[ Page 2209 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 2209

Oral questions

Labour legislation regarding domestics. Ms. Brown –– 2209

Election expenses. Mr. Macdonald –– 2209

Eckardt commission report. Mrs. Dailly –– 2210

Replacement Pharmacare cards. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 2210

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates

On vote 10

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2212

Mrs. Wallace –– 2214

Mr. Ritchie –– 2218

Mrs. Wallace –– 2220

Mr. Mussallem –– 2220

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2220

Mrs. Wallace –– 2220

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2221

Mr. Leggatt –– 2221

Mr. Ritchie –– 2222

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2223

Mr. Levi –– 2224

Mr. Hyndman –– 2226

Mr. Cocke –– 2228

Mrs. Wallace –– 2230

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2231

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inaugurate the proceedings by introducing a member of the New Democratic Party from Vancouver East, Mr. George Lawson, who is up in the gallery. He is now studying at Douglas College and he seconds as my bodyguard.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, leading us in prayer today was one of my favourite people from the royal city of New Westminster, Pastor Hoave. Pastor Hoave's wife is visiting us in the gallery. I'd like everyone to welcome them here today.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a former long-time member of this Legislature, Mr. Tony Gargrave, and his two very gracious guests from Japan, Mr. Yamada and Mrs. Tsuji. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a good Social Credit member from Alberta who has decided to reside in British Columbia. Would the House welcome Mr. Phil Turner.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed in the gallery some very old friends of my community, Ed Murphy and Annabel Murphy. Ed was the chairman of our school board for many, many years and alderman in the city of Port Moody. They are just an all-round nice couple of people and I'd like very much for you all to welcome them.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today is Mrs, Beverly Rodrigo, who is the chairman of School District 80 in Kitimat, and Mr. Bryan Graydon, who is the secretary-treasurer of that same school district. They are here in Victoria on some cultural and aesthetic matters outside of normal school business. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in a moment I would like members to join me in welcoming Mr. Gerald Robinson of Vancouver to these precincts. Mr. Robinson has moved to Vancouver to continue the practice of law; he's a member of the bars of both Ontario and British Columbia. It is with some mixed emotion that I point out that during his career he spent several very successful years as the national director of the Liberal Party in Canada. He brings his lively interest in public affairs to British Columbia. Would members join me in welcoming Mr. Robinson.

Introduction of Bills

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wolfe, presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transpo '86 Corporation Act.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

LABOUR LEGISLATION REGARDING DOMESTICS

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and it has to do with the coverage of domestics under the Labour Code. On April 7, Mr. Minister, the newly formed B.C. Association of Domestics submitted to the minister's office a brief as well as a letter requesting a meeting with him. They did not receive a response. Therefore on April 24 they sent another letter to that minister asking again to meet with him. In view of the fact that none of the minister's public statements indicate that he is planning on including domestics under the Labour Code, can the minister tell me whether he is willing and able to meet with this new association before that legislation is brought down?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To the hon. member, I acknowledge the letter. I think it was last week when I first saw it. I can tell the House that I am very sympathetic towards the concerns expressed and I think there is a strong possibility something will be coming forth. I would only say to this that I was in a position when that particular letter arrived not to provide a thorough answer. If the hon. member will accept those comments at this time, I would be most grateful.

MS. BROWN: Just one supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because I think the minister is saying that he is going to meet with them before the legislation is brought down. I think that that is what the minister indicated. Am I correct? Is the minister going to meet with this association before the legislation is brought down? That's what I'm trying to find out.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to meet with the delegation. However, I couldn't really respond, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, in the detailed way in which I wanted to at the time. Consequently, I did not respond to the letter which arrived last week in the detail which I would have preferred. But I am quite prepared to meet with the delegation next week or the week after, whenever they are prepared to arrive in Victoria.

ELECTION EXPENSES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General about one of his many internal investigations, this one 139 days after it was announced that he was seeking a report. The Attorney-General is a little bit like the Russians swallowing Afghanistan and the fox swallowing the rabbit and then announcing that "this is now an internal matter and I refuse to discuss it." I therefore ask the Attorney-General: has he now received the report that he ordered on December 14, 1979, from his officials, relating to possible breaches of the B.C. Election Act, having regard to Dan Campbell handing out $65,000 in cash, and the party not reporting from the internal funds in the Premier's office about $250,000 in election expenses until seven months after?

[ Page 2210 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Attorney-General whether he has some concern that 139 days after he orders a fairly simple report, it is not on his desk. What is he waiting for? Is this because it affects the Premier's office? Is the Attorney-General afraid that the Premier might doubletalk some students on that issue in the meantime?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to know why, after 139 days, the Attorney-General sits there very calmly and says: "No, I haven't received a report." Why not? Is it because it involves the Premier?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order. It is clearly argumentative and will not be accepted in question period.

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Attorney-General. On January 25, 1980 — almost three months ago — it was reported that Norman Prelypchan, director of civil law for the Attorney-General's ministry, had been named by Deputy Attorney-General Vogel to make inquiries into the Eckardt commission on electoral reform. My question is, Mr. Speaker, has the minister received this report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The matter to which the member refers is a request I made to the Deputy Attorney-General for an opinion dealing with a certain statutory declaration which was delivered to me. I have not received that opinion from the Deputy Attorney-General and, of course, am not expecting any report myself from Mr. Prelypchan.

MRS. DAILLY: If we're not to expect a report from the Attorney-General, can he tell us in what form the House will be made aware of the investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The House will be made aware of the opinion I receive from the Deputy Attorney-General as to whether or not any action is required that is appropriate to my ministry as a result of this declaration that was filed.

REPLACEMENT PHARMACARE CARDS

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yesterday there were questions directed to me regarding the Pharmacare program by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I would like to share these answers with the House.

First of all, during the questions the allegation was made that there were 15 persons who didn't receive cards and those 15 people had phoned the office of the member. I would like the House to know that in checking with my office I am informed that nobody in my office took a call from Ms. Brown's office regarding the allegations. Had she or her staff called, a client information sheet would have been completed. My staff tell me that none are on file for such an incident. However, I'd be pleased to share these answers. In so doing I would like to say to the member that if there are any questions of concern, a phone call to my office will certainly receive a response readily, or even just a conversation in this House or outside this House on a day-to-day basis would suffice.

The re-issue of Pharmacare cards was undertaken by the ministry in order to update Pharmacare records and achieve closer control of the program. When Pharmacare identity cards were first issued, records of the British Columbia Medical Services Plan were used to establish eligibility, age and other essential information. The Medical Services Plan identity number was used as the identity number on Pharmacare cards. About 35,000 persons were carrying blue cards, which were essentially invalid, since they had been issued from lists of MSA and CU&C members in late 1973. Over the past seven years the Medical Services Plan records were updated, so it was essential to issue these new cards.

Since that time Medical Services Plan records, as I say, have been continually updated and new identity numbers were assigned. Pharmacare cards and records, however, were not updated, and some discrepancies were found between MSP and Pharmacare records. The mass re-issue of Pharmacare cards was planned to rectify this situation and to ensure that all eligible clients held Pharmacare cards with current, valid identity numbers. This is particularly important since Pharmacare introduced a new processing system on April 1. The new computer system improves processing time and increases accountability. It is also designed to automatically reject any claims for payment based on old or invalid identity numbers.

The change in colour — which the member asked about yesterday — from blue to green was planned to enable both pharmacists and card holders to distinguish the old cards from the new ones.

The change in wording from "department" to "ministry" was incidental to the re-issue, as was the change in wording from "pharmacist" to "pharmacist supplier."

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would raise a point of order having to do with the obvious extended length of the reply. I draw to the Chair's attention a ruling on February 28, 1977, by the then Speaker. He said:

It is my recommendation that whenever an hon. minister has a lengthy answer to any question taken on notice that the minister concerned advise the House at the conclusion of oral question period that an answer has been tabled. In this way neither the time of the House within oral question period nor time allotted for other business after oral question period would be infringed upon.

Further, Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 1980, during this session, a similar question was raised with respect to the same minister. At that time Mr. Speaker reviewed the practice of the House and said: "If the question is of such a nature that it requires a lengthy answer, perhaps the best way of a return is to have the answer on the order paper itself as though the question had been a written question."

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I think, taking into account those two previous rulings, it should be your function to suggest to the hon. minister that the answer, because it is obviously lengthy, be tabled.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: May I just speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker? I would think that an oral question in the House implies that the member would want to have an oral response, particularly to this question. I weighed whether I should give this answer within the question period or not, but because the implication was that it was a matter of

[ Page 2211 ]

urgency and because the very raising of the question places some concern into the hearts and minds of those senior citizens out in the community, I feel it is a matter of urgency to respond within this forum.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, may I just add something else to this point of order? If the member who raised the point of order feels this is such a lengthy and complicated order of business, then I suggest that he should put place within his own caucus the suggestion that those kinds of questions be placed on the order paper and then answered on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before coming down with anything that would possibly be of a nature that would fix certain guidelines, if hon. members would allow me the privilege of going over some of the past decisions and rendering further information to members of the House it would be appreciated, rather than reaching a hard-and-fast ruling at this time. If the Deputy Premier would continue her reply, in this case we will allow the additional time for question period to be taken, and I will endeavour to come back to the House with a further ruling for clarification of all members. That is the decision of the Chair, and I ask the Deputy Premier to continue at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, The change in wording from "department" to "ministry" was incidental to the re-issue, as was the change in wording from "pharmacist" to "pharmacist supplier." The latter change reflects the extension of Pharmacare benefits...

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have the attention of the House, because it is important.

...to include non-drug items such as prosthetic devices, which would normally be available through suppliers rather than pharmacists.

The cost of the re-issue of the cards was $100,275.34. This covers costs of production including manufacturing and embossing of plastic cards, printing of carrier cards and delivery to 296,000 Pharmacare clients. I might just mention that this same Pharmacare division was responsible for the dispensing of five million prescriptions.

I would also like to tell you the procedures used for the re-issue of cards. The mailing of the new cards was done over a ten-day period in mid-February. Approximately 90 percent of Pharmacare clients received their new cards before the end of February. The new cards became effective immediately for prescription drug benefits and other Pharmacare benefits. The old blue cards were honoured by pharmacies up to March 15. Since that date, pharmacists have been accepting valid Medical Services Plan cards as interim proof of age and eligibility for benefits in cases where senior had not yet received their new cards. Those people who have not received new cards have been advised through news releases and through pharmacists to apply for a new one by filling out an application form. Applications forms are available at all pharmacies; the Pharmacare office responsible for issuing replacement cards is now completely up to date with the processing of applications.

Pharmacare cards as seniors' identification on city buses is not part of the ministry's Pharmacare program. Transit authorities have in the past accepted Pharmacare cards as proof of age and eligibility-for reduced seniors' fares on buses in Vancouver and Victoria. Although this is not a part of the Pharmacare program, the ministry did make arrangements with British Columbia Hydro to ensure the acceptance of both the old and the new Pharmacare cards by bus drivers until the end of March. At that time — and I'm surprised that the member who raised the question did not know — responsibility for urban transit was transferred to local governments and further arrangements were made through the Urban Transit Authority and the metro transit operating companies in Vancouver and Victoria for the continuing acceptance of either the old blue cards or the new green ones as seniors' identification. In Vancouver bus operators have been instructed to accept a Pharmacare card of either colour as seniors' identification until further notice. In Victoria the same applies until the end of June, with an extension of time available, if required.

These arrangements have also been made with B.C. Ferries to ensure that seniors will not be inconvenienced if their new Pharmacare cards are delayed. In trying to find out further information, we have spoken to Mr. Miller at the UTA, and there is nothing to support the suggestion that the transit people are only recognizing the new card. The UTA knows that the distribution is in progress and will recognize old and new cards until distribution is completed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Human Resources for moving so quickly on my request and granting an extension on the use of the old Pharmacare cards until June 1. I appreciate that, Madam Minister. Thank you very much.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was not your suggestion. It was already done.

MS. BROWN: The other thing I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is to thank her for that very lengthy response and to ask her if she would table it in the House. Also I'd like to bring to her attention the fact that Pharmacare is under her ministry, and if she would check with them...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...they would give her the list of 15 names that were submitted to them when they were told that it had to be submitted in writing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there are a wide and varied number of rules that dictate our behaviour in this assembly. If members choose to abuse and disregard those rules, the actions of your Speaker are limited in maintaining decorum and orderly debate in this House. When the Speaker calls for order, particularly when a member is speaking, it is incumbent upon that member to cease debate and discussion and return to his or her seat and listen to the rules that are brought down. Discussions will come to an end. All members should bear that in mind if we are to maintain any kind of order and decorum at all in parliamentary debate in this chamber. I would ask all members to bear that in mind.

[ Page 2212 ]

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I wonder if I might seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Could you tell me why in this Legislature, where we have a variety of quality of debate, we can see the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) debate with the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) or we can see the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) debate with the member for...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member come to the point of order which she is raising?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: ...and not hear any comments from the gallery, but when we witness really — regardless of the opinions — a brilliant debate between two hon. lady members of this House...

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you to come to the point of order.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

...we hear such a childish sound and side comment as we just heard? I would commend — whether I agree with their positions or not — the two ladies for a rather brilliant and well-executed debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, again, points of order are in fact to be points of order. The Chair is bound by the rules contained in our standing orders. It might be an exercise in consideration for all members to read this book and to return to parliamentary traditions, which are really fast disappearing in this chamber.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to question period, ministers have never been denied leave of the House to proceed with a statement immediately after question period. When they have a long statement to make, to keep the House at its best tone in terms of temper, the minister, instead of taking up a very long portion of a very short question period, could very well do that. And then the opposition doesn't lose its temper and everybody gets on with the business, and I think that's the way it should be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, has to do with what I thought was your ruling, or part of your ruling, with respect to the earlier point of order I raised about the length of the minister's statement — namely, that the time taken up by the minister's statement would not infringe upon the 15-minute question period and that the time would be extended accordingly. I tried to keep my eye on the clock. I couldn't do it as efficiently as the timekeepers can, but it seems to me that that time was not appropriately extended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I believe the extension was approximately five minutes, and that represents the length of time taken up in debate. The time for question period thus came to an end, and an extension was granted, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: I thought this might be a very good time to ask leave of the House to introduce two guests whom I overlooked earlier.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE: I am very pleased and proud to introduce a couple of very old friends of mine from my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. McInroy. I just want them to be assured that this is not a normal day in this House. Would you all please welcome Mr. and Mrs. McInroy.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, just for further guidance in terms of the ruling that the member requested, I would ask you to advise the House whether question period is extended only to the limit of the time of the minister's statement, rather than extended beyond the time taken up by the minister's statement. I would welcome your ruling on that as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

On vote 10: minister's office, $129,448

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm very pleased to be able to take this opportunity to comment on my estimates and my ministry early in the session. I will be having some of my staff people arrive.... They're here now, I guess. Maybe they could sit over here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief remarks. I will, as always, be very pleased to answer any questions that are raised by members of this assembly. In my opinion, agriculture is the number one industry in this province. Although it doesn't generate the revenue of forestry or energy and mines, it does touch everybody in the province of British Columbia, as the supply of food is most important to our well-being.

The agricultural industry in this province is a growth industry. I'm pleased to be associated with that industry, and with the people who really are close to the soil in this province and provide us with many of the commodities that we use in our everyday life.

I say it's a growth industry, and I'd like to give some statistics, if I may, before making further comments — just to look at the key economic indicators in agriculture over the last four years, and relate them to the one statistic I think we can all relate to, that of population. Our population in British Columbia has increased by 4 percent since 1976. In that same period of time the number of farms in British Columbia has increased by 6 percent; the cultivated farmland has increased by 5 percent; the number of farmers has increased by 6 percent; and farm cash receipts have increased by 34 percent.

All commodities in this province have seen substantial increases. I'd just like to touch on a few. Our milk production has increased by 9 percent in that four-year period; poultry meat production is up 34 percent; egg production is up 23 percent; tree-fruit receipts are up 80 percent; vegetable re-

[ Page 2213 ]

ceipts are up 32 percent; floriculture and nursery activity is up 52 percent; honey production is up 100 percent. Cattle numbers in this province are up 3 percent over the past four years — which isn't a very substantial increase, but when you compare it with the rest of Canada, where they've had a reduction of 10 percent, we have come through a serious downturn in the beef industry a few years ago very well. In our hog industry the number of hogs has increased by 72 percent. Sheep numbers are up 37 percent. Wheat and rapeseed production is up considerably. The only down indicator in all of that is our barley production, which is down 30 percent. However, in many cases that crop hasn't been planted; another crop has been planted in its place.

With regard to the ministry, Mr. Chairman, our total budget has increased from $55 million in the 1979-80 budget to $71 million. This is approximately a 30 percent increase over budgetary allotments from last year to this year. The bulk of that increase has been devoted to our financial services, as approximately $13 million has gone to our Agricultural Credit Program, which is direct assistance to the farmers. The main feature of the ministry's budget estimates is a shifting of funds in line with the planned reorganization of the ministry. A relocation of staff in new positions is reflected in the reallocation of salary.

Under the ministry reorganization, Mr. Chairman, a short- and long-term agricultural plan will be developed for each of the five agricultural regions in this province, and they will be coordinated by a regional director. This will allow for a more immediate response to the expressed needs of the region in question and will result in fast action, frontline delivery of service and quick evaluation of the results of those services in getting prompt feedback from the agricultural community. We can adjust in order that our services to the agricultural region is well thought out, efficient and serves the needs of the particular agricultural commodities grown or produced in that region. The reorganization will involve the appointment of five regional directors who will serve as the senior ministry spokesmen in their regions. They will coordinate all regional program planning, in consultation with our specialist service staff, with the commodity groups in those regions and, of course, the agricultural organizations in the regions as well.

The regionalization has resulted in a new vote, totalling $9.8 million. It's called field operation, which consolidates all field extension activity. Horticulturalists, animal scientists, entomologists, engineers and crop specialists will become involved in a dynamic, finely coordinated program of services. An important priority has been identified and embodied in a new division called economics and marketing services, and $1.2 million has been devoted to good marketing and farm financial management. An expanded marketing services branch will strengthen market development, research and information service. It will also improve marketing board liaison and grade regulation. It will increase food promotion in this province.

Our farm economics branch will improve farm financial management and regional economics as well as providing statistics, data processing services and specialists in production and resource economics. In our financial assistance section of the budget, as I mentioned earlier, there is a $13 million increase which primarily is directed to the Agricultural Credit Program and the interest reimbursement program, covering costs incurred in 1979 due to high increases in interest rates. We have announced a program which will take place in 1980. Our limit for '79 was maintained at 9 percent, even with the high interest rate increases. In 1980 we have stated that the plan would be that interest reimbursement will be down to a level of 2 percent below the average bank prime rate and in 1981 the interest costs will be reimbursed down to I percent below the average prime rate. It will become an ongoing program at that level.

I think the most important point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the establishment of an ongoing policy, rather than one subject to annual determination and declaration by the minister, will enable the lenders and the farmers to make long-term financial plans. We also can see in the budget that the allocation to our Farm Income Assurance Program has been reduced by over $3 million. That reduction, I know, can be attributed to the fact that market returns have been much improved over the past few years for B.C. agriculture. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the farmer in this province would much prefer to get his returns from the marketplace as opposed to government stabilization programs. However, we have to recognize that we have to support our agricultural industry in times when the marketplace is depressed. We have to support our agricultural industry against low-cost imported product. Programs we have in place in the province of British Columbia go a long way to giving assistance to, as I say, our most important industry.

We now are in our third year of the ARDSA program and it will continue to work at an accelerated pace. This year we have budgeted $10.4 million for that program. This has been our main channel of development funding. So far we have committed $25.8 million of the five-year $60 million program and it is proving to be more and more popular. We have had 588 applications to the ARDSA program received to date. A wide range of projects, Mr. Chairman, in B.C. agriculture are eligible for assistance, including range improvement, food processing, rural electrification and research. In my opinion, as the minister who signed ARDSA in 1977, this is the one area where we as a ministry can truly support the agriculture industry in this province, by giving assistance in development of the agriculture industry at the farm level or at the value-added level. We can also be of assistance in bringing services to rural communities in this province.

A new responsibility for the Minister of Agriculture this year, of course, is the Agricultural Land Commission. I'm sure I can say very frankly that the farm community is pleased that the Land Commission is now the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. We have appointed two new members to the commission, increasing the number to seven. We have appointed a new chairman, Dr. Mills Clarke, who is well known and well respected in the agricultural community of this province. I hope in a short period of time to name a full-time general manager who will be responsible for the day-to-day operation. This should improve the efficiency of the commission and relieve some of the pressure that has been placed on the commission in processing applications and appeals.

I'm sure the members will be pleased to hear of the allocation this year of $384,000 for fine-tuning of agricultural land reserves. This is the first part of a four-year program to identify and correct problems with agricultural land reserve mappings, land-use conflict and parcel sizes. I think it is a move in the right direction. I hope it will help resolve some conflicts of whether land in the agricultural land reserve in effect has an agricultural capability. I also hope it

[ Page 2214 ]

will help identify those lands that in the first instance were overlooked, that have a good agricultural capability but were not placed in the agricultural land reserve. I am very pleased to say to the members of the assembly that this is our first step in a four-year program to improve mapping of the agricultural land reserve.

Before I sit down I would just like to comment that in my opinion B.C. agriculture has a tremendous potential in the 1980s. In this province we have some things going for us. We certainly have in the short term some possible conflicts or problems, but in the long term, for the decade of the eighties....

Our energy costs are considerably lower than elsewhere in the world, particularly the United States. Also, we have a Canadian dollar at 85 percent of the American dollar. This means our exports of agricultural products can be more competitive in the marketplace. Even though some of our production costs are higher, the relationship of the Canadian and American dollars allows our exports to be more competitive in the marketplace. At the same time, the U.S. import into British Columbia has to pay that premium when it is converted to Canadian dollars. As a result, we have good opportunities there for B.C. agriculture.

Also, we have a fast-growing province. B.C. will continue to be one of the fastest-growing provinces in Canada. That growth in population will give new markets to our farm commodity groups.

Last in those areas where I feel we have a competitive advantage are the transportation costs of moving products to the market. Those costs will continue to increase. I believe we have an opportunity in B.C. agriculture to produce our products, our beef and some vegetable products for example, close to the marketplace, to the lower mainland and Vancouver, as opposed to constantly having to meet a low-cost imported product. With the increased costs of transportation, those products coming across the border will be higher priced, giving our farmers a better return for their own products in the marketplace. By getting that return, they will not have to rely on stabilization programs to the extent that some of the commodity groups have had to in the past.

I would like to make just a few other comments in regard to the problems I see in the agricultural community in the eighties. First of all is the cost-price squeeze. I mentioned that we have had a substantial increase in farm cash receipts. In the last four years the farm cash receipts have gone up by 34 percent. I should mention that farm operating expenses have gone up 41 percent. In many cases, the farmer will tell you, it seems he always has to buy retail and sell wholesale, at the same time competing with low-cost imported products. So they will have a problem and it is my ministry's responsibility to give assistance and support to the agricultural community to improve the efficiency of the farm operation and cut down costs wherever we can look at new technology and new techniques. That is, of course, what we will certainly continue to do. With our reorganization, I think we can accomplish a great deal.

The farmer also has a problem with urban encroachment. There are many instances in this province today where, although people want to protect the farmland and see B.C. agriculture grow and prosper, they don't want to see a piggery anywhere within two or three miles of an urban development, and they don't want to see a feedlot. Where we do have existing farm operations, they're quite prepared to build the residential areas up to the border of the agricultural operation and then they complain because they don't like the feathers or the smell. As a ministry, I think we have to speak out on behalf of the agricultural community in this province and indicate to people that agriculture is our number one industry. We are not going to take a back seat and be pushed around in regard to local zoning matters; we are going to have to take a position which supports the agriculture industry.

We also have another problem with environmental conflicts. There is a question regarding pesticide sprays, where the farm community, as I've often mentioned, has to use certain sprays, certain pesticides, to ensure that they have good quality food for the tables of the consumers of British Columbia. We run into situations where they're accused of being anti-environmentalist. I would suggest to you that the farmer has the greatest stake in the environment in this province; he's the best environmentalist we'll ever have in this province and he's the best spokesman for the environment.

Those are areas where we're going to have to, as a ministry, I think, speak out in coordination with the agricultural community to ensure that the future of agriculture in this province is not jeopardized because of some of the "anti" groups which become very vocal and don't recognize the value of the agriculture industry in this province. As I have said, our 1980-81 budget has increased substantially. We have a reorganization underway and this reorganization is designed to assist the agricultural community and to help the industry meet the short-term challenges which face it and, at the same time, to assist in obtaining the long-term goals that we've set for agriculture in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me my deputy minister, Mr. Sig Peterson, and Mr. John Newman, head of administration of my ministry. We would be very pleased to answer any questions the members may have.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to thank the minister for his remarks outlining his thoughts and ideas about agriculture in British Columbia during the coming year or ten years. I was particularly interested in hearing him say that as far as he was concerned agriculture was the number one industry in British Columbia. I'm particularly pleased to hear him say that, because last year, as you may recall — and as, I'm sure, the minister recalls — he was holding a joint portfolio. I think at the time his estimates came up for discussion there was no doubt in his mind and certainly no doubt in my mind that he was not long for the Ministry of Agriculture. Well, that didn't happen and here he is now as Minister of Agriculture.

Incidentally, I would just like to tell the minister, for his information — and give him perhaps the courtesy of a little more advance notice than I had that these estimates were coming up today — that the opposition intends to deal with the estimates by first dealing with your responsibility for agriculture, secondly dealing with the Agricultural Land Commission and thirdly dealing with ICBC, which you didn't mention. So you may know, Mr. Minister, this will be the order of debate from this side of the House.

Regarding the idea that he is now the full-time Minister of Agriculture, I can't resist just reminding the minister of a remark he made very shortly after he lost the Energy portfolio, when he appeared at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and he was speaking to the federation as Minister of Agriculture. I think it was probably a slip of the tongue, but

[ Page 2215 ]

during the question period he was being pressured quite heavily, and he said: "Hey, you guys. Go easy on me. After all, I've only had this for a couple of days."

Well, I think if anything justified the stance that the opposition took during the last discussion of estimates — that there was no point in discussing agriculture with that minister at that time — it was that remark, because if he didn't have charge of agriculture for those preceding months and, in fact, for all the period except a very, very short time when Mr. Shelford was Minister of Agriculture, certainly I don't know who did have that responsibility. It was rather revealing that the minister did indicate that he really hadn't been concerned about agriculture prior to that time. So I was very pleased to see him stand in his place today and talk about agriculture being the number one industry in B.C.

I was also very pleased that he read from his green sheet which I followed along word for word as he read it here, telling about all the glowing things that have happened in agriculture under his guidance. It was the minister who stood in this House and, quoting some figures, quoted the old cliché that figures don't lie but liars figure. Perhaps that was what prompted me to make a few calculations based on this particular piece of information which he circulated. Using his own figures, in 1977 the cash receipts to the farmer were $515.7 million. However, the net return in 1977 was $103.4 million. In 1978, while it's true that the cash receipts increased to $582.2 million, the net return for 1978 decreased to $97.4 million. This is taking figures right off the green sheet from the minister. In 1979 the gross cash receipts increased to $641.9 million. The net income was $87.9 million.

I went a little further than that and I took the number of farmers shown on this green sheet and I divided it into the total income received per farm family for a given year. In 1977 the average farm income in British Columbia for the average farm family was $5,222. In 1978 that decreased to $4,822, and in 1979 it was down to $4,267. That's using the minister's figures, with just a slightly different calculation.

I think that to indicate the farm family is doing very well in B.C. doesn't really give the entire picture. Certainly if you look at the publication put out by Agriculture Canada, Canadian Farm Economics — and this is the October 1979 issue — on page 21 there's a table dealing by province with the number of farm tax-filing families and their dependents in Canada. You find that there are 3,165 full-time farm families in British Columbia who are classified as low-income. That's 44.5 percent of the total farm population in British Columbia, and it's the highest percentage of low-income farm families in all of Canada. That's taken from the federal publication, Canadian Farm Economics. On the next page it gives some more specifies, and it talks about net income of full-time and part-time farm families. B.C. has the lowest record for farm families in Canada. The average net income is minus $2,448 for full-time farm families in the low-income bracket, and for the part-time ones it's minus $2,101. It's the worst record of any province in Canada as far as net returns to the farmer are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I have a note from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who would like me to yield the floor to him for just a moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it will be brief, as I understand it. Thank you very much, hon. member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you to the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

I wonder if I could ask leave of the House to introduce a group of students.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder if you would join me in welcoming a group of school students who have just arrived from Kumsheen Secondary School in Lytton. They're accompanied by three of their teachers, Mr. Art Nicholson, Mrs. Sharon Spinks, who is the home and school coordinator, and Mr. Graham Everett. They are down here to visit Victoria and the Legislature today. Would those few members still remaining in the assembly room please make them welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to join the Minister of Forests in welcoming the young people from Lytton. I'm sure that they're interested in agriculture, perhaps more interested than some of the members of this Legislature. I hope they enjoy the debate.

So, Mr. Chairman, I rest my case that we're not doing so well financially in agriculture, according to the minister's own statistics and to the statistics put out by the federal Department of Agriculture. Of course this leads one to wonder why. Why aren't we doing so well here in British Columbia? What are some of the reasons?

Well, I think one of the reasons very much in the forefront lately is just who you allow to become involved in agriculture in British Columbia. Do you keep agriculture in the control of British Columbians? Do you keep agriculture as an operation which emphasizes the small viable family farm, or do you move away from that into the corporate concentration area where history has been that the producer becomes merely a share-cropper? This has happened in Ontario to a degree with the milk industry, it's happened in Manitoba to quite a degree in the hog industry, and it's happening under this ministry and this government in British Columbia in the poultry industry.

We've had some discussions on the floor of this Legislature before, relative to Cargill. The minister persisted in getting rid of Panco Poultry, because it was a no-no, because the New Democratic Party had bought it, and therefore he couldn't keep it. He had to get rid of it.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it was making money. It was doing a job for the poultry producers of British Columbia. But no, he had to get rid of it. Who did he sell it to? Cargill — a notorious, international corporation, a private company that deals mostly in grain, but particularly in food-related products.

He stood on the floor of this Legislature and he told us that it was a great deal, Mind you, he made $8 million from the deal — the difference between what the NDP paid for it and what he got out of it. He sold it to Cargill. He told us it was a great deal. He told us that Cargill was going to spend $4 million upgrading the plant and putting it in shape. It was a great thing for the poultry industry. It was a great day for farming in British Columbia. Well, we didn't agree.

I'm surprised; I assumed that that minister had a good business background. He'd been an accountant at a credit

[ Page 2216 ]

union for a long time. He should have been very knowledgeable about how to operate in the business world. I just assumed that when he stood in this Legislature and told us that Cargill were going to put $4 million worth of improvements into that plant, that they were going to do it, that they had to do it, because that was part of the agreement. But you know, Mr. Chairman, he just did it with a shake of the hand. There was no provision that those improvements had to be made. Nothing! No assurance that that $4 million would be spent. Sure, there were lots of fine statements from the people that managed Cargill. The new owner of Panco Poultry, Cargill Grain of Winnipeg, announced a three-year improvement plan. They said $3 million; the minister told us $4 million. We should have suspected something right then.

Roger Murray said the plan involves installing modern equipment, using labour and materials. He also said the plan will stabilize the long-term future of the 350 persons already employed. "Aggressive marketing programs will ensure that Panco Products retain existing markets as well as build new ones, " said Murray. "New products will be developed to meet consumer demand."

Well, it didn't happen. Cargill did nothing except carry on the way Panco had carried on the same amount of business. Then the next thing we know, Cargill is trying to buy Maplewood Poultry Processors. It seems the minister had had a slight change of heart, but I'm not sure whether he had a change of heart or whether his heart was changed for him. Because certainly, if you listen to the owner of Maplewood, if you listen to Cargill itself, you hear that the minister had written to Ottawa saying he had no objections to Cargill taking....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, if it's not true, he can tell us later. But certainly that's what the owner of Maplewood is saying. That's what Cargill has said. I don't know how the pieces fit into place if that isn't what happened. But there is some indication that the minister was not opposed to the takeover last November or December.

The minister will recall that I finally became so concerned — nothing was happening apparently — that I had protested to FIRA. It seemed that FIRA had no indication of opposition from the government. I raised the question on the floor of the House, and the minister at that time said it was under review. I give him credit. Later — the next day in fact — he came into this House and he indicated that he'd changed his mind. Well, no, he didn't say that. But I'm assuming that he changed his mind.

Anyway, he came into the House and he told us that the government was going to interfere. They were going to intercede with FIRA and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was going to do that.

Several days later we still hadn't seemed to hear anything. We asked the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and he said yes, he had interceded. We asked him to table the document in the House, but he decided he wouldn't do that, for various reasons.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, he refused. Yes, that's right. Thank you, Mr. Minister. He refused to file the document.

We can surmise the reasons. Anyway, he didn't file the document. However, they did intervene, and I'm surprised how influenced FIRA could be. It's supposed to be an independent agency that makes a decision based on the corporate concentration, and its assessment of that, under the terms of the federal legislation. But somehow they are very easily influenced by the stance of a provincial government. There are a lot of pros and cons about whether that should be, but apparently it is.

Anyway, FIRA then came down — once the intervention had come through from the provincial government — and said: "No, Maplewood cannot be sold to Cargill."

AN HON. MEMBER: You agree with that?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I agreed with that. Sure, absolutely.

But the thing is, Mr. Chairman, that having taken that one step, having gone the route of opposing the corporate takeover by Cargill, then the minister, whether he likes it or not, and the government, whether they like it or not, have intervened in the marketplace and have a responsibility to ensure that the poultry industry continues to have the facility, the jobs and the opportunity to continue to function. That is where the minister has seemed to fall short, because that hasn't happened. He made some eleventh-hour, deathbed repentance offer to pick up half the tab, which the owner of Maplewood didn't accept, and perhaps rightly so. Perhaps he is forcing the issue by not doing that, I don't know. But that doesn't help those 135 people that are out of jobs.

I think the most interesting development of all was the sour grapes attitude displayed by Cargill once this was turned down. They said, "Okay, that one's down today; in three months we're going to phase out the turkey operation in our Panco operation" — the part of the plant they already own. No more talk about a $3 million expansion, no more talk about all these wonderful things they were going to do for the poultry industry in British Columbia. They didn't get Maplewood, so they were going to take their marbles and go home, more or less. They were going to phase out the turkey operation.

Well, does that sound like a good corporate citizen? Does that sound like the type of attitude that should be displayed by a good corporate citizen in British Columbia? It doesn't sound like that to me, Mr. Chairman, and it certainly increases my concerns about what Cargill's intentions really are here. I believe that Cargill is no different in B.C. than in any other area where it chooses to operate. It wants control. It wants control of the industry. It is already in pigs here in B.C. It was very big in turkeys and chicken. It was already saying that the Panco plant would not process birds if the eggs and poults were not purchased from Pankell. It was already starting to throw its weight around.

If it had taken over Maplewood I guess two things could have happened. Either they would have completely taken over control of the poultry industry here in British Columbia, probably moving into feed very shortly, or they would have simply shot it down and imported the product. Because that is the history of Cargill, and that minister should have been aware when he made the deal with Cargill that he was dealing with that kind of company. That very attitude is one of the reasons that agriculture is in such an unhealthy position in British Columbia. That is one of the reasons why the economic indicators, as published by the ministry itself and by the

[ Page 2217 ]

federal ministry, indicate that we are not in good shape in agriculture here in British Columbia.

Now, I could retrace the history of Cargill, some of its background, but that's been gone over many times here in this Legislature, and I'm sure that it will be gone into by many other speakers in this debate, because this is a very important thing to those of us in the New Democratic Party caucus. Cargill has become a symbol of the direction in which you go. Do you go in the direction of allowing a large corporation to control the production, processing and distribution of your food, or do you ensure through some government intervention that that does not happen, that the small family farm, the co-op or locally owned concern, continues to have an ability to operate? We don't want our farmers in British Columbia to be share-croppers, simply growing a product on a commission basis or on a take-what-we-offer type of arrangement, as is done with poultry producers in some of the southern states. We don't want that to happen in our hog industry, as it is happening in Manitoba. We don't want that to happen with any farm industries in British Columbia.

I don't really believe that the members on the other side of the House want that to happen but the problem is that their philosophy seems to be such that they don't know how to prevent it from happening. They move ahead, allowing people like Cargill to come in and take over; allowing them on the shake of a hand and a promise that they are going to do something, to buy a plant at a bargain-basement price, actually. Then, at the eleventh hour, for whatever reason I'm not sure.... I have an idea that perhaps the minister found that other members of the cabinet felt that they were getting so much pressure against Cargill they had to take the stand they did. I sometimes wonder if it wasn't taken over the head of this particular minister. But having done it, they should have carried on with the next step to ensure that the poultry industry was secure in the province of British Columbia, that there was the opportunity. The offers that they have made, the negotiations that they are carrying on seem to have ground to a halt. There is very little activity. I hope that's not true. I hope that they can proceed to ensure that the local farmer has an opportunity to participate there.

But, you know, this is a problem of their own making, Mr. Chairman. It's a problem that resulted from allowing a concern like Cargill to come into the province in the first place, not only to come into the province in this way, but I think one of the more shocking things that has come out was the fact that under this government they managed to be pressured into paying farm income assurance to Cargill in their swine scheme. The minister said: "Well, it was a small amount. It was only one unit; it wasn't on all of them." But the fact remains that Cargill really doesn't need that kind of assistance. Taxpayers' dollars shouldn't be being paid to an outfit of that magnitude. The minister said: "Well, it's difficult; you wouldn't want to disfranchise the small corporate farm." And no, of course, I wouldn't. But it didn't happen with the former government. I think it's very indicative of this particular government's attitude that it has happened with this government.

I have concerns about the true direction that this ministry is taking agriculture in the province of British Columbia. As I say, I'm very pleased to hear the minister say that he believes agriculture is the number one industry. I hope he really does believe that. If he really does believe that, then I hope he is prepared to go to cabinet and fight for that industry and to win a few of those battles, because that doesn't seem to have been happening, Mr. Chairman.

They talk about reorganization and food coming under agriculture; that's mentioned in the throne speech. When we look at the estimates, sure, there is extra money in the marketing end of it, but that isn't really food. That's not really getting into the whole problem of farm-gate-to-dinner-plate kind of arrangement. That's not happening, as far as I can see from the figures shown in the estimates here. So that's something we will want to talk about a great deal at a later time.

But at this particular point in time, I think the minister owes it to this House to make some explanations to the members of this assembly regarding the sale to Cargill in the first place, the lack of guarantee in the contract that any expansions would take place, that those $3 million or $4 million would be expended to upgrade the plant. Perhaps he should tell us the whole story behind the decision to intervene with FIRA, why he was on the mainland talking to the poultry growers and to the boards, particularly to the growers. In fact, my information is that he asked the growers to change their position, even though he had then officially changed to opposing the takeover. I think those things should be told to this Legislature.

Then, I think, having agreed and established the direction that he is opposing the takeover, he should tell us what he is going to do to ensure that the poultry industry is able to continue to function, what he is going to do to ensure that Cargill does not still wield too much influence and, in fact, whether or not he has any intention of involving himself in this matter as a minister to support that particular facet of the agricultural sector, or if he is just going to sit back and let it ferret out its own answers as best it can. Is the minister prepared to deal with any of those questions?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the Cargill acquisition of Panco and the position of the government concerning their desire to purchase Maplewood, first of all, Panco Poultry was purchased by the former administration. It's very well known throughout British Columbia that we didn't want to be in the chicken business when we were elected in 1975. We didn't think that was a role of government, and as a result we put the plant up for sale. It wasn't just the processing plant; it was seven turkey farms, I believe, four chicken farms and a feed mill. The government was in a vertically integrated chicken business, right from the hatching of the eggs and supplying the feed to the farms and farmers who were share-croppers and to the processing plant. I hope I made it perfectly clear, Mr. Member, that it was the NDP government.

I can tell you that when we came into government the poultry industry was very concerned about the plant and about the fact that government was involved in the production and processing of turkeys and chickens. We sold it after a good discussion with the poultry industry, I think, over a period of time. When we went to sell the plant, we separated those farms from the Panco Poultry holdings. We sold seven individual turkey farms and four individual broiler farms to single-farm operators. We took it out of government ownership and management share-croppers — if the member for Cowichan-Malahat wants to use that term — and sold them back to where they could be operated by an owner as a single-farm unit.

We then sold the feed mill to a small B.C. company from the Fraser Valley. We placed the poultry processing plant up

[ Page 2218 ]

for sale. We had a number of offers, and all offers were fully analyzed. The sale was completed to Cargill with the full understanding and support, I might add, of both the broiler and turkey producers of this province.

When we move into the Maplewood situation which has come to light recently, where Cargill made its offer, our concern was that they were moving to a more dominant position in the turkey and broiler processing operations in this province. Up to this point we basically had Scott's, Maplewood and Panco as the three major operations in the poultry processing industry. With the loss of Maplewood, if it was acquired by Cargill, we would have then had two, and the Cargill operation would have control of in excess of 80 percent of the turkey processing and in excess, I believe, of 45 percent of the broiler processing, plus they would have been supplying 100 percent of the turkey poults in this province. We felt that possibly was too dominant a position for one major agribusiness to have in this province. That's basically why we stated our case in Ottawa to the Foreign Investment Review Agency.

I'm not sure that answers all the questions that the member raised, but that specifically deals with the Panco and Cargill situation.

MRS. WALLACE: Why did it take so long to reach that decision? Why was it just at the eleventh hour that the ministry finally got involved? And once having taken that decision, what are you prepared to do now? One step is no good without the other. You have to follow through, Mr. Minister. What are you prepared to do at this point? First, why did it take so long to reach that decision? Secondly, what are you going to do now?

MR. RITCHIE: I will be very brief. I'm compelled to enter this debate only because I was one of those unfortunate souls that suffered at the hands of the NDP government when they were in power, and particularly at the hands of that member when she was a member of the then known superboard. They really threw their weight around in attempting to make the farmers of British Columbia truly crop-sharing farmers.

I'm not sure whether that member is totally confused, whether she's absent-minded or whether, as usual, she's playing political games just to make political points. But I think it would be fair for me to say here today, as close as I am to the farming community, that they're not all listening to the things that she's saying in this House, because they're misleading. I have some clippings here that will prove to this House, to the gallery and to the people out there, and particularly those people who are out of jobs today.... I'm not allowed in this House to say that she's hypocritical; that's not allowed. I don't know what to call it.

I'm going to read a couple of articles here that appeared in the newspapers on February 26, 1975:

"A Victoria-based poultry-processing firm has asked the provincial government to back its bid to purchase a recently closed Abbotsford plant. Agriculture minister Dave Stupich said Monday Maplewood Processors has asked the government for a loan guarantee under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act to acquire the Willows Poultry processing plant at Abbotsford. "

It was a straight request.

Then in the same newspaper August 19, 1975: "Government Accused of Delaying Loan to Reopen Chicken Plant."

Do you recall?

"The provincial government is dragging its heels on a poultry-processing plant deal that would help egg farmers get rid of their surplus chickens, a leading processor said here Monday. Brian Hambley, head of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., said his company is still trying to negotiate with the Department of Agriculture for a $1.5 million loan that would help renovate and reopen the former Willows processing plant in Abbotsford."

We started in February and this is August; they're still trying. Then we get on to October. I'll wait until the member's listening. This is quite important, because it could be very embarrassing for you when you get out there to speak in public.

MRS. WALLACE: You've never embarrassed me yet, Bill.

MR. RITCHIE: No sense, no feeling.

"Valley Poultry Plant to Reopen. The Willows Poultry processing plant, which is now known as Maplewood, closed earlier this year, has been sold and will reopen in time to handle Christmas turkeys. Bryan Hambley, owner of the Maplewood Poultry plant near Victoria, confirmed Friday that he bought the Abbotsford operation from Canada Packers for more than $500,000. When reopened in early December the Willows plant will compete with the government-owned Panco Poultry Ltd. and William Scott, 40 percent owned by the provincial government."

A private individual was going to gamble his money and get in and compete with the two majors owned by the government. "

"Hambley said Willows will rehire 110 Canadian Food and Allied Workers union members under the same contract they had when the plant closed ten months ago. Hambley said the plant will undergo more than $300,000 in renovations and be reopened. He added that the reopening comes in spite of the provincial government's apparent desire to see no competition for its two plants."

It's not good enough for Cargill but it was fine for the socialist government to hold the position that you didn't want this other company to own.

"Earlier this year Hambley twice applied and was refused a government-guaranteed loan under the NDP-created Farm Products Improvement Act for secondary farm industry."

Who are you kidding? You're not kidding me; you're not kidding the farmers; and you're not kidding the people out there on the street, because they know what's going on.

I would like to go on a little bit further here, Mr. Chairman. I believe I mentioned this in this House before, but here we have a member who, I believe, about a week or so ago stood up in this House and said that this government refused Pan Ready the financial support necessary in order to purchase this plant. You said that. It's in the Blues. And you will find out if you check that the Pan Ready organization did look at the operation and decided against it.

[ Page 2219 ]

MR. LEGGATT: They didn't get the information to make the bid. That's the reality.

MR. RITCHIE: The information is there. Don't try to make excuses. They decided on good business judgment not to proceed with the purchase of that plant. If you want to check out the details you will find that that is correct.

But what I am really upset about and am quite concerned about is the fact that we can have a member stand up in this House and say the things that are being said that are really very deceiving and misleading to the public, and the farmers don't like it one bit. That's not being critical of the Minister of Agriculture, in my opinion; that's riding on the backs of those farmers who really don't need this sort of representation at all. They want good, sound, honest, commonsense, practical representation or criticism, if that's what it must be. They don't need this misleading stuff.

Do you recall the days when the government overrode the producers in the purchase of Panco? I believe it was the leader of your party who very quickly stepped into the breach and said, "No, we want it, " offered and paid more money for it and got it. Do you recall the day, Madam Member, when the board of the day said that that was fine? But the regulations, as they apply to everyone else, also apply to the government. At that time, Mr. Chairman, they said that whenever a farm of this magnitude changes hands, the production quota will be adjusted down to that which is allowed everyone else.

Mr. Chairman, in that day the board, in order to be fair to the government and not allow the government to waste any more tax dollars than were being lost, said that we would do this on a graduated basis. They said: "We will reduce your quota to the maximum allowed to anyone else, the balance we will put on permit, and we will phase you out over a period of years." Very, very fair indeed. But, Mr. Chairman, that was not satisfactory for that member and for the other government-of-the-day appointed members, because they said: "No, we're not going to stand for that, because we are government and you're going to do it our way." Do you recall those days?

MRS. WALLACE: Not the way you do.

MR. RITCHIE: You can't remember?

MRS. WALLACE: I recall those days, but not the way you do.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, I am prepared to stand up on any platform inside or outside this House and tell it, because it's a fact. It's a fact of life, and all of the turkey producers of this province are witness to the fact that you, Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, did in fact attend a meeting where you said: "We know better what's good for you."

Do you recall the day when you called the marketing board chairman into a special meeting? By the way, I have since attempted to get the minutes of that meeting but apparently they didn't keep minutes for that particular one. But at that particular meeting, Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the marketing board was told: "You will do what we instruct you to do or we will throw you out of office and we will disband the board if necessary." Isn't that right? Do you remember that? You were there.

Do you remember? It was Dr. George Winner, who was the chairman, who chaired the meeting that day, and I believe you had your legal adviser — Mr. Moscop, was it? You remember that day. You recall when the chairman said: "I would suggest you don't take such dramatic action, because it'll only backfire and create a terrible turmoil in the industry. It's not going to do anyone any good." The chairman suggested that rather than do that we call all the producers together and we ask them: "What would you like to do? Do you want the government to maintain control of such a major portion of the turkey-producing industry or do you want your board to proceed with the plans that they have, which are plans that apply to every other producer in this province? What would you like the board to do?" We had a vote and it was unanimous. They said: "We want the board to stand firm and do on this particular case as they do with any other — treat the government as you would treat any other individual. You can't be fairer than that. " And we had the vote and all voted in favour of that position.

That member for Cowichan-Malahat very proudly stepped to the podium with this agreement, which, in my opinion, was an illegal agreement — all prepared and not signed by the board chairman. You stepped forward to the podium and told the people there: "I am sorry, but we know better what is good for you than you do." And you signed it right there. The growers remember it. The industry suffered very, very badly as a result of it. Madam Member, do you recall the time when the government-owned plants said: "We disagree with you producers on your pricing. We're not prepared to pay that price on those grades, etc. Unless you do something about it, we're going to stop taking your product". Do you recall those days?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: You remember them. I'm glad you do, because the government-owned plants said no, and we had real hardship in the field. We had families out there who were really concerned and worried because not only had they put their own funds into producing these birds, but they had a lot of borrowed money in them as well. They could see this thing going down the drain, and it was costing them more and more dollars per day.

I'm going to wait until the member is paying attention, Mr. Chairman, because I would like this to be particularly for her benefit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have the Chair's attention.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, that's fine, Mr. House Leader, if that's the sort of stuff.... You carry right on, but I'm telling the truth here.

I would like to tell the House that those producers were very, very worried, only because the government said: "No, we're not going to take your product until you do what we want done." Eventually they had to give in, because it was going to be a terrible political embarrassment.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't really think that it was necessary for me to get into this debate, because I'm sure that our Minister of Agriculture can do a very able job of defending his own estimates. But I just can't sit idly by and witness some of the statements that are being made without putting this information on record. I would ask the member that she

[ Page 2220 ]

be very careful about some of these comments. It just seems to me that it's not a question of "Do what's right," but rather, "Don't do as we do; do as we say." I don't think that's right at all.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member for Central Fraser Valley has some great recollections of the days when I was on the "superboard," but the thing that he doesn't tell this House is that the "superboard" was called in to get the turkey industry moving again when he was chairman and ground it right into the ground. We got it moving by instituting a two-price system, which is still in existence.

It is not my estimates which are up here today, and we're not discussing the "superboard" specifically; we're discussing this minister's actions and we're discussing his actions relative to Cargill. I have asked a couple of questions and I think the minister has them, but I will repeat them. I want to know why he delayed so long in making his decision relative to interceding with FIRA. And, having made that decision, what is he prepared to do to ensure that the poultry industry in the valley continues to be a viable operation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In order that debate may reciprocate, the Chair will recognize the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, there's a very, very serious matter at the present time in the Fraser Valley. I'd like to ask the minister a direct question regarding the Maplewood Poultry Processing plant. With its closure, many turkey producers are very concerned. I wonder if the minister has an answer for this. I won't lengthen my remarks any further, because I think it's important enough to get an answer immediately. I would appreciate it very much, if he sees his way clear to do that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the member for Dewdney's question; but first of all to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace): I don't consider there was any delay in deciding on the matter of Cargill's offer to purchase Maplewood and the matter of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I believe that when the member asked the question of me in this House, I said that the matter was under review. Shortly thereafter, I also stood in this House, I believe, and advised the member what the decision was and of the fact that we had communicated that decision to Ottawa, saying that we could not support the purchase of Maplewood by Cargill.

To the member for Dewdney — and I guess to a certain extent to the member for Cowichan-Malahat who, I believe, wanted to know what the action was for the turkey producers out in the Fraser Valley — I can tell you, Mr. Member, that a little more than a week ago we had a meeting in Richmond with the turkey producers, the turkey board, members of my staff, myself and a representative of Woods, Gordon, management consultants, and we set up a task force to attempt to put the figures on paper as to what the costs were going to be in regard to the acquisition of Maplewood.

Approximately three or four days ago, I believe, I was presented with the consultants' report, which basically just dealt with figures. I sent it away because it didn't give me what I wanted, which was a proposal on how we could assist in the turkey producers acquiring the Maplewood plant. The task force, as I understand it, have been working on this matter. As recently as yesterday morning there was a meeting with the turkey producers. There will be a meeting with my senior staff on Friday — tomorrow — and I am hopeful that a proposal will be in front of me, basically saying how it can be done and what producer participation there will be; possibly what employee participation there might be; what involvement the programs under the Ministry of Agriculture will have — for example, the ARDSA program or the Agricultural Credit Program; and whether or not we look at financing through the B.C. Development Corporation or other lenders. I hope to have that material in front of me the first part of next week, in order that I can make a decision or a recommendation to my cabinet colleagues as to whether or not we can assist to the extent required — which will make this plant viable, which will reopen it and provide employment for 130 to 140 employees, and which will provide for the processing of those turkeys of the turkey producers in that area, who are greatly concerned, because they're having to hold turkeys and continue to feed them beyond their prime market time.

We all recognize that, first of all, the plant closed back in 1975. I believe it was owned by Canada Packers at the time. At that time, Mr. Hambley purchased it and opened it and operated it. He determined to close it or to sell it to Cargill, and the rationale behind those moves was the economics of the plant — the fact that turkey inventories were high; the fact that the market price for turkey was low; the costs of processing were high, which meant running it at a loss continually.

The question that has to be answered is: what is a realistic price for the plant? What is a realistic method of acquiring the plant and of financing the plant to make it viable? We have to address ourselves to the question as to whether or not, if it cannot proven to be a viable operation — in the long term even — should we then be moving in to prop a plant up. I would suggest that that would open many doors to many industries in British Columbia, who would say, "If Maplewood, why not us?", because there are many industries today that, if for no other reason than interest rates, are getting into some serious cash-flow positions.

So I can tell you, Mr. Member for Dewdney, that I'm hopeful that in the first part of next week I'll have that proposal on my desk — the one I want; the one that will say: "Mr. Minister, here is how we feel it will work. " Then I can indicate to Treasury Board or to my cabinet colleagues what government's involvement or assistance will be, taking the position that if we make these moves, we will have — in the long term — a viable turkey processing plant in the Fraser Valley.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for bringing us up to date on what's going on with the Maplewood plant. For his guidance when he's reviewing the report from Woods, Gordon and when he's talking to cabinet relative to this matter, I would like to suggest that he consider some of the criteria used by other credit-granting agencies in this province to other organizations that are non-agricultural. For example, TIDSA sets a maximum of $600,000 at half of prime; now that's a long way below the one or two below prime that he's talking about for farmers. So I think he should consider that. Other groups in this province, in other areas, are getting money at half of prime. On top of that, they are getting 25 percent of the total amount on one of those "non-interest-bearing forgivable loans," i.e. a grant. I hope the minister will bear that in mind, because certainly the agriculture industry deserves at least the same kind of treatment as the tourist industry in this province and, I would say, probably a darn sight more.

[ Page 2221 ]

He tells me that he told me they were reviewing the matter — the intervention to FIRA — and that the next day he announced they had intervened. Had the minister, or cabinet, made any contact with FIRA in any way, shape or form, prior to that time, suggesting any position that this provincial government was taking or proposing to take relative to the takeover by Cargill?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response to the question regarding TIDSA and the maximum advance under the TIDSA program, which for the members of the gallery is the Travel Industry Development Subsidiary Agreement, they have a maximum of $600,000 non-interest-bearing loan, which is forgivable if they show performance. In 1977 we signed ARDSA, which I think is the greatest achievement in the Ministry of Agriculture in the history of this province: $60 million, $30 million by the provincial government and $30 million by the federal government, a five-year program to assist the agricultural industry in its growth in this province. Part of that program deals with non-interest-bearing forgivable loans. The maximum amount under ARDSA is $750,000. I have an agricultural critic who is quick to criticize, yet doesn't even recognize the biggest program that this ministry has put into place, a tremendous program. That $750,000, if we can meet the guidelines of the ARDSA program, will go to the turkey producers of this province to put Maplewood back into operation, and to save those jobs.

So I would suggest that we've done a great deal. We're there, and we're ready, and if we can fit in the guidelines in that program, we'll get that plant in operation. But we have to reach certain criteria first. You can't say to my federal counterpart: "Let's put this money in, but even with this money it won't work. " I can't do that. We have to design the strategy and provide the information to determine that with that assistance it will work.

That would be my only comment. I responded quickly to that; I'll let the member ask me the other question because I've forgotten it, I was so excited about that answer.

MRS. WALLACE: You know and I know that ARDSA, as it presently stands, is not the kind of program that can provide that kind of processing facility. If you can get the federal government to agree, that's great, but certainly ARDSA, as it has been used in the past, has been for something quite different than the processing industry.

The other question was: had you or any other minister made any communication with FIRA or the federal government, prior to the statement that you announced in the Legislature, relative to the government's position on the takeover of Maplewood?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The communication with FIRA does not fall under my ministry. That's the only comment I would make, other than to mention this, going back to ARDSA. This program has been in place and has assisted many of the processing plants in this province since 1977. Don't say whether the federal agreement.... The program's there, the guidelines are there, and it's available to Maplewood. However, it must meet the criteria and guidelines of ARDSA agreement, which any other processing plant in this province has to reach.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a few comments first of all about the remarks from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). I am sorry he is not in the House. I got the distinct impression that we were here debating the estimates of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). It seems that she has been placed in the position of answering questions for the ministry, providing information in terms of agriculture. I just wanted to tell the member for Central Fraser Valley, who is obviously the minister-of-agriculture-in-waiting, that he is in for a long wait. The next minister could very well be the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

In terms of the problems that we have surrounding the Cargill and the Maplewood questions, the difficulty is, I think, a lack of policy direction on the part of the government. The government took a position some time ago against vertical integration. That position led them to a justification for the sale of the Panco operation originally. I have a little bit of understanding of what their concerns are in vertical integration. In the process of that sale of Panco, a government operation which had only very mild vertical integration — but it had some; we will have to agree that there were some farms around that particular processing owned by the same operation. Their answer to vertical integration was to sell that operation to the greatest vertical integrator in the world, which is Cargill Grain. So don't, Mr. Minister, with the greatest respect, justify the sale of that government operation in terms of your opposition to vertical integration, when what clearly is happening in the industry now, as a direct result of that sale to that giant multinational, is the pressure toward vertical integration which the government has a great deal of trouble resisting.

Now I admit we see from the evidence that there has been a kind of deathbed repentance. I see the minister smiling, but I'm sure he agrees. He is now saying: "Look what we've done now. Darn it, we've got this Cargill group in here. Well, let's stop that anyway." You know, the baby was thrown out with the bath water when the minister decided on the initial move in regard to Panco. There's where the problem really lies. You invited the devil in, and you are never going to get rid of him now. He's here and he's in the process of vertically integrating that industry for the benefit of that multinational.

It becomes a kind of debate over where we want to go in agricultural policy. Do we want California as our model for agricultural production? We have to admit that it's efficient and that it produces low-cost food, but it provides a lifestyle that the people of British Columbia reject for very good reason. In saying that, Mr. Minister, I appreciate the fact that we may be facing higher food costs. I don't think we can have the best of both worlds in every instance. I think we have to be straight and honest about this and admit that there are elements in a farm policy which protects the lifestyle of the family farm which could result in higher farm product costs. But the people of British Columbia, I say, have been willing to accept that sacrifice all along.

This government hasn't understood that that's what the people in the farming industry really want. They want to protect their industry and their lifestyle. By bringing in Cargill Grain you began the real process of vertical integration. The very modest vertical integration, through decisions taken out of sheer necessity by the New Democratic government in the Panco situation, is peanuts compared to what the minister's now facing. Ask the farmers how much they welcome Cargill into the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 2222 ]

I listened to my friend from Central Fraser Valley telling me about this horrible thing that the government did around Panco. He said that there were private individuals willing to put up money to compete. Remember that he said that? Let's go back to the question of that acquisition for just a minute.

I want to remind the member who knows so much about Pan Ready Poultry: Scott Pan Ready wanted the Panco operation. The reason Cargill got that operation was that they were only slightly below the Cargill bid — and they put in a bid. Where was the member for Central Fraser Valley? Why wasn't he up screaming about the fact that Cargill acquired Panco in competition with good, native British Columbia operations? I didn't hear him say anything about it. That's a case of a private individual having been oppressed by the government of the province at the time. Ask the directors of Pan Ready. The member for Central Fraser Valley likes to have attention; I want to have his attention for a minute. I want you to go to the board of directors of Pan Ready Poultry and ask them how they feel about Cargill's purchase of Panco, and their failure to acquire it. Was it a business judgment on their part to withdraw, or was it the fact that they were outbid by Cargill? They were outbid by Cargill by a very modest amount. Just check his facts, that's all I'm asking. I'll be happy to provide him with the correspondence I have in my file.

You see, the member for Central Fraser Valley gets up and argues about how the little guy in British Columbia got hit by this government's decisions around the Panco operation. Well, they were hit even harder by the decision of this government to sell Panco to Cargill. That's where vertical integration is coming to the province. That's where our problems lie, in now trying to resist real vertical integration from the professionals at vertical integration.

MR. RITCHIE: Do you want me to respond with the facts now?

MR. LEGGATT: You'll be able to respond if you like when you have a chance to get facts. I don't mind him getting up and saying something. Go ahead, as long as I don't lose the floor, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be entirely up to the floor.

MR. RITCHIE: Very briefly, so that it's done when the iron's hot, the transaction the member is speaking about.... I was quite actively involved in assisting that group at that time, and the decision then was that they did not have the capital nor did they have the full membership support in order to purchase the Panco assets.

MR. LEGGATT: The member didn't comment on one other aspect: whether they had sufficient information to make an intelligent bid.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I'd be very happy to. Yes, they did. I personally was involved with the people who had the information, and the information was made available to the group, which I was active in. It was based on that information, finances available and total cooperation of all the members that they decided against the purchase.

MR. LEGGATT: Did they withdraw their bid?

The reality is that if you want to look at how small operators in British Columbia are dealt with by either government or business, I can tell you now that they're far better to be at the tender mercies of the government than they are at the mercy of the Cargill Grain Company. That's what the principle was all about, and that's something that this government has failed to keep in mind when it tries to develop some kind of agricultural policy.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I won't read the riot act again around Cargill Grain other than to say that as a world corporate citizen they leave a great deal to be desired. They are short weighting grain to India — 106 charges by the Wheat Board of Canada, etc., etc. That's the kind of agricultural policy we've had from that government, and from that particular minister.

I want to say something, though, about the agricultural land reserve, and this government's incapacity to protect that particular reserve.

One of the realities is that in a small community like Langley or the community that the member for Central Fraser Valley represents, the pressures upon the local council to remove agricultural land from the reserve is very high. There are financial reasons for that. I think all of us in this chamber should have some sympathy for those councils who are faced with the constant pressure of trying to get industry to locate in their particular community.

I represent a community which has a substantial amount of industry and would like more. It has a substantial amount of industrially zoned land. I've long been of the view that we have to change some of the structure in terms of the industry tax support for the small farm community. We need good legislative protection to farmland, which we received under the New Democratic Party government and, incidentally, has been weakened as a result of the appeal procedure. But I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that the minister is now going to consider changes in that procedure and go back to what we had, which was a good way to protect farmland.

But the second point I want the minister to think of very carefully. Not only do you need the legislation which protects farmland, but we need some equalization formula for those municipalities that are under the gun constantly to remove their agricultural land from that reserve. This means we need some form of equalization formula for the province. Those communities that are very wealthy in terms of industry should be given some obligation to help with the operating costs of the small farm community that simply doesn't have a chance at the same kinds of local revenues.

I wouldn't be forward enough to try to suggest any kind of formula to the minister, but there is within that concept some very real progress that can be made to help those communities like Langley, and like the community of the member for Central Fraser Valley which need some help in terms of resisting the pressure for industry and have a genuine desire to protect their farmland in that particular area. It's the financial pressures there, not only the speculative pressures but the financial pressures on the local council which also need to be addressed, and I don't think they've been addressed by this government or by the last one. It's still, it seems to me, a problem that has to be dealt with.

If we're going to talk in terms of the cost of food, there is no question in my mind that people in this province do not wish to buy cheap food on the backs of farm labour that is

[ Page 2223 ]

underpaid and overworked and mistreated. If we say that we're in favour of a farm union, I think we also have to say that we have to pay the cost. There may be some price to pay in terms of this. There's no free lunch in terms of the cost of food. I think those of us who avidly support the formation of a farm union — and we do — also have to be consistent and be prepared to say that the cost of food in British Columbia may not be able to be as low as it is in California, Washington or Oregon, because we have different kinds of conditions. We're trying to protect the family farm. We have a province with very little agricultural land, land that must be protected, a lifestyle that must be protected. When you put all those into the great hopper, you have to come to the conclusion that we must be willing to pay a little more for our products. I speak as one who represents consumers, largely, and a community which is only to a small extent agricultural.

I want to also tell you, Mr. Chairman, about a particular piece of land in our community which had been a reserve for industrial purposes. It's a very large piece of land. A number of people farm on that land and near it, and a change in the zoning will result in a great deal more value for their land. The community is now debating very seriously whether that land should be completely removed from any chance of being in the agricultural land reserve. I want to say how proud I am of some of my constituents who are farmers who have come forward and have opposed that change, even though it's a financial disadvantage to them to do so, even though it would clearly be to their advantage to see the change in zoning which would result, perhaps, in a large capital gain for them. Many people who live in that area have come to the councilmen and said: "Look, we know it's to our financial advantage. But we want farmland and we want to be farmers. We want that farmland protected." It's those kinds of people that really inspired the beginning of the agricultural land reserve. It's those kinds of people who see something in the lifestyle of farming beyond the almighty dollar. Those kinds of people really brought forward the policy of the New Democratic Party and brought forward the agricultural land reserve.

I don't believe people in this province want the California-style agribusiness to run the agriculture of the province. As long as the policy of this government is to bring in Cargill Grains, to bring in the Krafts and the multinationals, then that kind of family-farm philosophy is going to die. It will be a sad day. I believe the consequences of that policy will be reflected in the polls. I believe that the philosophy of farming still has to design itself in terms of farming of reasonable scale. I'm ready and prepared to say, Mr. Chairman, that that may not be the most efficient way to deliver the product. But when we lose that, we'll never regain it.

I wanted to make one other comment. The minister had something quite interesting to say about the problems of urban development taking place right next to farm development. Again, I come from a community which has a small amount of farms that are all under pressure in terms of development. We have subdivisions and we have the piggery problem in our community. Of course, if you take it on the basis of the numbers of residents who came out to have that sweet air and their subdivision, they're bound to complain about the operation of that farm.

I want the minister to give some consideration to a policy around the whole province in which there are standards for farmers so that they have some protection when they're outnumbered by the community. There have to be standards and I think the farmers that I know are willing to comply with those standards. But if we're going to protect the family farm, we have to have some legislative backup so that they can't be outnumbered at a municipal council — as long as they're complying with reasonable agricultural standards. The last thing is to provide some greenbelt space between those farms which operate in an urban setting.

But to get back to the major question of where we're going in agricultural policy, to invite the multinational villains of the farm world to dominate the agricultural industry of British Columbia will mean the death of the agricultural industry in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, and this government has to take that responsibility.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talked about assistance to those municipalities that are somewhat restricted in their development through the agricultural land reserve. We all know that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does have revenue-sharing programs — I would suggest probably the best type of programs to assist municipalities anywhere in Canada. However, at the same time I also understand that even with those revenue-sharing programs sometimes the tax base, because of large blocks of agricultural land which can't be developed into multiple-dwelling developments or can't be developed into commercial or industrial endeavours, does cause a hardship on a rural municipality. The only comment I can make is that type of debate in regard to assistance to those types of municipalities may well be something that could be brought up under the Minister of Municipal Affairs' estimates, Mr. Chairman.

In regard to our farm labour rates in the province of British Columbia. I'm advised by my staff that, although they may not be adequate to many people, in British Columbia we pay or we have the highest farm labour rates in Canada. I'm not sure whether that makes our rates totally acceptable, but we do pay higher than most other provinces in Canada. The farmers of this province are deeply concerned — and I'm deeply concerned — about farm labour unions. I think the reaction that has taken place to have farm workers unionized is because of the impact of the somewhat unscrupulous activities of farm labour contractors who have created the problem. In most cases I would suggest to you it's not the farmer who hires people but the farm labour contractor.

The concern I have, and the concern the farm community has, is that if we do have organized labour on the farm, the impact work stoppage could have at harvest time would be substantial. We are dealing with a perishable product and it has to be harvested. It's not quite the same as stopping an industry through a lockout or a strike; it means that the whole crop could be jeopardized. I've expressed that concern to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and I would hope that with any organized farm labour group consideration would certainly be given to the farm operation so that at no time would labour be withdrawn when a crop was ready for harvest.

To the member for Coquitlam-Moody, I've stated many times that I am fully in support of the family farm concept. It is the backbone. I think, of our rural areas in this province, and it's a way of life. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, it's not a lucrative way of life — you don't make any great profits — but it is a way of life that I think we would not want to lose or jeopardize. I can assure the member that I totally support the family farm concept.

With regard to the impact of urban encroachment on

[ Page 2224 ]

agriculture, we have in the past few years, first of all, set up a green-zone committee that has worked very well with regional districts and municipalities in trying to design proper zoning bylaws that will consider farm building setbacks, buffer zones and greenbelt areas so that the urbanization doesn't totally come up to the farm-gate, but we do have some setbacks that protect the farmer from the complaints of the urban dweller once he moves out into the countryside to smell that clean, fresh air, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned.

So, Mr. Chairman, these were the issues raised by that member. I just go back to the Panco Poultry, however, because I recall in his first remarks he was talking about the vertically integrated company and the fact that the government was finding itself in some difficulty in not supporting vertically integrated companies and then selling to Panco. Two things that I'd mention: it was the government-owned, vertically-integrated company we weren't happy with, and I stress "government-owned." We never felt that government should be in the chicken business.

In regard to the sale of Maplewood — to show them that I'm not totally opposed of vertical integration, or some of it — if the turkey growers are successful in acquiring this to an extent, Mr. Chairman, that will be somewhat a vertical integration, because they will produce the birds and they will own the facility that processes those birds. My main concern is to get that plant operating to provide a facility for our growers and also to make sure the people out in that area have employment.

MR. LEVI: It is a very pleasant debate this afternoon. Having a quiet and somewhat responsive minister is a bit of a change from the last 19 days.

The minister finished up his remarks by giving us his impression of vertical integration, and he said that was the major concern that the government had in respect to Panco. It would be interesting if he would enlarge on what his fear was about the government ownership.... And, of course, it also had another company.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

At the same time, perhaps later on in the debate, we might say to him: "Well, perhaps you'll give us your views on vertical integration in respect to ICBC." Because if you have one set of criteria for your concerns about vertical integration vis-à-vis Panco and the previous government, you might explain to us whether you don't have the same fears in respect to ICBC.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Talk to him; don't talk to me.

MR. LEVI: No, no. You're the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Talk to your seat partner.

MR. LEVI: I'm talking to you, because you're the one who just made the remark about vertical integration and the government's concern. You answered the question by saying that this government's concern was the former government's involvement in vertical integration in the poultry and turkey industry. You might want to comment later on whether you have any concerns vis-à-vis ICBC. They both happen to come under.... You are the reporting minister. You want it one way in respect to insurance and you want it another way in respect to the poultry industry. But for you to suggest in any way that there's a comparison — even if there was, and I don't agree with your views on this — between what the previous government did in terms of Panco and vertical integration as demonstrated and exemplified by Panco.... Well, that's ridiculous. Cargill is the largest agribusiness in the world. They have sales approaching $20 billion. Cargill is an incredibly large multinational kingpin of the agricultural business.

The irony of the discussion we're having vis-à-vis the broiler industry and the turkey market industry is.... We talk about Panco and the sale of Panco, and now we're looking at the problems of Maplewood and we're talking again about Panco. I would be interested in knowing the basic reasons the minister gave for the objection to FIRA. He gave us some answers in the question period. When the purchase of Panco was announced in respect to Cargill.... He was not the minister then. The then minister, Mr. Shelford, said: "Cargill will purchase the land, building, machinery and equipment used in the processing and hatchery operations. It will also purchase Panco's inventory and accounts receivable." Then, because it was a joint release with Mr. Veitch, who was the Minister of Small Business and who is now not a member, Mr. Veitch said: "Cargill intends to implement a substantial investment program in new production, development, promotion and expansion in both the British Columbian and Canadian poultry markets. They have emphasized their willingness to work with all aspects of the B.C. poultry industry in promoting and marketing B.C. poultry products."

That was what they said they were going to do. At that stage of the game the then minister really didn't have too many anxieties about the behaviour of Cargill. The present minister has expressed the same lack of anxieties prior to November of last year. We've had the debate around Panco for quite some time in this House. The minister was quite prepared to defend the government's action in terms of the sale of Panco to Cargill, but something has changed the minister's mind. The minister should remember that the original purchase of Panco by the previous government was done really at the behest of the Federal Industries people. The government didn't go to Federal Industries and say: "Do you want to flog your operation?" They came to the government. They've been trying to sell it for quite some time, because they were in trouble. So they came to the government.

We always looked at two things. You look at one thing. You look at the dollars and cents, and that's it. When we were the government we looked at two things: dollars and cents and social responsibility. The reason for the purchase of that plant, having done a number of assessments of it — they didn't just walk in and say, "We'll buy it" — was the consideration of 480 employees who could have lost their jobs. That was the real consideration. It was an act of a government, in terms of social responsibility, to all those people.

We now have the same particular situation related to Maplewood, except the people of Maplewood are not working. This question came up last November — the whole business of the problem, sale and involvement of Panco. Yet here we are at the end of April where the minister tells us that sometime in April they put together a task force and he has a report in respect to what might be done to finance operation. I'm curious as to what was going on for the previous four months.

[ Page 2225 ]

We know there was a change of heart by the government. We know that initially there seemed to be no real concern by the government that Cargill should not get involved in this purchase. My colleague, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), asked a number of questions in the House, and presumably those questions had an influence on the change of heart of the government. Even so, the government was still dragging its feet. They must have known that if they were finally going to reverse their decision on Cargill...who was going to buy it? But it appears that no consideration was given to where the financing would come from for the one or two companies that were interested in purchasing it. All of this has taken place right at the end of April when 124 people are out of work, when the owner of the plant is losing $20,000 to $40,000 a month because he can't operate — plus the fact that there's a problem in terms of the whole maintenance of the operation.

We have an opportunity — because we're into this aspect of the minister's estimates — to discuss the whole business of government ownership, or government involvement, in support of business, in purchasing companies that exist. We know where the government stands in respect to purchasing businesses. They don't believe in it. However, the government is now attempting — I hope, breaking its neck — to come up with a solution in respect to assisting in the purchase of this. Now the minister has told us about certain cost-shared programs. But there's a ceiling on how much money can go into it. Inevitably it would seem to me that if the government is serious about maintaining that particular company, the government, either through the minister by direct grant, or through BCDC, is going to have to get involved in supporting whoever wants to purchase it — (a) for the purpose of maintaining a viable operation, (b) for the continued provision of employment. At the moment we've got unemployment.

The minister should be candid with us about what the government is thinking about. We know that it changed its mind. We know, for instance, what this particular government's attitude to FIRA was in 1978, because it was in one of its constitutional papers. When they tabled a number of constitutional papers in 1978, they had some remarks to make about FIRA. It's true that their remarks seem to be directed towards resource industries. What they were really saying in that paper was that the operation of FIRA isn't really a very good one and it should keep its nose out of the whole business of acquisition. They were making reference to the whole business of our natural resources. What they were saying was, "Let's continue with the same theme that we've always had in this province, that we'll be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water and let the companies come in and make their investments." They didn't want to see FIRA operating. They said that right in their documents. I don't hold a great brief for FIRA, but I can say that it does act in the first instance as something of a brake. It's an attention getting mechanism, albeit in many cases much too late. Certainly we need a mechanism which warns the people of Canada that companies from the outside are coming in and are going to take over.

There's evidently been a change of heart by the government, Mr. Chairman. Government is now concerned about foreign acquisition. The minister has expressed a great deal of concern about the acquisition by Cargill of the company. He's concerned about it, and he should be concerned. You could fill three filing cabinets with the kind of information that is available on Cargill, albeit the most secret company in the world. They don't even have to report to anybody. We're fortunate in Canada that we have a law which requires that any company that has sales of more than $5 million report to the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. And we can write and get facts and figures on their operation — not necessarily on their operation in the United States, only the one in Canada. You should know the kind of problems that existed before various United States Senate committees, Mr. Chairman, in trying to get Cargill to produce information. Cargill weren't as reticent about providing information about their company as CPR was about saying how much their president, Mr. Sinclair, got.

We obviously have to question that kind of an operation. It's secretive, and it's transactional. It operates in 40 countries around the world. We warned two years ago, at the time of the acquisition of Panco by Cargill, that they were in it because they have to make money; they have no basic social responsibility to the countries that they operate in. That's been demonstrated time and time again, throughout their various operations and by the criticisms of the governments of the countries that they operate in, including their home country, the United States. Particularly in places like India and in Great Britain, where they've had some problems with them — and in the other countries. All right, so we invited them in. At the time, the then minister — even the present minister — felt that we were being somewhat hysterical in our concerns about Cargill. We're not being hysterical about it. It's a terrible, terrible thing to say but the chickens have come home to roost. I don't want to say that in the middle of this debate. After all, we're dealing with chickens and turkeys and God knows what.

Let me ask the minister if he would do this for us. In November when FIRA was looking at this thing, as we understand it there was no recommendation from the government at that time. Subsequent to that, because of the questions by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, there started to be some consideration by the government. When did the minister advise FIRA of his concern, and if he did do that, when did he advise them that they intended to oppose the acquisition? What were the reasons? He did say that they had some concern about the kind of control that Cargill could exercise in the industry. If that's the case, is that because he's concerned about the issue of vertical integration just in this little industry or is he generally concerned about it? If he is concerned about it, then he's at one with us over here, because we are concerned about the vertical integration that is practised by a corporation like Cargill.

If Cargill is the only option for sale and we have people in the province who want to buy it, then the government has to look realistically at where they can help. It's no good saying that the private sector will look after itself. It's remarkable, but the private sector to a large extent does not look after itself. The government of Canada in 1979 produced a booklet, and in this booklet it talked about how much money the government of Canada was paying out in grants to corporations. In 1978 — it was published in '79 — over $7.5 billion was given out by the government of Canada in grants to corporations. The other interesting fact was that at that particular time the corporations only paid $6.7 billion in taxes. They were ahead of the game by almost three-quarters of a billion dollars. It's nothing new.

You can't tell us that the basic tenet of free enterprise is

[ Page 2226 ]

that the government mustn’t get involved in assisting. It happens every day. We've got the minister, Herb Gray, worrying over the future of the free enterprise system because he's got to go help Chrysler. We're not dealing with Chrysler out here. We're not talking about assistance — $350 million in Canada and $4 billion in the United States. We're talking about finding a reasonable amount of money which is well within the possibility of this government. After all, we're constantly dealing with bills about surplus funds in this House. Here the minister and the government have an opportunity to strike two blows, to keep a company Canadian and create employment. Those are two very worthwhile social endeavours; they're not just peculiar to free enterprise governments. If you were wrong in the beginning, as you were, because you were upset about the involvement of the government in Panco.... We now know that Cargill is not prepared to live up to the expectations that his predecessor and the previous Minister of Industry and Small Business Development had. One of the things that's going to happen....

Oh, I just want to pause for a minute. I see a former member of the Legislature, Mr. Strongman. I'd like everybody to say hello to him. Welcome, Mr. Strongman. The only reason I introduced him is he used to represent Vancouver South and I used to represent it as well. Of course, my friend, Mr. Hyndman, does too now.

Let's continue the debate around the issue of Cargill, Panco and Maplewood, but let's do it in terms of where you stand philosophically about assisting Canadian companies. If you want to have the argument about the free enterprise system, I've given you some facts about how free and enterprising the system is. It requires $7.5 billion of government money, taxpayers' money — it goes up every year; $7.5 billion in 1978 — to assist it in business. Then your version of the free enterprise system, of course, is not quite correct. It's out of kilter with the whole of the rest of Canada. I suppose what we have to say is that everybody has to walk to the same drumbeat as what goes on in British Columbia. Well, that's not terribly practical at all.

Just to recap so that we can go on with what is an exceptionally good debate, in November the first notice was given about the possible acquisition by Cargill. At that time, as I understand it, the government made no intervention, but subsequent to that an intervention was made. It would assist us if the minister would tell us on what basis the intervention was made. Was it made because of having reviewed the performance of Cargill in respect to the purchase of Panco and what it said it would do? Did he have some fears that these people would not live up to it? The other question is: did he finally arrive at a realization that integration by a company like Cargill could only be deleterious to an industry like the poultry and the turkey one? If he arrived at that then he should tell us. Then, presumably having made those decisions, the logical thing for him to do now is to move as quickly as possible to assist the company that's now not operating, and the some 125 people who are out of work.

I understood him to say that he had hired a management consultant firm, and what he wanted was the report to be on his desk which would tell him how not to do it.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: That's not what you said? Fine. So I would appreciate it if I could hear from the minister what the genealogy of the events was in respect of the decision-making to oppose the acquisition by Cargill.

MR. HYNDMAN: May I associate myself with the remarks of welcome for Mr. Gerry Strongman. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and Mr. Strongman and myself belong to an exclusive club of those who have represented or represent Vancouver South. Mr. Strongman continues his active interest in public affairs, and is now serving as vice-president of the B.C. Social Credit Party. I join in welcoming him today to the galleries.

As the previous speaker, the member for Maillardville Coquitlam, suggested, I think accurately, so far the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture are off to a thoroughly productive and interesting start. Speaking individually, I hope that tone and course may continue through these particular estimates,

I am rising, Mr. Chairman — as an urban member, representing Vancouver South — for several reasons. First, to stress to the minister, as I'm sure he knows, that just because a person represents an urban riding, it does not mean that person does not have a very strong interest in agricultural matters, particularly the question of the preservation of farmland.

I'm concerned to underline to the minister that, as an MLA from an urban area, on behalf of virtually all my constituents in Vancouver South, we are concerned that the government pursue policies encouraging the preservation and development of agricultural acreage in British Columbia.

In a moment I want to refer to some very interesting facts and figures on agricultural production, farmland acreage, and farm units in British Columbia over the last four years. But may I stress that even urban ridings like Vancouver South are not without some direct or practical interest in and concern about agricultural matters. Below southwest and southeast Marine Drive in Vancouver South, we have some limited market gardening and agricultural production, and some agricultural processing facilities. In both of those respects, people in Vancouver South follow with interest the activities of the Minister of Agriculture.

Additionally, under the old boundaries of Vancouver South, the Southlands area was included in Vancouver South, and the Southlands area, which is largely residential, has been and continues to be included in the agricultural land reserve. It may be of interest to members to know that a fairly urbanized part of the city of Vancouver is in the ALR and residential homes in that area are subject to the ALR. I think all of that is deemed by Vancouver South residents to be a net benefit, and a wise and good thing.

The Agricultural Land Commission has been in the news recently, as it is throughout most of each year. During the last 12 months — since these estimates were last debated — there has been a change in the chairmanship of the Agricultural Land Commission. The new chairman, appointed by the present minister, is Dr. Mills Clarke, whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting personally. But the research I've been able to do about Dr. Clarke suggests he has had a strong career in agricultural research and administration, and has been much concerned with the preservation of farmland. Further, he is politically independent. I think the minister is to be congratulated in making that very important and sensitive appointment in choosing a person independent of party politics and a career agriculturalist with some very disting-

[ Page 2227 ]

uished credentials. To the minister, I wish he would perhaps have talked a little more strongly at the time of the announcement because I think many British Columbians, regardless of how they vote, or whether or not they belong to political parties, follow with interest not just the doings of the Agricultural Land Commission but the composition of the membership. I think one of the most important things the Minister of Agriculture has done in the last 12 months is to make an appointment to the chairmanship of the commission of a person who is clearly from an agricultural background, who has brought a distinguished record of achievement in agricultural work to the post, and who is politically independent and cannot be said to be the philosophical or partisan follower of any political group. I think that was much needed at that time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, recently some data has been gathered by the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa on a country-wide basis dealing with all the provinces. But it has been gathered by the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa. That is important because it is an independent data-gathering agency insofar as debate in British Columbia is concerned, and the data gathered for each of the provinces covers the last four years and talks about two very important aspects of farm preservation in each of the provinces: first, the number of farm units in existence and, second, the number of farm acres under cultivation. Of course, the critics of the Minister of Agriculture are often quick to suggest that in British Columbia farmland is rapidly disappearing and farms are rapidly disappearing. This research and this data by the federal Department of Agriculture suggest that exactly the opposite is taking place, as a matter of fact. I want to review those figures with members and again to commend the minister for this trend and to urge him to continue it. Let's took first at the number of farm units in existence in British Columbia over the last four years, from 1975 through 1979.

In British Columbia over the last four years the number of farm units in existence has increased at a time when across the country in the other nine provinces collectively the number of farm units has decreased. In other words, British Columbia, in reverse of the national trend, has been increasing the number of farm units in existence over the last four years. Mr. Chairman, from 1976 to 1979 more than 1,200 new farm units have been created in British Columbia, at a time when across Canada in the other nine provinces the number of farm units in existence has been decreasing. Those figures suggest that, while in other parts of Canada other provinces are not faring well in efforts to maintain the number of farm units in existence, in British Columbia the number of farm units is being increased. There were more than 1,200, many of those the family farm or the small farm unit we hear so much about. On that count I think the minister, in fairness, deserves some commendation.

But equally important, Mr. Chairman — perhaps more important in terms of the ongoing debate in British Columbia about farmland preservation and farmland loss — is the question of the number of cultivated farm acres in existence. Some would suggest that the British Columbia Minister of Agriculture is not doing a careful and good job in his stewardship of the number of farm acres under cultivation in British Columbia. His critics would suggest that British Columbia is losing cultivated farm acreage, that it is being blacktopped and taken away. But the facts are the reverse, and they are worth noting for the record.

In British Columbia, over the last four years, from 1976 to 1979 there has been an addition of cultivated farm acreage of more than 100,000 acres — a net addition to our basic stock of cultivated farm acreage. Meanwhile, for the other nine provinces of Canada taken together, there has been no change. The facts gathered by the Department of Agriculture tell us that British Columbia is ahead of the rest of Canada. We are creating new farm acreage at a time when there is no change in the rest of Canada. That is a pretty impressive record, Mr. Chairman. There are 100,000 new farm acres under cultivation during a time, with British Columbia's renewed economic and population growth, when the pressures, if anything, have been stronger on efforts to preserve and develop farm acreage. Again I think the minister deserves commendation for those results and that data, and urgings to continue.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am sure all of us would agree that it is desirable for British Columbia to increase British Columbia's proportion of agricultural production consumed here at home in B.C. I think the figure is something like 18 percent; about 18 percent of the consumed foods in British Columbia are home-produced, and the balance we import. So again, figures which suggest that British Columbia's capacity to generate and produce more of our foodstuffs are important figures. Again, the data from Ottawa is encouraging and a compliment to the minister, because in virtually all the categories the data shows that farm production in terms of crops and produce is not only up but well in advance of the national average.

For example, milk production in British Columbia for the last four years: up by 9 percent; in the rest of Canada down by 1 percent. Poultry meat production in the last four years in British Columbia: up by 34 percent — about half as much again as the increase in the rest of Canada. Egg production in British Columbia: up greater than the national rate of production. Fruit and vegetable receipts in British Columbia: up and well ahead of the national average. Honey production, nursery production, cattle numbers, pig numbers, sheep numbers: the comparisons are the same. The numbers for British Columbia are all up, Mr. Chairman, and the rate of increase is substantially in excess of that in the other nine provinces of Canada. I hope in a spirit of non-partisan ship through these estimates members on both sides will pay the minister a compliment for those results and urge him to continue.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, may I just add one further comment to the debate in these estimates. A number of members in this House — and I certainly am not one of them — bring some considerable expertise from both sides to the question of agriculture, farming and land use, but I think all of us as members have a responsibility to follow the debate and, if we can, to either reach a consensus or set forth our respective policy views on the difficult problem for the core of the lower mainland, greater Vancouver: of what to do about the basic desire to preserve the farmland we have, at the same time that we can deal practically with the inevitable pressures for room for homes and for communities to develop business and industry. From what we gather in the newspapers, the municipality of Richmond appears to be a classic example, and I think probably the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is best equipped to comment on that.

Mr. Chairman, my point is this: if during these estimates

[ Page 2228 ]

this assembly is to perform some public service to the people of British Columbia, I think one we can perform is to have a debate which will address on both sides the question of the inevitable conflict in urban development between, on the one hand, the desire to preserve farmland, and on the other hand the normal desire of our citizens to have room for their children to build homes or have accommodation and room for those British Columbians who wish to work in the lower mainland to have a place to go to work. In both respects those are perfectly normal and natural desires of our citizens, and they produce a conflict in policy choice.

Much has been said in recent days about the quality of what's going on in this chamber, Mr. Chairman. My simple submission — and I say it in a very non-partisan way to both sides — is that if through these estimates we can either reach a consensus or clearly set forth to the people of B.C., for them to decide, our respective policy views on how to resolve the policy-choice conflicts we're seeing, for example, in the case of Richmond, that's going to be a public service for all of our citizens and an example of the kind of useful debate which this Legislature can do.

I sit down, Mr. Chairman, by again agreeing with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) that so far the debate on these estimates has been off to a useful and productive and policy-oriented start, and I hope on both sides it may continue.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly plan to carry on in a very useful and constructive way. As a matter of fact, after having listened to the speech of the member for Vancouver South I feel like talking in old farm language. I feel like I have been drinking some slough water; we used to call it alkaline water, and believe me it tastes just like that when I have to listen to the member for Vancouver South extolling the virtues of the present minister in terms of holding on to agricultural land, seeing to it that our statistics are so much better than anywhere in Canada, when that group fought Bill 42 tooth and nail. If that member wants to be really constructive in here, he could point the finger at Dave Stupich, the member for Nanaimo, who had courage enough to push that bill until it became law in this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And you, Leather Lungs, were the worst offender of all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister of Industry and Small Business Development will come to order, please. Oh, it's one of those days.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to set the record straight with respect to how our increase in farm numbers, that is in terms of numbers of producing farms, and our increase in actual acreage are all the result of some very fine, courageous work done by a first-class Minister of Agriculture in the past.

I remember the Minister of Transportation and Highways and whatever else he's responsible for — he was being rather quiet at that time. But, you know, he was happy when the farmers visited us outside the Legislature, screaming their heads off about what a terrible thing B.C. was looking forward to — this tragic travesty, this piece of legislation that was going to protect farmland. Then we checked and found out that most of those "farmers" were real estate people dressed in jeans. It was probably the first time most of them had had a pair of jeans on. But in any event, those were the people that didn't want what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) did. That was to protect and nurture the farming community. I'm very happy that the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) recognizes that that's what's happened. But on the other hand, I would suggest that he go back a little bit in history. He had a lot of good research there — a photocopy of some Canadian statistics, which are published regularly, and I'm glad that he read them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to a very interesting debate about the whole Cargill situation. I remember very well the consternation that was felt on this side of the House when, in the early part of their first parliament back in power, after the NDP, the Social Credit government of the day decided to sell out Panco Poultry. I recognize that they wanted to get rid of any evidence of the fact that there had been a good, progressive government in this province. They wanted to make sure that the people in B.C. were going to be taken back to the end of the 1800s, or the early part of the 1900s, with all of those nice, pretty little phrases, such as "Remember Pinko Panco," and all the rest of it, forgetting about the 400 jobs that were saved in the agriculture business that was helped, forgetting about the fact that Panco Poultry was up for sale and they were not getting any bids....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what's come over these people. I think what happened was that there was a full moon at 5 o'clock or just after it, and now they've gone mad. But I know that you'll look after them and certainly keep them under control.

I recall that at the time the Panco people came to us and said: "We're out of business, period. We're going to have to break up the lot and sell the farmland, and as far as the processing is concerned, we just cannot continue." No excuses. The minister of agriculture-in-waiting.... Incidentally, I'll give you a piece of advice. Why don't you get some glasses that aren't quite so dark. The mystery that surrounds you now is enhanced by those dark glasses.

Mr. Chairman, the whole question of Panco Poultry was very, very clear at the time. Four hundred jobs and a threatened industry was the reason that the NDP decided to invest on behalf of the people in the province. And it worked well. It worked so well that out of it came an enriched industry and enriched Panco Poultry — very much so, if you recall the price they got. It was almost triple. And not only that, it was a money-maker all the way along the line.

But who did we sell to? We sold to a multinational company whose ethics have been suspect for years and years. That was Cargill Grain. I recall when Cargill Grain first moved into Canada and bought out National Grain. Mr. Chairman, the consternation on the prairie was great because many of the people knew the background of Cargill. Many of them knew that was the company that had afforded themselves absolutely stupendous profits. They were one of the first to deal in the Russian grain deals, using three stops on the way to Russia, securing federal grants to the tune of $300 million in one year and coming out with the farmers having been bilked. They call it the "Great Grain Robbery" of the United States. The farmers were bilked, paid a low price including a federal grant, and then they enhanced the price a

[ Page 2229 ]

couple of times, going to Venezuela, as I recall, first and then on to Geneva. You know, they are all paper transactions. The grain was never taken off the ships that went finally to Russia, and that was the kind of scandalous activity that had gone on in the past.

That was the company that this government didn't see fit to stop; in fact, they encouraged them to take over this fine little corporation that we had held together for the sake of B.C. What do we see now? Well, we see the influence. We see a living disaster approaching in the poultry business in the Fraser Valley and elsewhere just by virtue of the fact that they made that sale. And they almost made the second sale; they almost enhanced the second sale. Finally, in death-bed repentance, they went to the federal government to file it with the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and they said to them: "We don't think that we agree with this."

I wonder what FIRA thought, however, having watched, the takeover of Panco, an even bigger operation, a few years earlier, with the government directly involved in that. Not only did they not go to FIRA and ask them to stop it; they saw to it that nobody could go to FIRA because, after all, it was a government agency that was doing the selling. They sold out to Cargill, and Cargill's whole history has been one of monopolizing wherever they go, drawing a curtain around an industry and finally seeing to it that nobody is going to make any moves other than their moves. And their moves, Mr. Chairman, are moves that will enhance the profits that go directly back to Minneapolis. They have been very successful, and you can be successful.

I love all these virtuous "free enterprisers." You know, there is no such thing as a free enterpriser left on the face of the earth, in my view. They are private enterprisers. I think that is what they should be called, and those people who talk on the other side of the House about all the virtues of private enterprise, particularly in the food business.... I want to bring to your attention something that has been going on for the last three or four years in the United States.

Proctor and Gamble — you wouldn't think of them in food, would you, Mr. Chairman, but they are huge in food — went down to the southern United States not very long ago, three or four years ago, and they bought out a little teeny weeny company called Folger's. All they needed was the name to get into that industry. Then they decided to wage war on General Foods. What has happened during that price war? In each state individually and in each town individually they lowered the price of coffee to the extent that it is down way, way, way below cost, until such time as they command a good piece of the market and then zoom, it goes up again. They have managed, in this free enterprise system, by virtue of this activity and because of the monopolistic strengths like Cargill, to put four or five hundred small coffee businesses right out of business. That is the kind of "free" enterprise they are talking about, and catering to an outfit like Cargill is absolutely sinful. And then to do it in the name of free enterprise extolling the virtues of free enterprise all across the province!

AN HON. MEMBER: There's nothing freer than free, my friend.

MR. COCKE: That's right. The old Premier of this province knew it better than anybody. He said: "There's nothing freer than free, my friend." I'll tell you, there's nothing more expensive than this kind of behaviour.

I just want to go over the history of Cargill a little bit, and that one foreign exchange situation. Cargill was one of the six big grain companies in that summer of 1972. I believe that that was the first big American grain shipment to the Russians. They sold 25 percent of that wheat crop to the Russians. As I said, it was called the Great American Grain Robbery. Let me just go through what happened. The officials negotiated the sale secretly in the first place with the grain monopolies, and information on this historic transaction was kept from the farmers.

Minister, if you would like to listen you might learn something. You should have been listening to this kind of thing before you sold to Cargill in the first place, and then you wouldn't be in the embarrassing position that you're in now. Mr. Chairman, if he doesn't learn through history then he has to do all the mistakes again.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why don't you read the story right? You've got it all confused.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I expect the minister to get up after I'm through and correct what I've said, if what I say is not correct. That would be time well served if he could do it, but I'm sure he can't. He can do it from his chair, but he's not going to stand up and correct this one.

Anyway, the farmers didn't know anything about what was going on. They had sold their grain. Fortunately in Canada we have a better system in terms of at least that kind of protection. They got billed in the old days, but now we've got our Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission and so on, which assist. But they didn't have that kind of benefit in the United States. Anyway, as I said, there were $300 million in subsidies paid on all that wheat that finally went to Russia. It was so bad that Henry Jackson....

You've heard of Henry Jackson, second senator — and only second because of the fact that the first senator from the state of Washington has a fair grab on longevity. But in any event, the second senator, Mr. Jackson, had a subcommittee investigation at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: The junior senator.

MR. COCKE: The junior. According to a Washington Post article, a secret staff memo sent for Jackson details how the grain companies reap profits through manipulation of the government subsidy program.

HON. MR. GARDOM: When do Jackson's estimates come up?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, these are the estimates of this Minister of Agriculture, who's goofed almost as badly as some of the other ministers over there whom we'll deal with later.

At the time of the Russian wheat deal the subsidies had soared to 47 cents a bushel. Cargill sold wheat to its wholly owned South American affiliate and then the company collected the subsidy when it showed the proof of shipment to its affiliate. Remember, there was no subsidy for grain going to Russia. The affiliate then sold the wheat to another affiliate in Geneva which thereupon made a final sale to Russia for $2.20 a bushel, or 10 cents above the American price.

MR. RITCHIE: Newspaper research.

[ Page 2230 ]

MR. COCKE: This never was in the newspapers that I know of.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you worked on it.

MR. COCKE: That's right. This is research that was done....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It may have been. I shouldn't say never, because it should have been, certainly.

The short-sightedness of dealing with that kind of company, and particularly the kind of company that would say: "We lost money on that deal"! They say they lost money on that deal. Now I want to remind you that the company's net assets in 1972 were about $246 million. I'll tell you, they're a lot more now. Those assets increased to $352 million in one year; that's an increase of over 40 percent. They said they lost money, and they reported profits of $107 million on a $352 million investment. It's something when you say you lost money on the deal.

Mr. Chairman, our concern is that this government is as two-faced as they can possibly be. At one minute they're selling out to Cargill something that the people in the province own, and the next minute they're protecting us from Cargill on the second deal. No principle, a political move. Obviously they were quite prepared to let it go through until there was a little bit of a backlash, and then the minister goes running to Ottawa and says to the Foreign Investment Review Agency: "Please don't let that thing to through. We want it stopped. " No wonder everybody in the Fraser Valley wonders what's going on, including the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who so valiantly gets up and extols the virtues of whatever it is he stands for. Nobody's yet sure, but someday we're going to know.

Anyway, that's our concern. I'd like the minister to get up in this House and just tell us when he had the deathbed repentance. What happened? What changed his mind about Cargill? Is it that the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is losing his influence in that cabinet over there? Mind you, I'm not at all sure that he had that much influence. I think what happens is that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) winds him up, turns him loose and then he cuts a wide swath until he unwinds.

Mr. Chairman, we could use some explanation, particularly in view of the fact that the food industry in this province is threatened by the kind of behaviour that's been going on over there. Let's just hear what the minister has to say about his activities with respect to Cargill.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would be most pleased to allow the Minister of Agriculture to have the floor, if he is prepared to deal with some of these questions that have been raised relative to Cargill specifically, and, in particular, relative to the decision — or change of decision, as it appears to have been — on whether to allow Cargill to expand. I see he is not rising....

HON. MR. HEWITT: After you speak. You go ahead.

MRS. WALLACE: Fine. He says after I speak, so I shall go ahead.

My colleague the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) raised the case of the Folger's coffee people. I would like to talk about a similar case that happened in Ontario. It was detailed not long ago in an article in Maclean's magazine. The minister may have seen it. It was entitled: "The Perils of Elsie the Cow."

Basically the story dealt with the fact that Borden's, a very strong American company, was in this particular instance simply wiped out of existence in Ontario by Silverwood Dairies. At that point in time Silverwood took a terrific loss on their product in order to move in and take over the whole milk industry in Ontario. One of the things they did in order to stay alive was to sell milk at a loss. Their milk consumption was down. They were able to hold on and put a company as large as Borden's out of business. It was quite a trophy, actually, for Silverwood to be able to do this. It had been a small company in the beginning, but it had grown to that stage.

The reason I am raising this is that here was a company that did get that kind of control over the milk industry in Ontario. Today, in addition to the milk industry, they are now involved in 76 Baskin-Robbins ice cream stores and more than 630 Mac's Milk convenience stores. They are moving into the fast-food business, and they have the Ontario franchise rights to operate the Steak and Ale restaurants. There is a firm that has really moved in and done this kind of integrated, corporate concentration in Ontario. I suggest that if it can happen in Ontario with a little firm like Silverwood, the danger of it happening in British Columbia with a conglomerate like Cargill is certainly much more imminent.

My colleague has traced some of the history of Cargill. I would like to refer to a few things about Cargill too. I don't know whether the size of the company has been mentioned today, but Cargill is the world's largest grain-trading company. However, only half of its revenues come from that activity. It is in dozens of other commodities. It's in sugar, copra, flax-seed, salt, and even lead. It's an agribusiness conglomerate in its own right. It's a very active seller of seeds, breeding chickens and fertilizer. In the States it is the fourth-largest processor of soya beans. It's a farmer. It owns two cattle feedlots. It has an 820-acre research ranch of its own in the United States. Its net sales back in 1973 were $5.2 billion; that gives you some idea of the size of this corporation. It had a net income in 1973 of $107.8 million and a net worth of $352.4 million. The only way the general public ever found that out — because it is a private company not required to report — was because they were trying to buy Portland Cement and they had to divulge their assets at that time. That particular purchase was turned down in the United States, because of the size of the corporation. They felt that it would be an unfair thing to do.

My colleague has talked, too, about the great....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just one moment, please. There appears to be an awful lot of conversation in the House from both sides. I would remind all members that the member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. Please continue, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it indicates a disinterest in agriculture, but perhaps we will some day overcome that disinterest as we come to the point where food becomes less readily obtainable than it is now.

[ Page 2231 ]

As I was saying, my colleague has dealt with the Great Grain Robbery which was really a disaster for the farmers. They sold their wheat quite unwittingly in the United States at something like a dollar and a quarter a bushel. Cargill and other major grain companies, knowing this was what was going to happen in the grain market, bought that grain, got subsidies in the form of transportation facilities and so on, and were able to hold that grain and sell it so they made a tremendous profit — something like $325 million profit on that one grain operation. That was strictly to the detriment of the farmer, who didn't know until after it had all happened that he was really being rooked.

Cargill has moved into the Canadian arena, and certainly in the grain handling. Fortunately we have the Canadian Wheat Board, which has been some measure of control or preventive from allowing Cargill to become the sole corporation responsible for the grain trade, but even that....

There is now talk of the Canadian Wheat Board losing some of its rights, and if that happens there is no doubt that Cargill and Continental will be right in there with complete control of the grain industry. And they do it with tremendous assistance from the taxpayer. They do it without any concern for the law and I think some of the history of Cargill's transactions and its cases before the court, where we have found that in Canada alone they have had fines of $66,000 by the Canadian Wheat Board. I sometimes wonder if perhaps the pressure to reduce the powers of that board have stemmed from Cargill influence on the parliamentarians.

It's very interesting to note that in the subcommittee in the States, the U.S. Senate committee was reviewing the multinational corporations in 1976 and was dealing with this very problem. They were calling into testimony certain people who had been involved with the grain trade in various ways. There was sworn evidence presented before this Senate committee, Mr. Chairman. It was a memorandum that become known as the "Allan Trick Memorandum, " and I think I would like to read into the record just a short piece of the testimony that was presented to this Senate subcommittee in 1976. It gives you some idea of the length to which Cargill will move to gain their own ends. This is entitled "The Case of Jerome Kuhl." Senator Percy said:

"The Trick memo indicates a heavy dependence upon the cooperation of the grain companies. It would seem then that the department is potentially vulnerable to pressures from the companies to ensure their cooperation. During the course of your investigation, did you find, at any time, evidence of such pressures by the companies?"

And it was a Mr. Gilmore who was giving testimony. Mr. Gilmore replied:

"Yes, we did, Senator. We found that an American agricultural attaché was transferred from The Hague to Morocco because he offended major U.S. grain trading companies."

This is what is referred to, I believe. You have that as the case of Mr. Jerome Kuhl, the agricultural attaché in The Hague and now agricultural attaché in Rabat, Morocco — quite a difference from The Hague and Morocco, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Percy said: "What had Mr. Kuhl actually done to offend the grain companies?" Now this was an agricultural attaché attached to The Hague, and he somehow had offended the grain companies. So Senator Percy asked what had Mr. Kuhl actually done to offend the grain companies. Mr. Gilmore's response was this:

"According to the correspondence that you have in front of you, Mr. Kuhl's dereliction was that he arranged a luncheon for Clayton Uter, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture at the time, with the Dutch company representatives, but he failed to include in the invitation list the U.S.-based major grain companies, i.e., Continental and Cargill."

Those companies had enough influence to have that attaché moved from The Hague to Morocco. That was the evidence that was given before the Senate committee, and I think it just points out the kind of power that company has, and the kind of influence it has on governments. That's why we're concerned, Mr. Minister, because I wouldn't want you to fall prey to that kind of pressure. I'm trying to protect the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

I mentioned the $66,000 that Cargill has been fined by the Canadian Wheat Board for committing over 100 violations. In the United States, they were taken to court by a dozen different states as being part of a conspiracy to keep the price of chickens artificially high. The company was convicted....

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MRS. WALLACE: This is over the past ten years, at various times.

The company was convicted of artificially driving up the price of wheat on the Chicago Commodity Exchange. Now that's a pretty hard charge to prove, but it was proven, and they were convicted.

The company set up a curious corporation in Panama, which was allegedly used to avoid taxes and government regulations in connection with the U.S.-Soviet wheat deal — again the Great Grain Robbery, which my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has referred to.

The company was named in a U.S. court by India — and this is the one that really sticks in my craw — for shortweighting grain destined for hungry children. That's the kind of company that this minister has placed into our province with a major control over our poultry processing industry.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, all hon. members, the member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor, is addressing the Chair, and is quite in order. I would ask that all hon. members remain in order, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was not here when we spoke about the high tone the debate had taken. Perhaps if he would like to leave the room the debate might retain that same high tone.

I just had a few more things I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. It was bad enough that this minister let Cargill come into the province but it was even worse that he let them come

[ Page 2232 ]

in without having a written assurance that the grandiose promises they were making would be fulfilled. They told him and he told us that they were going to do great things for the poultry industry in British Columbia. It hasn't happened. Shortly after they were turned down by FIRA in their bid to purchase Maplewood, they went public and said: "We're going to shut down our Panco operation. We're going to cut off 120 jobs, one-third of the workforce." They said that since they were turned down they were not going to carry on Panco with the turkey line. They were just going to simply cut off a third of the jobs, cut back and perhaps, though they didn't indicate it, certainly I am concerned that they would close their doors.

Well, if that minister had had the foresight or the wisdom to ensure that written into the agreement of sale there was a provision for improvement, for continued operation, this wouldn't be happening today. I sometimes wonder who is running the Agriculture ministry right now. Is it the minister or is it Cargill? Have we already gotten to that stage? Have we already gotten there? Is Cargill already telling the minister what we're going to do or what we're not going to do? He doesn't seem to be prepared to give us any outline of just what has gone on. He's talked about some plans for purchasing Maplewood and I appreciate that, but what is he going to do about the Cargill-owned Panco? Is he going to sit still and let another 120 jobs go down the tube there? Is he going to let them close their doors? What is he going to do? Is he prepared to tell us? Because if he is not prepared to tell us and if he is not going to take some steps, then I have no alternative but to think that Cargill is running agriculture in this province, that we have already reached that stage.

Obviously that minister and that government didn't think there was anything wrong with letting Cargill buy Panco in the first place. He has talked about figures and greater concentration and so on, and that is why the change of heart; that is why they went to FIRA and said no. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that that minister and that cabinet were getting just as many letters as I was getting, perhaps even more, from citizens who were very concerned about Cargill. I suspect that it wasn't so much the amount of concentration as it was the general public opinion opposed to Cargill that caused that change of mind. Whatever caused it, I'm glad it happened.

But I would like the minister to tell us, now that he has changed his mind, what he's going to do to ensure that Cargill becomes a decent, upright corporate citizen in its operation of Panco. You know, he'll say: "Well, I can't interfere in the marketplace; I can't do anything about it." Mr. Chairman, that minister got Cargill in here; he signed a contract; he assured the poultry growers and the workers, he assured this Legislature that there were going to be all kinds of improvements, that there was going to be a great expansion scheme; but he didn't write it into the contract so it would happen. He has a responsibility now to ensure that the poultry industry does thrive in British Columbia. He's got that responsibility. He got us into this mess, and it's his responsibility to get us out of this mess.

I would like to give way to the minister, if he is prepared to answer any of those questions at this point. He indicated he would speak when I was finished.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Partway through this discussion we've been having this afternoon with the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I got a feeling we supported Cargill's offer to purchase Maplewood. We opposed it. I sometimes wonder when I listen to the conversation how bad Cargill is. I thought, well, maybe we supported it, but we opposed it. I would think they would be standing up saying: "Thank you very much. We endorsed your opposition to the Cargill purchase of Maplewood." But I haven't heard any of that; not at all.

I just want to go back, in the few minutes we have, to some of the comments that were made. First of all, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) was very complimentary — and I thank him for it — in regard to the appointment of Dr. Mills Clarke to the Agricultural Land Commission. I think Dr. Clarke brings to that commission, and to the position of chairman, a tremendous amount of expertise. Also, the member was very kind in regard to the increase in activity in agriculture in the province over the last four years. I would only say that it's not through my efforts, but through the efforts of the primary producers of this province. Their dedication, their expertise and their energy have resulted in increased activity in agriculture in this province. Second to that, I endorse the dedication of my staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, in their assistance to the agriculture community.

I'll try to answer both the member for New Westminster and the member from Cowichan-Malahat. As I said, I thought we objected to the Cargill purchase. Yet through the discussions that have been going on, I sort of wonder whether they missed that.

When they purchased Panco Poultry — I mentioned this earlier — Cargill was one of the companies that put in an offer. The offer was accepted; it was a good offer. That offer also was endorsed by the turkey and broiler boards and by the turkey and broiler associations in British Columbia, and their expansion or modernization programs were well known and well documented. At that time they had 60 percent of the turkey processing and, I believe, 23 percent of the broiler processing. Their plans for modernization have been somewhat curtailed because of zoning in the municipality of Surrey, but at the same time they are looking to modernize that plant to the extent they can do so. I'm not holding forth in support of Cargill; I'm just trying to give them a fair defence in front of some of the accusations that have been made by the opposition.

Our role in opposing Cargill's purchase of Maplewood was because they would become a more dominant force in the processing industry in this province, where they would move from 60 percent to 82 percent of turkey processing and, as I mentioned before, from 23 percent to 45 percent of broiler processing, and would have control of 100 percent of the hatching eggs to provide poults to the turkey industry in this province. It puts them in a fairly dominant position in that area.

Before we had Scott we had Maplewood and Cargill. With Cargill purchasing Maplewood we were down to two processors in the province, one having a very dominant force, and that's the reason why we took the stand we did. They indicated when they purchased Panco they would modernize the plant, and I'm still aware of the fact that they are looking for modernization of that plant. As I see it, if things work out the way I hope they will, you will see Panco moving more into broiler processing; and the Maplewood plant, if we are successful in our strategy, will be more or less a plant that specializes in turkey processing for the turkey producers in British Columbia.

[ Page 2233 ]

I can mention to the member — and I'm sure she's aware of it, you know — that Cargill is not something new to British Columbia; it's been in here over 20 years in various capacities. And again, I'm not defending Cargill, but I would say that the other comment.... I investigated this — the hundred convictions by the Canadian Wheat Board — because it came up when I announced the Panco sale to Cargill, and I'd like to explain it, if I could, Mr. Chairman. This is what the members used. Do you know what those hundred convictions by the Canadian Wheat Board were? They were regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board under which each delivery arriving at an elevator had to have a receipt completed. In some instances the employee at the elevator accumulated the delivery slips and then made one receipt. For example, if he accumulated ten delivery slips and made one receipt, there were nine violations against the Canadian Wheat Board. That's how serious that particular issue was. I'm not going to defend Cargill and talk of the other ones. Those may well be valid in the United States — and in Canada. But I just feel I have to stand up and point out that, with these comments that were made about a hundred convictions or a hundred accusations or whatever they were, in some cases they were very minor infractions of regulations.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I can....

Actually he's a great guy, the greatest Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) this province has ever known. It's just that sometimes we can't contain his enthusiasm, that's all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's getting humble.

HON. MR. HEWITT: And he's very humble too.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I'd just like to take the time of the House for a few brief moments for something that I consider to be rather important. The point of order I want to raise is founded initially on standing order 1, which I would like to read into the record. Standing order 1 is identified as the general rule, and it says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as in force at the time, shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House." May's sixteenth edition, on page 260, dealing with the machinery of parliament, says in part, under the heading "Leader of the House of Commons," this: "Each week after a programme of business has been arranged the Leader of the House states the business for the following week in answer to a question put to him at the end of Questions on Thursdays by the Leader of the Opposition, and, whenever necessary, makes further business statements from time to time."

What I want to put forward is that inasmuch as we have no sessional or other orders with respect to the matter of the announcement of public business in the House, we should revert to and look at the custom and usage in the United Kingdom which is generally what I just read, and adapt it to this House, because there is a desirability, if not an absolute right, to know in some orderly way and with some projection into the future what the government plans.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena has the floor, hon. members, and is making a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: I'm trying to make a serious point, Mr. Speaker. I don't mind the interruptions, but they may impede your hearing the point that I'm making, and I'm sure that's why you ask for quiet.

There is a right to know, to be able to understand what the business is likely to be for the coming week. The point of order I want to put forward for your consideration is that we should have an examination, or the Chair should have an examination, of the customs and usages that prevail in the United Kingdom, and perhaps come to the House on a future day with some suggestions as to how we might be able to have a commitment from government and an announcement from the House Leader at the appropriate time — preferably on Thursdays — what the business is going to be for the coming week so everybody will be able to adapt accordingly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In regard to the hon. member's point of order, I would point out that our standing order 25 provides for an order of business. The reference the hon. member made goes on to say that ''the Leader of the House states the business for the following week in answer to a question put to him at the end of Questions on Thursdays by the Leader of the Opposition...." Again, our long-standing practice in this house makes no such provision. Nevertheless, I will give the matter further consideration and endeavour to come back with more information. In the meantime I would advise the member that our standing order 25 does take precedence over the item that has just been listed by the member. Nevertheless, an undertaking will be made by the Chair to come back with a more in-depth discussion.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps when you are considering that you would also give some consideration to the usages and customs in the United Kingdom insofar as the quorum is concerned, insofar as the speaking order being agreed to is concerned, insofar as the estimates of speaking time is concerned, insofar as the civilized concept of pairing is concerned, and all sorts of other useful and usual democratic concepts and principles which seem to be forgotten by the official opposition in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.