than throwing a considerable amount of dollars into another expenditure account.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, recoding it may be, but I would still like to know who those temporaries are, where they're being used, what that really represents, that $100,000 in the way of temporary staff under this vote.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's a $93,000 increase over last year. From $187,000 to $280,000, the increase of $93,000 was due to the allocation of staff regarding our food promotion and our weed control.

MRS. WALLACE: Okay, now a similar question relative to the professional and special services from $60,000 up to $150,000, another increase. It's $500,000, granted, now spelled out. But I would like a little more definition as to what that covers. Just what are you intending to do under that particular item?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The increase there in professional services is due again to an allocation of B.C. food promotion funds, and the provincial marketing board went into that classification of professional services. The cost of those two items went in there, which caused the increase in that account.

MRS. WALLACE: I just have a couple of other questions.

The next one relates to the advertising and publications, $167,700. I presume this is being spent on your promotion programme that you've been talking about to try and convince the consumer to

[ Page 3192 ]

"Buy B.C." I know that we have under your ministry a very adequate and capable marketing branch in Surrey, the place where the marketing board used to meet and with which I'm very familiar.

However, Mr. Chairman, my point is this: is it the intention of this minister to work through that particular branch, with Ed Pratt and his group of people over there, and extend that facility? Or are you in fact going to go out and contract this out to private companies?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, as for the breakdown in regard to that vote - I've just got to find it here - there's an amount of money set aside for food promotion. I did mention that we were going to attempt to get the word out, you might say, to the consumers, We're working on that. I've got in the words a TV promotional programme that can identify B.C. quality products which I hope will allow....

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, but who's doing that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The marketing branch. Mr. Don Rugg had gone out and met several public relations companies and we have contracted with one. I believe from memory that it's called Simcoe Advertising, and that will be where some of the dollars are spent.

Mr. Chairman, just at this point in time - and I'm sure the member for Cowichan-Malahat would agree with me - I'd like to note that Mr. Ed Pratt, the head of our Surrey office, retired. I would just like to say for the record that Mr. Pratt certainly gave a lot of assistance to me and was certainly a man to be respected in the agricultural industry and a man who deserves many years of retirement.

MRS. WALLACE: I appreciate the minister mentioning that Mr. Pratt has retired, and certainly I would like to reiterate his remarks regarding my feelings about Mr. Pratt's ability and extend to him wishes for a very happy and successful retirement. He was a very dedicated and a very knowledgeable employee.

My final question on this particular vote, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the grants. I notice that there is a sizeable increase in the grants from $16,000 to $83,000. The minister did mention it in response to a question from, I think, the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) yesterday. I've been aware that fair grants have been increased. I assume they're included in this.

But I have my own little pet grant that I brought up last year and that I'm going to bring up again this year, and that is the grant to Women's Institutes. There is a $10-a-year grant, Mr. Chairman, which is nothing more or less than a token - a joke is more like it. If we have the kind of money to increase from $16,000 to $83,000, I hope, Mr. Minister, that included in that is a sizeable increase for Women's Institutes.

MS. BROWN: At least 50 cents!

MRS. WALLACE: There is a group, Mr. Chairman, who have been working for many long years in this province furthering the kind of programmes for which your ministry is responsible, Through their international connection with the ACWW, that organization is one of the groups that we have been talking about for many hours during your estimates in contributing their portion and working towards those programmes under aid to developing countries.

Women's Institutes have been involved in many of the programmes that were supported by aid to developing countries, Pennies for Friendship, sewing machines for India, eye treatment for children -many, many programmes that those women have worked very hard to promote. They are a very dedicated group of women working very hard in the rural area to encourage the whole concept of agriculture, and some understanding about the agricultural and the rural community. They are a great asset to you, Mr. Minister, or to any minister in this province of British Columbia in the kind of work they do, I'm distressed to think that year after year we go by with that kind of a grant which represents nothing more nor less than $10 per branch institute throughout the province of British Columbia. I would be delighted if you could get up and tell me that this year you have seen fit to increase it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The grants under this particular vote deal basically with weed control and assisting lime grants to the apiaries and the beekeepers. The reason for the increase from $16,000 to $83,000 was again a recoding reclassification. We have $59,000 in grants for weed control.

With regard to Women's Institutes, Madam Member, I would tell you that that's basically under the deputy minister's vote, vote 94. But I can tell you, and you'll be pleased to know, that we increased the grant to Women's Institutes from $12,000 to $16,000 this year.

MR. SKELLY: I thought that weed control would be discussed under vote 98 where it's specifically mentioned in the description of the vote. I wonder if the minister could explain how much of the temporary salary increase is attributable to weed control, and how much of the materials section under this section is attributable to weed control. You mentioned $59,000 for grants. What would be the total amount for weed control this year and what's the comparison with last year? .

[ Page 3193 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: The allocation, Mr. Chairman, is the same. In the 1976 breakdown, we budgeted $125,000 for weed control and the same amount has been put in this year. It is just reclassified under "temporary salaries, " Grants" and "material and supplies." It has been reclassified and broken down that way.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, could the minister explain if there is another section of his vote where weed control is covered or herbicides specifically are covered? Should it be discussed under this section of the vote?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in vote 96, if the member will look at the description, it does say: "Grants are made to agricultural organizations in reference to livestock, crop improvements and weed control." That deals with the grants section. I'll have to check and see, if you're looking at other services, whether or not we get involved in it in vote 98, if that is the one you are concerned about. But the grants regarding weed control are really dollars that go out to regional districts, I believe, to assist them in their programmes in controlling weeds in their regional districts. That's what the grants are aimed at.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I have some specific questions about the problem of weed control. It seems to have developed into quite an issue throughout the province. There appears to have been a significant increase in the use of herbicides throughout the province and, as a result, in public concern with the use of herbicides. This is not just in this department, I understand, but the Ministry of Forests is concerned about herbicides and pesticides as well. B.C. Hydro has also significantly increased their use of these items.

I got a letter from the Robson Valley environmental group recently in which they state that they have had a problem with Scotch thistle or Canadian thistle infestation for some years now. Just this year the district agriculturalist has decided that the area must be sprayed with chemical, but they don't name the chemical. They mention that a good part of the farming community in that area does not choose to have the chemicals used, and they are willing to work by hand to clear up the thistle in that area. They have asked the government that the $5,000 which is to be used by the government on this programme be allocated to employ some of the people in the area, and those people are willing to clear the thistle by hand if necessary.

I understand from talking with people who are in charge of approving the herbicide programmes that one of the main problems with thistle is that even when you spray it, it doesn't solve the problem. The thistle comes back again. One of the major problems is the lack of cultivation and lack of proper attention to the farms. That is the main reason for the thistle problem. I'm wondering if the minister is willing to consider an alternative to spraying, which would be the employment of people who are willing to give up their time on the farm or their time from other jobs to clear out the thistle by hand in exchange for the $5,000 which would be allocated to spraying.

I'm also concerned about the increase in chemicals used throughout the province. I have obtained some figures that the House might be interested in. In 1973 before the Minister of Health struck his royal commission into the use of herbicides and pesticides in British Columbia, something like 2 1,000 pounds in effective ingredient of 2, 4-5-T was used in British Columbia. In 1974 it was 2,000 pounds and the following year it was 2,000 pounds. The first year that Social Credit was in office it increased 300 per cent to 6,000 pounds.

There is an indication that the use of herbicides and pesticides by this government is increasing significantly. It is too bad that they don't have pesticides to cover some politicians, but that's the problem. It'll be dealt with at the next election, I'm sure.

MR. Chairman, there is a great deal of concern throughout the province about the use of 2, 4-D specifically and some of the chemicals that are used for control of noxious weeds and this type of thing. Although the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is now charged with this jurisdiction, he has published a report on Okanagan Lake that supposedly is a scientific report. But even from government agencies.... This is relating to the use of herbicides, Mr. Premier. It purports to be a scientific report. I've asked for a critique on the report by people in other departments who have concern with herbicides. It is an interesting critique that I have received from the fish and wildlife branch on the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Table it.

MR. SKELLY: The minister has a copy and I'm sure he'd be willing to table it. The minister has a policy, in fact, that any letter sent to an opposition MLA or to any MLA must cross his desk. I'm certain that a member of his department would not be in jeopardy for making available scientific information to any MLA or a member of the general public.

Many of the statements made in this report are interesting and indeed encouraging, from the control point of view. However, none of these statements are referenced, This is unacceptable from a scientific point of view, although it may be acceptable in other types of reporting.

So some of the reports that have been done by the government on the use of herbicides are not really substantiated by scientific information, even though

[ Page 3194 ]

when the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is questioned he says: "Well, it's my scientists against your scientists. It's scientific fact against emotionalism."

I would like to read some information about 2, 4-D, which I understand is being used by the present government in Okanagan Lake by the Department of Agriculture and, I believe, by B.C. Hydro. This is from a staff report to the subcommittee on administrative procedure and practice, committee of the judiciary, United States Senate. It was chaired by Senator Edward Kennedy. To quote page 15 of that report:

"A clear example of the Environmental Protection Agency's failure to evaluate data resulted in the agency's determination that there was 'sufficient data for a full registration of the pesticide 2, 4-D.'

"On April 8,1976, EPA mailed registration guidance packages to manufacturers of 670 products containing 2, 4-D for which more than 45 residue tolerances have been granted on such foods as dairy, milk, eggs, poultry, meat, corn, apples, vegetables and citrus fruits.

"The guidance package has cited a two-year rat-and-dog feeding study performed by the federal Department of Agriculture in 1963 as sufficient to satisfy the chronic safety testing requirements for registration. Yet a summary report on the study in EPA's files stated that there was increased tumour formation in the rats.

"John M. Carley, manager of the re-registration task force stated that he doubts that the summary report was even read in the preparation of the guidance packages. An independent pathologist who reviewed the raw data on the study at the request of the subcommittee staff concluded that 2, 4-D is carcinogenic - that is, cancer-causing in rats."

What we're concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is that the increase in the use of pesticides and herbicides throughout the province is dangerous to the health of people in the province, that there is new information coming on stream all the time, and that this increased use of herbicides does constitute a threat over the long term to people in this province.

I'm suggesting there are alternative ways to eliminate problems or to control Canada thistle, knapweed and that type of thing. I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to consider such suggestions as the one made by the Robson Valley environmental group, which is to allow people to go in and clear out that thistle by hand or improve cultivation of the fields in that area in order to control the problem on a long-term basis rather than by using increased amounts of dangerous herbicides.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The weed control, of course, is carried out under regional district bylaws. Our ministry can make a grant up to $10,000 for an approved weed control programme. That approval must be given by the pesticides committee, which is an interministerial committee, to determine the effects. Any concern that they have - and these people are specialists - would be registered at that time.

With regard to the Robson Valley, I think the cost of pulling out the weeds, as you stated, or cutting them would be prohibitive. When you pull out or cut, you certainly don't properly kill the weed. In many cases they don't pull out the root and it re-grows. I understand from my staff that, properly applied, that herbicide can kill the weed if the timing is correct and the programme is carried out properly.

I would suggest, hon. member, that the interministerial committee now has been in existence for some 10 years, and it reviews all programmes with regard to the use of herbicides. There hasn't been any significant increase, I'm told, in regard to the quantities that have been used. I don't have the exact figures but I understand there hasn't been a significant increase.

MR. SKELLY: Maybe the minister missed my point. It's not a case of increased cost in this case. It's difficult, I know, for the minister to pin this problem down, but it's even more difficult for members on this side to have it shuffled off to an interdepartmental pesticide committee because each minister then shuffles it off to the other one right down the line until the question isn't really dealt with.

People I've talked to in some of the departments that are connected to the interministerial committee say that the control of Canada thistle and the control of knapweed has not proven effective throughout the province using herbicides. On a short-term basis, possibly, but not over the long term. The people in the Robson Valley group have offered to do an experiment for this year to pull those weeds or cut the weeds for the cost of the programme, so you're not losing anything. What you're gaining is a little experience and possibly something that may substitute for the use of herbicides in the future.

I'm wondering if the minister is presented with those facts - that these people are willing to clear the thistle problem by hand, taking time off from their own farms and their own labours, rather than having their property sprayed. Would the minister consider this alternative as an experiment for this year?

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): As the Robson Valley is in my riding and the McBride Farmers Institute and the Robson Valley environmental group have brought these same concerns which the member

[ Page 3195 ]

for Alberni is alleging to here, I'd like to just make a few brief comments on them. I think the minister has very clearly outlined that the regional district of Fraser-Fort George has taken on the weed control. They struck a weed control committee and they've hired a licensed inspector to go around and report, not only on the Crown corporations - B.C. Hydro or the Ministry of Highways or the CNR - but also on private land. I think it's something the Farmers' Institute has been calling for for a number of years. This has been passed from one department to another; nobody wants to take the responsibility for the overall management. I think it's a real forward step that the regional district is taking this concept on.

I think it's going to be a positive programme. They will have a licensed applicator. They'll have a pollution control permit to apply weed control spray wherever it's required.

I think the thing that a lot of people probably overlook is that the Crown corporation property -the highways or the B.C. Hydro rights-of-way - is a small portion of the weed problem. A lot of it comes from abandoned farms or from farmers who don't do quite as good a job as their neighbours. One thing has happened out of this whole business up in the Robson Valley - it's certainly made everybody more aware of each other's problems. I think they're going to realize better weed control on private land as well as on Crown corporation land.

They have had several meetings. The Highways department and the regional district have both agreed that if anybody voluntarily wants to take a particular stretch of weed-infested area on and maintain it manually, that will be their prerogative. But if it isn't done and the weed inspection control officer comes by, then it will be applied and charged back, either to the corporation involved or to the private landowner. I think it's a very forward step and should probably be taken in other areas.

MR. SKELLY: Is the minister willing to respond on that? I think it's a worthwhile experiment myself - to allocate the $5,000 grant that will be coming, I understand, from the Department of Agriculture, to see if it is possible to clear up the weed using mechanical or human labour.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, the regional district takes on the function and requests a grant from us and provides their programme to us. We would consider it in regard to the programme that they are suggesting. But it would have to come via the regional district. The input would have to come from them as opposed to an environmental group that may wish to do it on their own. It's a regional district bylaw for the control of noxious weeds. We would consider assisting them through a grant.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if I could get us back to the markets branch just for a moment, I'd like to agree with the minister when he said some kind words about Ed Pratt and his retirement. I think he did a tremendous job for food production in the province in encouraging consumers. He's worked very well with producers, producer groups, and with wholesalers and retailers as well.

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there's any change in direction of the work being done by the markets branch under Ed Pratt. I noticed the minister saying, I believe, that the work formerly done by the markets branch has been farmed out to some PR firm; he wasn't sure of the name. That would seem to be a change in direction. I wonder if he could tell the House a little more about that.

I'm wondering whether the decision to go to an outside PR firm was made before or after Mr. Pratt retired, or gave notice of his retirement.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I missed the second half of the question. But the farming out, as the member puts it, went to I believe it's Simcoe Advertising, which is doing a TV commercial and is putting some of its professional expertise into developing that commercial. Other than that there's been no change to the marketing branch. Our people are still carrying on its promoting B.C. products within that branch. I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I missed the second part of your question.

MR. STUPICH: The question was whether or not the decision to go to Simcoe Advertising was made before or after Mr. Pratt informed the minister that he would be retiring from his position.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: They're going to talk about Swan Valley for a while, I guess.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, we're just trying to arrive at the date which Mr. Pratt left and when we were discussing the submissions, There were several submissions made by a number of companies. I can't recall whether Mr. Pratt was still with us or left, but it was at just about that time that he suffered a setback in health basically and retired.

MR. STUPICH: I'll try it another way then. When were the approaches first made to the advertising companies to make submissions?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member is commenting about when the submissions were first made. At the time that we looked at this advertising

[ Page 3196 ]

programme, we had a number of companies make their submissions and we also had one submitted by our marketing branch. They put forward their promotional programme at the same time as the other people did. We had a showing of them all and a decision was made at that time to go with Simcoe Advertising. It was a new approach.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll try a third time of asking: when were these companies invited to make submissions to the Minister of Agriculture or to somebody?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe the timing was around January of this year.

MR. STUPICH: Now we have the answer to the first question, Mr. Chairman. That's some four months before Mr. Pratt announced that he was going to retire. That's fine.

The next question is: has someone replaced Mr. Pratt? If so, is it a staff member, an employee? Mr. Pratt acted, I believe, in the nature of a consultant and was on contract rather than an employee, and I wonder what has happened since.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, he was a contract employee, that's correct. Mr. Brown is the acting head of that branch at the present time.

MR. LEVI: Is this one where we can deal with marketing boards? There was a report, I think about a week ago, from Ottawa that the federal government was thinking of going into....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Broiler marketing.

MR. LEVI: Yes, the Broiler Marketing Board. Could the minister indicate to us what kind of impact this is going to have in respect to what we are doing in British Columbia? Isn't this an invasion of some provincial jurisdiction? Could the minister comment on this? Has he had some input from the minister about the setting up of this?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The chicken marketing board, on a federal level, is where the supply management concept would be applied federally, the same as is done with turkeys and with eggs. Up to this time it's been a provincial Broiler Marketing Board. There's acceptance at the federal level as to the programme of going on a federal chicken marketing agency. That has to be dealt with by each of the provinces and by each of the provincial marketing boards. It's in discussion stages now, but you've seen in the paper where the federal cabinet has accepted Mr. Whelan's position on that.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the minister answered my question in a rather evasive way.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just told you we don't hire hockey players for football teams.

MR. BARNES: I didn't realize that I hadn't had an answer to my questions yesterday until I read the Blues today. Now I know why they are a little bit suspicious of his tactics when it comes to select standing committees and how he evades the issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to get the minister to give the House his thoughts on monopolies in the development of shopping centres. I cited the example of Safeway, which before going into a development will use the exclusive clause. That is, Safeway stipulates that it will not participate in the development of a shopping centre or commit itself to become a tenant unless it has an exclusive clause for the sale of its products. It seems to me that this is counterproductive, inasmuch as the interests of such large conglomerates as Safeway are farfetched, way-out, far abroad, or whatever, and quite often they bypass the local products.

Since we are talking about "Buy B.C." and trying to assist the small business person....

MR. LEA: They are trying to sell B.C.!

MR. BARNES: This is a fact, Mr. Chairman. Safeway has a stipulation in its dealings with the developers of shopping centres that it will not become a participant as a tenant unless it has an exclusive. Therefore if Safeway is selling meat there aren't going to be any other meat operators in that shopping centre. I suppose they are doing it in other ways as well, but this is one that came to my attention.

I'd like to ask the minister what his response is. Does he feel that this is okay? Is this good competition and fair play? Is this what we are encouraging in B.C.?

MR. BARRETT: Is this free enterprise?

MR. BARNES: Is this free enterprise? I think yesterday you talked about football teams and the right of the developer to develop what they considered to be a well-rounded display or series of outlets for the public, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking you about the principle of the exclusive clause. Should it be legally possible for a large conglomerate to come in and insist that the developer not permit any competition in that

[ Page 3197 ]

shopping centre before they come in? Do you think that that is right?

That is putting the squeeze on the developer. You said yesterday that the developer wants to do it. But it's not the developer who wants to do it - he has to do it. That's what you call the old squeeze play; "Either you do what we tell you or we don't participate." I'd like your response to that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, this ministry is basically concerned with agriculture. We're not really that involved in leases. But I would say to you that the co-operation we have had with all retail stores, in trying to promote B.C. fresh product, fresh pack, when there's a supply that has to get to market quickly, has been excellent. The producer groups, the commodity groups and the marketing boards will tell you that. There's been excellent co-operation and I'm very pleased to have it.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you know, I'm not pleased with the minister. His answers are just not dealing with the situation. I think he should be setting an example. We're talking about "Smile" -that B.C. is a place to live, to encourage people on the farm, to encourage the small farmers. We're talking about subsidy programmes, about how important it is to have the small operator survive in order to ensure we don't lose control of our ability to produce to those who have other interests from outside the province. You show me one place.... For instance, show me one small meatmarket any place there's a Safeway other than over here.... Well, there are no places, to my knowledge. There are no places. That's kind of strange that there are no small, private, little operators where there's a chain, just one person with a small delicatessen or whatever operating where there's a Safeway.

It seems to me that this indicates that there is some games-playing someplace. Maybe there is some collusion someplace. There's a well-organized system of excluding the small businessperson. I think that you should be concerned about that. I'm sure it's not just in the meat business. I'm using that as an example, but there must be many other ways in which these things are happening.

At least if nothing else, Mr. Chairman, the minister should deplore that concept and say that as far as he's concerned he doesn't stand for it, and he would encourage people who are being overlooked, small businesspeople, to make representations to his ministry - to come forward and complain to the minister and give you some examples. There are some. I know many people who don't want their names mentioned, because they're afraid they'll get excluded in some way as far as their opportunity to compete in the free-enterprise system.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman. The member's mentioned the possibility of collusion, et cetera, and, if his comments are correct, I would say that what he says possibly has merit. I think it would be only right to refer such matters to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) so he could look into this thing if there is this type of carrying on.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I think that inasmuch as the Minister of Consumer Affairs will be following, I'm sure he will be prepared to lead off with an answer to that question.

Vote 96 approved.

On vote 97: $52,769, 511 - general and financial services.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there are several activities under this vote that I would like to question.

First, the agricultural credit: I notice the amount this year is something like a one-tenth of I per cent increase over last year. I'm wondering what is included in this item, and the amounts for each. I know, for example, that the ALDA programme will be in this.

While the minister is getting that information, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that for some 20 years under the Social Credit administration the amount never changed from $800,000. Within the first two years of the NDP administration it was increased to $4 million. It would appear as though it hasn't changed since. I wonder whether that is the case. I notice the agricultural credit programme, I'm sure, is in here, and I wonder just how much is in for that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the agricultural credit increase, as the member mentioned, is the same as last year. The increase is in regard to salary increases.

MR. STUPICH: I'll just try again, Mr. Chairman.

I was actually wondering just how much is in this for the Agricultural Land Development Act spending. The amount was $4 million. I wonder whether it's still at that figure.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always interesting to have a former Minister of Agriculture ask questions because you know you've got to come up with the answers.

The ALDA programme which the member comments on is $4 million, which is what it was last year. Agricultural credit programmes - $4.5 million: the increase there relates basically to office expense

[ Page 3198 ]

and advertising publicity in that area.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have made my point then. There has been absolutely no change in the amount provided for ALDA in the two years under this administration.

The next question I'd like to ask is with respect to the ARDA programme and the special ARDA. I saw something in the newspapers recently where the minister was talking about an agreement that he had just negotiated and that was expiring in June 1977. Now I think there's something.... Well, that's this month. I'm wondering what the current status of the ARDA agreement and of the special ARDA agreements which we are currently working under is - when do they both expire?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the five-year ARDA agreement expired on March 31,1977.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister. May I ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to return to his chair in the interest of order in the House, please?

HON. MR. HEWITT: We have had ongoing discussions with the federal government concerning the new ARDA subagreement. As I mentioned to members in my opening remarks, we're looking for an expanded programme under ARDA. We have not concluded the arrangements for it. As a result, we signed an extension of the current ARDA programme to carry us through to July 31,1977, which allows us to carry on our programmes in conjunction with the federal government. By that time, I am fairly confident that the new agreement will be signed for a further five years and will give us those dollars to carry on.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, is that the special ARDA as well, or the general ARDA agreement?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The general ARDA.

MR. STUPICH: How about the special ARDA? Where do we sit there?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The special ARDA, I understand, has been signed.

MR. STUPICH: To what date? Can you tell me? If you don't have that information today, I'll certainly....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I can get it for you.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to know as to what date the special ARDA agreement expires.

The next question is with respect to the farm income assurance. Are there any negotiations going on right now with respect to any further commodity groups?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, there are some negotiations going on, as I understand it. We've just completed, of course, the farm income assurance for the potato growers. There are a number that have been in discussion stages of committee, and I'll probably just have my staff jot down the ones that have been discussed at committee level and give those to you.

MR. STUPICH: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

The other point I want to make - and I know this has been discussed already - is on the world food relief programme. I'll be very brief on it. This is where the $5 million programme was. You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, this really started with a programme announced by Bennett the first. He spoke very glowingly about the opportunities for British Columbia to participate in this kind of programme on a worldwide basis. At the time he first announced his fund for world food relief, he was inviting British Columbians to participate in this kind of programme.

The NDP administration picked up what Bennett the first had started and said that we're prepared to provide $5 million for this kind of programme if the citizens of British Columbia are prepared to match up to the first $4 million. Then it would be matched again by the federal government. We think this is an excellent programme and we're very concerned that the minister has left it entirely out of this vote.

We ask him to withdraw this vote until he can replace that amount of money and continue that extremely worthwhile programme and show the rest of the world what B.C. is prepared to do. We urge him to withdraw this vote.

Vote 97 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 14

[ Page 3199 ]

Mr. Stupich requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the, House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 24

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, during the reading of the list it is traditional in the House that we give the Clerk the courtesy of the House. I trust that we can depend on this.

On vote 98: specialist and regulatory services, $3,962, 022.

MR. KING: I would draw the attention of the House to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the hour is not yet 6 o'clock, and in committee we cannot draw the attention of the House to the clock; we must draw the attention of the Chairman.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, to correct any error in semantics, I draw the attention of the committee to the clock, which is now past 6 o'clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The actual motion, if it is a motion, is that the Chairman's attention is drawn to the clock. And since it is now 6 o'clock, I must now rise and report to the Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

On behalf of the Minister of Highways and Public Works, Hon. Mr. Curtis presents the financial statements of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31,1977.

MR. KING: I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is well aware that by tradition of the House the motion to adjourn is the motion that is moved by the House Leader.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

[ Page 3200 ]

APPENDIX

47 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications the following questions:

In regard to use of Government aircraft during the 1976 calendar year-

1. How many times has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made use of Government aircraft and, in each case, what was (a) the purpose, (b) the point of departure and destination, (c) type of aircraft used, and (d) cost to the taxpayer?

2. What was the total cost to the taxpayer of all such trips?

3. How many other MLA's or Government personnel were present on each of these flights?

4. What persons, other than MLA's or Government employees, traveled on any of these flights?

5. Which trips were for personal and political business?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

"1. 65 trips: (a) Purpose-Government business. (b) , (c) , and (d) As per schedule below.

2. $2,795.

3. As per schedule below.

4. and 5. None.

APPENDIX A

[ Page 3201 ]

[ Page 3202 ]

48 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications the following questions:

In regard to use of Government aircraft during the 1976 calendar year-

1. How many times has the Minister of Economic Development made use of Government aircraft and, in each case, what was (a) the purpose, (b) point of departure and destination, (c) type of aircraft used, and (d) cost to the taxpayers?

2. What was the total cost to the taxpayer of all such trips?

3. How many other MLA's or Government personnel were present on each of these flights?

4. What persons, other than MLA's or Government employees, traveled on any of these flights?

5. Which trips were for personal and political business?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

"1. 67 trips: (a) Purpose–Government business. (b) , (c) , and (d) As per schedule below.

2. $4,779.

3. As per schedule below.

4. and 5. None.

APPENDIX B

[ Page 3203 ]

[ Page 3204 ]

50 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications the following questions:

In regard to use of Government aircraft during the 1976 calendar year-

1. How many times has the Premier made use of Government aircraft and, in each case, what was (a) the purpose, (b) point of departure and destination, (c) type of aircraft used, and (d) cost to the taxpayer?

2. What was the total cost to the taxpayer of all such trips?

3. How many other MLA's or Government personnel were present on each of these flights?

4. What persons, other than MLA's or Government employees, traveled on any of these flights?

5. Which trips were for personal and political business?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

"l. 65 trips: (a) Purpose-Government business. (b) , (c) , and (d) As per schedule below.

2. $3,017.

3. and 4. As per schedule below.

5. None.

APPENDIX C

[ Page 3205 ]

* Non-Government Employees–Press (3).

†Non-Government Employees–Press (5)."