[ Page 2335 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

School Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 2335

An Act Establishing the Right to Public Information and the Protection of Individual Privacy
(Bill M209). Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading –– 2335

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 2335

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 2336

Oral Questions.

Electronic scanners and price labelling. Mr. Levi –– 2336

Workers' compensation. Ms. Sanford –– 2337

Location of offices of Lands, Parks and Housing ministry. Mr. Nicolson 2337

Committee on Crown Corporations. Mr. Howard –– 2337

Maplewood Poultry Processors. Mrs. Wallace –– 2338

Ministerial Statements

Cyanide spill in Vancouver.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2341

Drowning at Willingdon Youth Detention Centre.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2341

Routine Proceedings

Motion 10.

Mr. Skelly –– 2342

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2344

Mr. Barber –– 2345

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2346

Mr. Macdonald –– 2347

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2348

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2350

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2352

Mr. Levi –– 2353

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2354

Mr. Mitchell –– 2354

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2355

Mrs. Wallace –– 2355

Mr. King –– 2357

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2357

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2358

Mr. King –– 2358

Mrs. Wallace –– 2358

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2359

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the carnation on each member's desk today commemorates the annual Lions Carnation Day, which starts tomorrow throughout British Columbia. The event assists the funding of $40 million worth of senior citizens' facilities operated by those 2,000 dedicated members of Lions clubs throughout British Columbia. I know that each member in this House supports the work that is done by the Lions clubs of this province and will wear the carnations with pride.

MRS. DAILLY: Sitting in the Legislature today are 75 new Canadian students from Burnaby who are learning the English language under the auspices of the Burnaby School Board community education program. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming these 75 students, accompanied by their seven teachers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Two guests who are visiting the Legislature today that I would like the House to welcome are among the many Social Credit volunteers from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands: Theresa Lovell and Sharon Dallas.

MR. BARNES: I would like to thank the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). He yielded to me yesterday, and I returned the favour today. No political speeches.

I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a constituent, Mr. Ray Dusang, who is visiting in Victoria for the next few days. Would everyone please join me in welcoming Mr. Dusang, wherever he is.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of students with their teacher, Mr. Fitzpatrick, from Britannia Secondary School. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them. I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition would be pleased to associate himself with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, that having been his alma mater.

This is a very special occasion for me. Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a number of students from Portland, Oregon, who are here with their instructor, Mr. Syd Steinbock. These students are coming for a three-day tour of the greater Vancouver area and are presently in Victoria. They are from the West Sylvan Elementary School, which reminds me of the time I was attending the old Sabin Elementary School some 31 years ago in Portland, Oregon. So I am quite pleased to have these young people visiting the Legislature today, and I hope that they will find their visit everything they had hoped it would be. I would like the House to join me in wishing them an enjoyable experience.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, for the third time this week I have the pleasure to ask this House to welcome a third party of students from Carson Graham Secondary School in North Vancouver, under the guidance of their teachers, Linda Forrest and Vem Porter. There is another group of approximately 40 arriving today. This school has an excellent academic record and also an excellent record in participation in sports in the lower mainland. In addition, there have been four students from this school who have been selected for participation in the "Reach for the Top" television program. I would ask this House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a friend who is visiting in the gallery today. He is an executive director of Local 180 of the IWA and also the president of our Cowichan Valley Consumers Co-op, Mr. Ken McKewan. He is accompanied by his friend, Mr. Hans Post. Would the House join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARBER: On behalf of my colleague for Surrey, I had the privilege this morning to welcome to the legislative precincts — as I'd like to do again now for those who are in the gallery — students from Halls Prairie Elementary School in Cloverdale, grades K through 7. On Mr. Hall's behalf and, I expect, on behalf of the first member for Surrey as well (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), I invite them here to the Legislature and make them welcome this afternoon.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled School Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 20 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.

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT
TO PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THE
PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

On a motion by Mrs. Dailly, Bill M209, An Act Establishing the Right to Public Information and the Protection of Individual Privacy, 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.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask indulgence of the House to grant me leave to make a statement.

Leave not granted.

FIRE SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Williams, Bill 25, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980, 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.

MR. HOWARD: I want to apologize to the Attorney-General; I didn't appreciate that he had a bill that he wanted to introduce.

I want to revive the request of the House to grant me leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

[ Page 2336 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the statement I would like to make....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at the time the question was called, "Shall there be any objections?" the Chair heard nothing. If there was an objection, I must know now that unanimous leave was not given.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was a no, hon. member; leave cannot be granted.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I abide by your decision in this regard, but I would point out that that "no" was given after I started to make my statement, and after the Chair accepted the fact that unanimous consent was given.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the information of members, it has been customary in the past that when a member realizes that his voice was not heard by the Speaker, he immediately rises in his place and so informs the Speaker, as has been the case now. I regret, hon. member, that under the circumstances I cannot permit the member to proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I just had to leave the assembly for a moment. I understand we are still on bills.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are, hon. member. No further business has been called.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the bill is on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least look at standing orders and find out what you're supposed to do.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A vicious attack, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I guess you people just don't want to review a bill so you can debate it properly. Is that the way you work? Hold up the people's business — that's all you want to do in this House. You've got nothing constructive to debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, when leave is required under these circumstances, it is different, as indicated in both May and Beauchesne, than under the ordinary circumstances. Leave at this point is actually a motion. A division can be exercised at this time if it is the wish of the House, but the motion does not deny leave to the minister to make his introduction.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the remedy and practice of this House when leave is not granted is to ask that the House go into committee, and then in committee you move that the committee rise, recommending introduction of the bill. There is a procedure, and that has been the practice any time I have been in the House and leave has not been granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The tradition the member is referring to is that of a message bill. Possibly the minister would like to ask for leave once more, to help proceedings.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you will recall, when I stood in my place I asked if we were still under bills to be introduced. You advised me that we were. This bill has been on the order paper, and I was introducing the bill. Here it is, one more time for the opposition.

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hewitt, Bill 24, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980, 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.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Agriculture was so successful in his second run at it, I wonder if I might not revive the request I made earlier and ask leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? There are several noes this time.

MR. HOWARD: Several noes. That's okay; you can have double standards if you like.

Oral Questions

ELECTRONIC SCANNERS
AND PRICE LABELLING

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the House, after his meeting with the Consumers Association of Canada last Friday, if he has decided to order that prices be shown on all goods in stores even where electronic scanners are in use?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister tell the House whether he's had an opportunity to study the survey done by the B.C. branch of Consumers Association of Canada on this matter?

[ Page 2337 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I can.

MR. LEVI: I take that to mean that you did. One of us is very obtuse, and it's not me. Can the minister inform the House if he's received any reports or studies from the corporate sector regarding consumer reactions to the use of electronic scanners to assist his department in arriving at an analysis that he announced he was doing last March 24, 1980?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If I understand the member correctly, we have received a great deal of information on this subject. When you say "from the corporate sector," I presume you mean the corporate sector of the business community, not the ministry. Yes, we have received a great deal of information from all sectors.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the minister is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, so the "corporate" relates to the other side of his ministry, which is the corporations. Last week the minister met with the Consumers Association of Canada. He has had a number of reports from the corporate sector. He has also had reports from the association. Has he decided to order that prices be put on all products in stores, even where there are scanners? He didn't answer that question last time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. On two separate occasions the Workers' Compensation Board has accepted from the United Injured and Disabled Workers' Association a list of 18 cases for a second look. Since then the Workers' Compensation Board has refused to accept further names from the association. I am wondering if the minister would assure the House that he will urge the board to continue to accept names from that association and continue that review that took place on two separate occasions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will make contact with the board as the member requests. I might mention to the member that I also have been in contact with the board and, as a matter of fact, I did send an assistant deputy minister to a vice-chairman at that time to entertain the concerns of the particular group. I might also add that I have met with that group in my office. There were a number of requests made. I could not assist some of them; I have encouraged them to review others.

LOCATION OF OFFICES OF LANDS,
PARKS AND HOUSING MINISTRY

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. At present the regional office of Lands, Parks and Housing comprises about 4 persons in Cranbrook and 11 persons from the old regional Ministry of Lands in Nelson. It has been reported that there has been a decision to move the 11 staff people over to Cranbrook. Could the minister tell me if a decision has been made to move the regional Lands people from Nelson to Cranbrook?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

COMMITTEE ON CROWN CORPORATIONS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in his capacity as Chairman of the Legislature's Committee on Crown Corporations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

MR. HOWARD: I quote the Premier's statement on August 25, 1977, when the committee in question was established: "Anyone accepting the job of either directing or working within the Crown corporations should be prepared to give such access to this committee and make all information available through this committee to the people of the province." Can the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee tell the House why he so readily accepted the statement of the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who had been invited to attend at a meeting of the committee on either May 8 or May 15, that such dates were not acceptable to the minister?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, can I ask another question of the member for Omineca, then, in his capacity as Chairman? Can he tell the House why he took it upon himself to cancel the meeting of the committee scheduled for May 8 without first consulting the management subcommittee of that committee?

I think the record should show that the shake of the head of the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee indicates "no." Either he's not going to answer the question or he's not able to.

We'll try another one, then. In view of the statement of the Premier about the need to make Crown corporations more accountable to the Legislature and the people, has the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee decided to place the need for such accountability at a level of priority higher than the edict of the minister in his letter of April 30, wherein the Minister of Transportation and Highways would try to find suitable dates which he would propose to the committee?

I ask another question of the chairman, then.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I am at this point advising all hon. members, including the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), that when the Chair is standing any member who continues to speak will be immediately asked to leave this chamber. I hope that makes the Chair's position abundantly clear. The member for Skeena has the floor.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat]

MR. HOWARD: Very well put, Mr. Speaker.

Has the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee

[ Page 2338 ]

decided to call a meeting of the management subcommittee of that committee in order to get the moral support which seems to be necessary for the Chairman to issue a warrant or a subpoena to compel the attendance of the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation at a meeting of that committee?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No answer to that one either, Mr. Speaker. Let me try one other question.

In view of the fact that the decision of the committee to call the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation — namely the Minister of Transportation and Highways — as a witness was unanimous, has the Chairman decided to call the full committee into session to deal with the refusal of the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to make himself available on the originally scheduled dates and thus set himself above the committee by stating, as he did in his letter of April 30, that he — that is, the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation — would try to find suitable dates?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: That's six questions and six absolute refusals even to rise and recognize that they exist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are in question period, hon. member, and we are not engaged in debate at this time. The member may put a question forward, but if there is no answer, the Chair cannot insist on an answer. The member must therefore go to a new question, to another individual, to retain the floor.

MR. HOWARD: The preliminary remarks that I made were a prelude to obtaining the floor now on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is the absolute blind and stubborn refusal of that Chairman to even acknowledge questions.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, clearly the member is out of order in question period at this time. Certainly a question of privilege can immediately follow question period. Otherwise, it deprives other members of this chamber of an opportunity to ask questions, notwithstanding the fact that there are no other members standing.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and relates to the Maplewood situation. The minister previously advised the House that he was awaiting the receipt of a report which he had commissioned — a study as to whether or not he would be going ahead with any aid to that plant. Can the minister tell the House whether or not he has received that report?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I had meetings — as a matter of fact, I had a number of meetings — over the past two weeks, trying to resolve this very serious problem. I received a report last night and had discussion, and we are still considering possible alternatives.

MRS. WALLACE: I take it, then, that the minister has not yet decided whether or not any funds are going to be available. I wonder whether or not the minister is aware that the turkeys and the chickens are backing up with no place to go. [Laughter.] There is no facility to process those birds.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: When I'm speaking about the turkeys, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the feathered kind, not the kind over there.

There is a real problem developing in this industry. I know the minister is aware of that. My question is: inasmuch as he has promised the turkey breeders that he will be taking some action, or at least letting them know — he has promised to let the workers in that plant know the first of this week, and it's now a Thursday — why is he dragging his heels so on this? Why haven't we got some decision after the two weeks that he indicates have elapsed?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I first of all would like to apologize to the member for Cowichan-Malahat for the reaction she got to her questions — from both sides of the House. It is a very serious matter, and I can only assure the member that this minister is not dragging his feet. The problem is very complex. The plant was owned by an individual, and the plant has closed because the individual could not sell it to a foreign-owned corporation. It was his decision. This minister and his staff have worked many long hours along with the growers to try to come to a solution to this problem. We have a lot of poultry producers in this province — turkey producers, broiler producers, egg producers — all of whom are affected by this. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot accept the approach that possibly the opposition member would like me to accept, and that is where government steps in and takes over from an enterprise that is closed. If we adopt that approach, then we have to look at every sector of our economy. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is any solution that is realistic and possible to make sure that there is a viable turkey industry and a processing plant out there, we will find it, and we are working many long hours to achieve that goal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena rises on a question of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: The question of privilege is that for which I attempted to rise during the question period. I did it during the question period because of the rule which says it should be raised at the first opportunity, and I thought that was it.

The question of privilege I want to raise is this, Mr. Speaker. This Legislature passed an act giving to the Committee on Crown Corporations certain responsibilities to work in the public interest and to examine Crown corporations. This is the third, perhaps fourth, time that the Chairman of that committee has summarily cancelled meetings and, I think, offended against the privileges of this House.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

[ Page 2339 ]

While the member may very well feel aggrieved at the circumstances, the Chair must reluctantly inform the member that under our standing orders the matter raised at this point is not falling within the bounds of a question of privilege. I so advise the member.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Could I rise, then, and ask leave of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King): that the name of Mr. Kempf be removed from the list of members comprising the Committee on Crown Corporations?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we didn't even get to the point where we asked leave. The member was proceeding before we called the leave question.

MR. HOWARD: I'm asking leave to move that particular motion — namely, that the name of Mr. Kempf be removed from the list of members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Before you read the motion, we must see if leave can even be obtained. I ask the member to retain his seat for just one moment while I confer on this.

MR. HOWARD: I thought the House should know what it was they were being asked to grant leave for.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair at this point is hard pressed to find a method by which the member can rightfully gain the floor to propose the motion. We only go by our standing orders, and there is no provision at this time for a member to rise and make a motion to ask leave. Our order of business is set, and I must so advise the member.

MR. HOWARD: With great respect for your office, I rose and obtained the floor first on a question of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I was not even finished the question of privilege, when the Chair rose in mid-sentence of mine, and indicated that I did not have a question of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Having thus been, with respect, frustrated by the Chair, in not being able to complete the question of privilege — which was a short one — I had no recourse but to try to obtain the floor in an orderly way to ask leave to move a particular motion to remove a member of that committee who was subverting the activities of that committee.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is apparent to the Chair that there is a growing tendency among certain members of this House to disregard the rules of this House and to disregard the other members who are going through the same process of trying to gain the floor of the House by the methods set down in our standing orders. If we are going to disregard those standing orders, and if we are going to allow members to rise on points of order at any time, or rise to put motions at any time, then, truly, hon. members, we shall lose the method by which this House governs itself. At this point, I must say that the member who is rising does not have a method by which he can legitimately seek the floor of the House.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING: My point of order is with respect to achieving the floor and being recognized. I submit, with all due respect, sir, that it is permissible for a member to rise with leave, despite the standing orders of the House, because the House does make its own rules, and with unanimous leave a statement can be undertaken. That's what my colleague sought to do, Mr. Speaker. That question, as to whether or not leave would be granted, was submerged in a variety of calls from the other side and was never put to the House — with due respect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, my colleague rose to obtain the floor under standing order 26 — the matter of privilege, the business of the day: "Whenever a matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately. " My colleague was not through making the case for a matter of privilege, when unfortunately there was an interruption. Whether or not the matter is indeed a question of privilege, is, of course, the Speaker's prerogative to rule on. My colleague did not have the opportunity to complete his case, under standing orders, as to whether or not there was a matter of privilege, which, of course, only the Chair can determine. I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, my colleague had the floor completely within order and was not able, under Standing Orders, to finish his statement. I suggest that the case of the matter of privilege should be put under our standing orders. If, indeed, it is not a matter of privilege, or it is one, then the Chair can deal with it. I ask for the protection of standing order 26 — page 7 of our Standing Orders — so the member can complete his appeal to the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, the Chair has in this case, just as when points of orders are raised that are patently not points of order, determined that the point of privilege being brought to the floor of the House and the attention of the Chair by the member was patently not a point of privilege. That is the decision of the Chair, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out to the Speaker that under standing orders a motion of privilege or a question of privilege should be considered by the Speaker immediately. Mr. Speaker has not given reasons for finding that it was not a question of privilege. Indeed, when a chairman of a legislative committee impedes....

Interjection.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2340 ]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be seated, please, hon. member.

Hon. members, we cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. For the member to engage in the discussion that the point of order was covering when it has been ruled out of order is just not acceptable. The member is engaging in debate on an issue that has already been ruled not a matter of privilege. If the member wishes to stand and make a point of order, a reference, without engaging in debate, then that is in order. But when the member engages in debate on a point that has already been ruled out of order, then the Chair has no alternative but to ask the member to take his seat. In this case, that is exactly what took place.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to do is.... I won't refer to the instant case. I want to refer to the question of privilege. One question of privilege is when hon. members of the House are impeded in their responsibilities and duties to the House. That is what I understood was the question of privilege that was about to be raised by the hon. member for Skeena but was not completed. I would ask Mr. Speaker to carefully consider whether or not the actions, as described by the member for Skeena, would not amount to an impeding of the duty of hon. members of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point just raised by the member is entirely in order and acceptable to the Chair. If members will allow, I will undertake to get back to the House at the earliest possible moment and render a more detailed decision, if that is the wish of the members.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in a matter of privilege it is required that when the member takes the floor on a point of privilege, he then states the matter. It is then the task of the Chair to decide if, on that statement, a prima facie case exists. The member is also to have in his possession and be prepared to move a motion if the prima facie case is established.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have been reading quite extensively about privilege, and I am on a committee that is engaged in such a thing. I know that it deals with obstruction and other matters. I would submit that it would be proper if the member were allowed to complete his statement of the matter, not arguing the matter but a statement of fact, and that you carefully consider the full evidence that he has to offer. Then, as is normal, the Speaker does reserve decision upon completion of the statement to determine if prima facie evidence exists.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair has undertaken to review the proceedings that have taken place to this time and will endeavour to come back to the House at the earliest possible time to render further information on the matter. That is my undertaking to the members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Following on with the point of order, in your research, Mr. Speaker, I would commend to you the decision of Speaker Murray, reported in the Journals of the House, March 14, 1968, page 134. He refers to Dawson's text, Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons. The quotation is: "At best the privilege in the Canadian House is little understood and little used. At worst it is looked on as being a convenient excuse to make any remark in the House which cannot be made in the normal course of business." That is what appears to be happening today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important that if members have information that might help the Speaker in rendering that decision, they should come forward. I would suggest to the Speaker and the House that it is important that the Chair do interrupt when a member is making a point of privilege if it becomes extremely clear that that matter is not one of privilege during the course of the statement that is being made, and especially if that member is in the habit of doing that on a regular basis in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Again, the Chair has undertaken to come back to the House, and I will do so at the earliest opportunity. For some time now the second member for Vancouver Centre has been trying to obtain the floor. I now recognize the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment on the actions taken by the Premier yesterday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I think what I have to say is perfectly in order, if you will listen.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member. you simply cannot rise and commence speaking without at least prefacing the remark with some kind of a point of order. Hon. members, again, how can we possibly undertake to do the business of the House if we do not at least adhere to the very basics of parliamentary decorum? Again, hon. members, I urge you please to consider your actions before attempting to gain the floor. The second member for Vancouver Centre rises on a....

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if you will please, yesterday the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you must inform the Chair for what purpose you are rising.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if I say "a point of order," that is not the way the Premier got the floor yesterday. I would like to explain that he stood in his place and he made a statement. Also the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did the same thing.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is simply not possible for the member to stand and commence an address of any sort without at least prefacing that with a point of order

[ Page 2341 ]

to gain the attention of the Chair. Would you be seated, hon. member. Possibly you might like to reconsider your position, and before regaining the floor, you might wish to discuss the matter with some of your colleagues to possibly help the process. That would be in order, hon. member.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

CYANIDE SPILL IN VANCOUVER

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose and made a ministerial statement regarding a cyanide spill in the city of Vancouver and undertook to bring the matter back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I had hoped to bring this matter back immediately after question period, and I presume this is the earliest opportunity. It's about one page, Mr. Speaker. It won't take me long to read it:

"On the morning of May 7, 1980, curbing surrounding an acid storage area was broken by a demolition crew working at a building at 1734 Powell Street in the city of Vancouver, which formerly housed a silver-plating operation. An estimated 10 to 20 gallons of acid were spilled on the floor, containing a residue of sodium cyanide-copper cyanide powder. The acid reacted with the cyanide, producing hydrogen cyanide fumes.

"City police and fire department were called, and the police cordoned off the area and evacuated nearby buildings. Provincial Emergency Program personnel of the Ministry of Environment were advised of the spill at 10:55 a.m., and representatives were dispatched to the scene.

"The fire department diluted the material and constructed a barricade to contain the effluent. Lime was added to raise the pH of the material to prevent further release of hydrogen cyanide gas. The spilled material contained behind the fire department barricades was pumped into two tank trucks from McRae's Septic Tank Service.

"There is no apparent loss of effluent to the sewer. A total of approximately 5,000 gallons of diluted spill material are being held in two tank trucks. The waste management branch is currently investigating disposal treatment options for the material. Shipping to a waste chemical recovery plant in Washington is the prime consideration.

"The building in which the spill occurred housed the Aardvark Industries plating operation until recently, when it was sold to Budget Rent-a-Car. Demolition of the building was apparently commenced before Aardvark Industries had finished cleaning out their building, resulting in the spills."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll send a copy to the first member for Vancouver South.

MR. BARNES: I'd like leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave...?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what it's about, if you like. [Laughter.] I'm sure they're going to cooperate.

Leave not granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, leave has not been granted to make a statement, and I must ask you to retain your seat.

MR. BARNES: What have you got against the B.C.-Yukon Cancer Society?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: The Human Resources minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stood up and said something about the Lions fund; you stood up here yesterday about multiple sclerosis; I'm saying something about the B.C.-Yukon Cancer Society. I can't make a statement. What's going on? Is this a one-sided House?

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Members should have very little to be pleased with themselves about in the operation of today's proceedings so far.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shall leave be granted?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not for a ministerial statement. Proceed, please, hon. minister.

DROWNING AT WILLINGDON
YOUTH DETENTION CENTRE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and regret that I inform the House of the tragic death by drowning last evening of a 14-year-old boy at the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre. The boy was brought to the centre yesterday prior to his transfer to Porteau Cove today. He was swimming in the swimming-pool with a group of 15 youngsters supervised by two members of the staff. In the dressing room, following the recreational swim, it was discovered that one boy was missing. He was found in the pool, and efforts to revive him were unsuccessful.

The RCMP and members of the inspection of standards division of the corrections branch of the Ministry of the Attorney-General are conducting an investigation today. The matter has been referred to Dr. McArthur, the chief coroner. An inquest will be held at the earliest possible moment, and I'd be pleased to advise the House further when I receive reports.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yesterday the hon. member for Alberni adjourned the debate on Motion 10. With leave of the House I would proceed to Motion 10.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2342 ]

On Motion 10.

MR. SKELLY: After the preceding performance it's with some reluctance that I get up in the House to talk on a resolution about national unity, but I do wish to see this country united, and I do wish to join with other members of the House in reaffirming the House's commitment to Canada and its desire to continue to pursue those reforms which are necessary to provide opportunity for the people of all regions of our land to reach their full potential within a united country.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I would also like to take this opportunity to speak and to reaffirm my personal commitment to that objective. I'm not convinced, however, that the present way Canadian governments and provincial governments are going about pursuing those reforms which should result in a united Canada are the appropriate forms or methods.

I would like to discuss — as perhaps the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) and you as member for Vancouver South did yesterday — some of the historical problems that have led us to this predicament in Canadian history, where it seems that one of the provinces has taken it upon itself to seek to secede from Canada. I think Quebec is an important case to consider. I do not feel that a nation can compel a group of people who see themselves as an emerging nation, having separate language, cultural and political traditions, to remain as a dependent entity within another nation. If we are to do so, and if we are to attempt to persuade them to remain in Canada or that it is wise and useful for them to remain in Canada, then our approach to the whole situation must be radically different from the approach we have taken thus far. There are too many lessons in history that we have at hand to refer to which show that a conquered state cannot be deprived of its nationhood and cannot be deprived over centuries of its feeling of nationhood, independence and cultural separation. I'd like to refer to some of those examples that we have at hand.

In my reading of history I find that Titus and Vespasian, Roman emperors, conquered Palestine in approximately 79 A.D. and dispersed the Jews throughout the Roman world. The Jewish people remained dispersed for something like 18 centuries. During the whole of those 18 centuries they retained the idea of a Jewish culture and homeland in Palestine. In 1948 they realized that vision by re-reestablishing the state of Israel in Palestine.

The same is true of Ireland. Ireland was conquered over ten centuries by Tudors, Stuarts, Cromwell and finally William of Orange, who brought with him the nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In spite of those years of conquest and oppression under British kings and queens, in 1922 Ireland fought for, and gained, its independence, or at least partial independence from the United Kingdom. Soon the second part of it will be independent.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the chief ombudsman of Papua New Guinea, Mr. Ignatius Kilage, and also his assistant, Andrew Miyno, who is a lawyer from Papua. That state was an Australian trust dependency for years and years and came within the sphere of influence of Australia for decades. An attempt was made during that period to impose British laws and British traditions on people who traditionally did not have a respect for that law and that tradition. It was interesting to me to see, after decades — in fact, after generations — the people of Papua New Guinea, having thrown off the British yoke, going back to the old systems, the old traditions of law and culture which they enjoyed prior to the imposition of British institutions. In other words, what I am trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that while those people may have been conquered, and while they may have been legally administered by Britain and Australia and supported by the United Nations, the minute those people had the opportunity and felt the strength to set out on their own as an independent nation, they went back to their culture and traditions as if decades of British rule in Papua New Guinea hadn't existed at all.

There are also strong independence movements today in Scotland and in Wales, which will probably be successful in the coming years in loosening the ties which those nations have in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

In looking at these lessons of history, we must keep in mind the cultural and political separateness of Quebec.

I know how difficult it is for a nation, as it is for an individual, to part with something or someone it has appeared to possess over a long period of time. Many parents are that way. They resent it when their children reach an age when they become independent and wish to leave home, to set up life on their own and to act as independent individuals in their own right. We know many marriages are the same way. They reach a point where one partner develops a little more or in a different way than the other, the marriage breaks up and it leaves hard feelings, even before this happens, on the part of one partner or another.

During the last day, as we have proceeded through this unity debate, I have listened to the description of constitutional history as viewed by the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) and of course you, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver South. As you and the member for Kamloops describe it, the Quebec Act appeared to give to French Canadians the rights to their own language, religion and culture, and the respect of the Crown for those separate identities: language, religion and common law. But this was not done as a positive act of generosity to the French in British North America by the British government. Nor was it done as a recognition by King George III of what we call the "French fact. " It was done in order to prevent the French in North America from being drawn into the sphere of influence of the Thirteen Colonies by further alienating them from the British Crown, who they saw as willing to deprive them of their right to language, culture and common law.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, after the Quebec Act almost every change in the constitution of British North America has been designed to submerge the power of the French minority in British North America. The first one I'd like to refer to is the Constitutional Act of 1791. This was the act that separated what was then the colony of Quebec into the separate colonies of Upper and Lower Canada, and which imposed parliamentary institutions on those separate colonies, designed after what Lord Simcoe called the "image and transcript of those institutions in Great Britain." He imposed those on loyalist Upper Canada, while retaining some of the powers and rights of the French minority in Lower Canada which were granted under the Quebec Act.

The result was two separate nations created in Canada; one with institutions which were the image and transcript of those in Great Britain, and one which enjoyed relative French independence, including the enjoyment of French civil law.

[ Page 2343 ]

As a result, rebellion broke out. There was tension and strife. Britain sent a commission to Canada in 1837 under Lord Durham, a reformer. Durham recognized the problem as that of "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state." The one thing he did recognize was the fact that there were two nations in Canada with separate histories, cultural identities and needs. But unfortunately that's as far as Lord Durham went. He then took a bit of a leap and said that "what those French people need in Lower Canada is an example of British institutions. We have to combine them with those fast-improving Britons in Upper Canada to give them a lesson in how to assimilate."

So, as a result of the Durham report, we got the second constitution of Canada, the Act of Union of 1840 recommended by Lord Durham, which combined the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada into a unified colony of Canada, in which there was a Canada west — English Canada — and a Canada east — French Canada. But Lord Durham, or the Act of Union, did another thing on top of that. He gave the English minority in Canada west the same representation in the legislature of the united colony of Canada as they did to the French majority in Canada east. In other words, to impose English institutions on French Canada they deprived the French Canadians of the time of adequate or equal representation in the legislature of the day.

However, over the years between 1840 and 1864, the balance of population changed. With increasing migrations from Britain, the French then became a minority in the united House of Canada and the British were chafing over the fact that, although the French were in a minority and the English-speaking people were in a majority, they still had the same representation in the legislature because that was the mechanism the English used when they were in the minority to submerge the French. As a result Canada, in 1864, reached an absolute deadlock in parliament where nothing could be done because in every proposal made by English Canada the French-Canadian representatives, because of the equality of their votes in the legislature, were able to defeat it. It was very much like this House this morning, Mr. Speaker.

In every initiative made by the French-speaking members of the House in the united Canada, the British or English-speaking people thwarted it, because they felt they were in the majority and shouldn't be dictated to by a French minority. This drove the non-French-speaking majority to seek some way of bypassing the deadlock. They looked at a couple of ways. One was representation by population — obviously something Mr. Eckardt didn't consider. That was rejected entirely. The other way was that by adding other English-speaking areas to that nation of central Canada, that colony of Canada, they could create more English-speaking seats, break the deadlock, reduce the French representation to a smaller minority, and thereby get English-Canadian supremacy in the legislature of a confederated Canada. Between 1864, the Charlottetown conference, the London conference and the passage of the British North America Act on July 1, 1867, that was the method achieved by English Canada to submerge and subvert the French Canadians and to keep them as a secondary group.

It was successful for almost a century, and the reasons for its success were numerous. As long as Quebec remained a rural, quiescent, church-dominated, agricultural society, not involved in politics or the development that was going on in English Canada, and as long as the French-speaking Canadians weren't concerned about the great movement to the west and taking over the Northwest Territories and acquiring British Columbia, then Quebec could remain placated through a system of patronage that had been set up by the two major political parties. Each of those parties had their French lieutenant who handled the party's affairs in Quebec. For example, John A. Macdonald had a gentleman who I believe was mentioned yesterday — Sir George-Étienne Cartier — who handled his affairs in Quebec and made sure that money was dispensed in the proper ways and the proper people were kept placated so that the vote would come home to the Conservatives each time an election was called.

With the coming of Laurier, of course, this was no longer necessary. Laurier himself handled that duty in French-Canada, in Quebec. And with the change to William Lyon Mackenzie King, they had to find another French lieutenant in Quebec. That was Ernest Lapointe, who handled the Liberal patronage system which exists to this very day. With all the intermarriage that goes along with the Martins and the Bourassas and the Simards, that patronage system has been built and defined over the years between the Liberals in Ottawa and the Liberals in certain key families in Quebec.

But with the coming of the Quiet Revolution in the late fifties and the sixties, Mr. Speaker, those old relationships began to break down, and those types of solutions to keep Quebec in line were no longer possible. Quebec had thrown off its dependence on the church and on that patronage system. They threw off the rural economy and, as elsewhere in Canada, people began moving into the cities and improving their educational stature. Quebec became a strong, culturally innovative, nationalistic society, demanding an end to some of these traditions and some of the ties with Canada which they saw as limiting their growth and limiting their development as a society and a culture. They began to see that they should be masters in their own house. In my opinion, Quebec's demands are the legitimate demands of an emerging state.

In contrast to what is occurring in Quebec, what we call English Canada is not a culturally cohesive entity. We don't have that kind of nationalistic strength that we see in Quebec. We come from vastly different backgrounds because of the waves of immigration that have come to non-French Canada. First we had that wave of loyalists and traders who came into Canada between 1759 and 1820: English-speaking, English customs, English ties, but also — and this is the key point — refugees from a democratic republican revolution.

Then we have a second wave, of which my relatives were a part. They came to Quebec, in fact, in 1819. This was the wave of Gaelic immigrants, driven from the highlands of Scotland and from Ireland by the Highland Clearances and by the enclosure movement and, to top it all, by famine and disease, which, in the case of Ireland, killed half a million people and dispersed another million overseas as paupers. They speak English because their language was outlawed at home. They hold what could be called British customs because their customs were outlawed at home by the British. They attend English-established churches because their churches, by custom, were outlawed at home. At that time, it made the holocaust of World War II look humane by comparison. That period between 1820 and 1850 — in fact, as far as the Highland Clearances go, to the 1880s — still lives in the minds of many of the descendants of those Gaelic people, who are now told that they are a part of English Canada; and yet, their traditions and the reasons they came here in the first place would not lead them to believe that they are any part of English Canada.

[ Page 2344 ]

The third wave of immigration that has taken place up to the present time is the immigration from Europe and Asia, which began in the last two decades of the nineteenth century with a flood of immigrants to western Canada and which continues to this day. These people do not have the cultural and linguistic ties to bind them together as a nation in the old sense.

We are not a strong nation. As a result, we tic ourselves more and more to a stronger national identity to the south. The consequence of this is that in every major power granted to the federal entity under the British North America Act, we have seen that power conceded to another state. In the regulation of trade and commerce we are really ruled by the United States and by its branch plants here in Canada. When you look at the ownership of industry and natural resources in this country, Mr. Speaker — and I'd like to give you some of the figures — it's appalling from the point of view of a nation that considers itself independent: 57 percent of the petroleum and natural gas industry is foreign-owned, 75 percent is foreign-controlled; 57 percent of mining and smelting is foreign-owned, 58 percent is foreign-controlled; 52 percent of all manufacturing is foreign-owned, 57 percent is foreign-controlled. In the manufacturing industries in which the percentage of foreign ownership is about average, let me enumerate them: agricultural machinery, 64 percent; aluminum, 58 percent; automobiles and parts, 88 percent; chemicals, 71 percent; electrical apparatus, 63 percent; pulp and paper, 57 percent; rubber, 71 percent. In the borrowing of money — a power assigned to the federal government — public credit, banking, incorporation of banks and interest, in all of these areas, whenever the United States moves, Canada is bound to follow almost as a client state.

This is the tradition of non-French Canada. This is the situation Canada has fallen into as a result of not being a strong, independent and cohesive nation. I can understand the sentiments expressed by Jacques Parizeau, the Quebec Minister of Finance, when he was asked: should Quebec break away from the nation of Canada, wouldn't that immediately bring Quebec within the sphere of influence of the United States, and wouldn't such a small and helpless nation be immediately sucked into the ambit of the United States? Mr. Parizeau's response to that question should be a warning to us all: "I'd rather be a slave to a master than a slave to a slave." I think these words warrant some examination, Mr. Speaker, because in the event that the resolution passes in Quebec and in the event that we're forced to deal with the separation of that state, those words should be foremost in our mind.

Mr. Speaker, I'm strongly in favour of maintaining unity within the Canadian nation, as this nation has been home to me and my family, both in Quebec and in British Columbia, for over 160 years. I do not feel, however, that the old solutions to keep this country together are feasible. Constitutional changes, band-aid attempts which continue to deny or attempt to submerge the national aspirations of some of our people, are not effective. I do not know whether Quebec will vote yes or no to the negotiation for sovereignty-association. However, regardless of the outcome of the referendum, I do hope that the balance of Canadians will see the need for a new definition of the Canadian nation which recognizes the aspiration for greatness and a form of independence within Canada on the part of some of its people, including French-speaking people and native minorities.

I believe that negotiations between provincial and federal governments over constitutional changes — that is, pursuing reforms as we mentioned in the resolution — are unlikely to produce such a new definition of the Canadian nation, because in almost every case, Mr. Speaker, those governments represent a minority of electors, and many important groups are not represented in those governments at all. What is needed is a full constitutional conference in which all socio-economic and cultural minorities are represented. This process would take years, possibly generations, but out of this forum would come a new, revitalized and independent Canadian nation which would include Quebec and which would give greater scope to the aspirations of our native minorities.

What is also needed is a strong stance on the part of the Canadian federal government to re-establish our national identify and our national independence by taking control of our financial and economic institutions, our defence establishment, and the ownership of resources from that nation to the south, rather than remaining a client state of the United States. Mr. Speaker, if we, outside Quebec, can re-establish our own independence and sovereignty in the international community, then we should have no problems in retaining a unified nation. But if the federal government continues to abdicate its powers and its responsibilities under the constitution to foreign countries, then we will always be facing the problem of secession, and no change in the constitution will ever remove that problem from us.

Mr. Speaker, again I wish to reaffirm in this debate my commitment to a united Canada, but with the warning that if we are to remain a united Canada, we must seek some fundamental changes in the way this nation is structured and in the way this nation operates as an independent country in the world community; otherwise we're going to lose the respect of those parts of our nation which see themselves as strong, emerging nation states.

HON. MR. CHABOT: M. le Président, je suis fier d'être accordé l'opportunité de soutenir cette motion. J'ai peut-être plus de raison d'exprimer mes émotions sur ce sujet que les autres membres dans cette assemblée, parce que mes racines sont profondes dans la province de Québec. Mes ancêtres sont venus de la France pour s'établir au Québec en 1650, il y a trois cent trente ans passés. Un de mes ancêtres s'est battu contre les anglais avec distinction comme un capitaine sous Montcalm sur les plaines d'Abraham.

Moi, je suis né dans la province de Québec il y a cinquante-trois ans aujourd'hui; c'est la fête de ma naissance aujourd'hui. J'ai demeuré au Québec pour vingt-et-un ans. Ma famille immédiate demeure toute au Québec maintenant; ma mère, mes frères et ma sœur demeurent là. Chez nous on a toujours parlé français, puis c'était mon premier langage. Je n'étais pas capable de parler anglais avant de commencer 1'école.

Mr. Speaker, what I've been saying is that I rise in support of this motion, and that I probably have more reason to be emotional on this issue than anyone else in this chamber. My roots are very deep in the province of Quebec. My ancestors came from France in 1650, 300 years ago, to settle in the province of Quebec, and most of their descendants still live in the province of Quebec. One of my ancestors was a captain under Montcalm and fought with distinction on the Plains of Abraham against the English. I had the good fortune of being born in Quebec 53 years ago today.

[ Page 2345 ]

I lived in the province of Quebec for 21 years before coming to British Columbia. My mother, my brothers and sister still reside in the province of Quebec. The language at home was always French; we always spoke French in the house. That was my first language, and I learned to speak English when I started school. I offer this background information, Mr. Speaker, to show that I have close ties with Quebec and the people in Quebec.

The friction that has prevailed between the English and French in Quebec — and it has prevailed for some considerable time — has come to a head with the election of the Parti Québécois. The struggle in Quebec is essentially for the preservation of their language and culture. Certainly they had been led to believe, essentially by politicians, that economically they'd be better off as an independent country or with sovereignty-association. Sovereignty-association, to me, merely means that the province of Quebec or its politicians want the best of both worlds. They want independence, but they want to maintain the same kind of economic ties that presently exist with the rest of Canada. I believe that they have been given responses as to the attitude of other provinces of this country on the question of sovereignty-association.

Separation would be an unfortunate move, as far as I am concerned, on the part of Quebec. It would reduce their standard of living; needless to say, it would increase taxes; and it would essentially be an economic disaster for that province. How long Quebec could survive as a nation independently is questionable. Even though the French are a majority in Quebec, they still view themselves as a minority in Canada. Separation would not enhance or improve the situation, as North America is an English-speaking continent. The best approach for the preservation of their culture and language and aspirations is through participation in the Confederation, Canada, and by participating with Canada and the other provinces to change our constitution to reflect the needs and the aspirations of all the provinces. Very few nations in the world are culturally homogeneous. Quebec cannot ignore the 20 percent of their population which is culturally English, any more than Canada can ignore the 30 percent minority which is culturally French.

The grievances that exist today in Quebec have a long history. There is no doubt in my mind that there has been discrimination against French Canadians in the past. Those who wanted to establish secondary manufacturing, be they from England or the United States, have looked on French Canada as a source of cheap labour. That's essentially the reason for the attraction of many of the investments and many of the secondary manufacturing plants that presently exist in Quebec. I think one of the things that created the greatest amount of friction in Quebec, the French versus the English, was the fact that those who made these investments in secondary manufacturing generally made them in exclusively French-speaking communities and forced the French-speaking people in that community to speak English. There were very few attempts made by those who superimposed their plants for the purpose of seeking cheap labour to accommodate the French-speaking people of that community.

In almost every instance it was necessary for the French to learn English. The managers were always English; the French were the workers. But I have to believe that this kind of exploitation which has taken place in Quebec and, I am sure, has taken place in other nations in the world is a kind of exploitation and discrimination which has gone. I believe that it has gone in Quebec and that Quebec is moving into a new day.

In the last 20 years, Quebecers have been afforded more opportunities than in the previous 200 years. I believe it all started with the maîtres chez nous government — masters at home — and with the election of Jean Lesage. The Jean Lesage Liberals of 1960 were the beginning of the change in Quebec and of Quebec having an opportunity of taking its rightful place in Confederation. It was the beginning of extending equal opportunities for management positions for French Canadians, and I believe that French Canadians have made great strides in achieving equal job opportunities in the last 20 years.

When René Lévesque was elected as the government in 1976, I am sure we are all aware he downplayed his separatist ambitions; but he was not elected on a separatist platform. What he did, in fact, was defeat the Bourassa government, which was viewed by Quebecers as an indecisive, incompetent government. Sovereignty-association is — no doubt in my mind — step one towards an attempt at establishing a separate French nation, and it is the most emotional question put to an electorate in Canada. Never has a question created such animosity. It has divided every community in that province; it has pitted neighbour against neighbour and caused internal family quarrels. It will take a long time to repair the damage this question has caused. I just received a letter from my mother, who is 83 years old, about two or three days ago, and she makes a reference to the referendum debate. She says: "And in this province they are driving us crazy. All you hear is about the referendum and separation. Things are not too good all over the world. I hope things change soon."

Canada has come a long way in its 113-year history. Canada is a strong nation, strong in resources, strong in its diversity. Canada needs Quebec, and Quebec needs Canada. Without unity this country could not take its rightful place in the world of nations. Quebec has had a major influence on the rest of Canada and can continue to make a major contribution. No other issue has posed such a threat to the well-being of this country, and there is no doubt in my mind that Quebec's future belongs in Canada.

As I previously stated, we have the mechanism to bring change, which we all desire. Quebec and the other provinces should address themselves to this needed change. Other countries have found a way to achieve change. Canada too can find a way.

MR. BARBER: Merci, M. le Président. J'ai un accent du canard, aussi la grammaire — which is a way to say that I have an accent like a duck, and, I'm afraid, also the command of grammar of one. But I am delighted to be able to follow my colleague from Columbia River. I was not born in Quebec. I was born in Victoria, and my language clearly betrays that deficiency. Nonetheless, I too agree that this particular debate today is directed more surely to and for and towards the people of Quebec than it is necessarily to the people of British Columbia.

I was taught, at least in my own household, that one of the best ways you could possibly find of making your best case is to learn the language of the other guy, which sometimes literally means learn the language of the other guy. It certainly means developing some sensitivity, some respect, some honourable human connection with the way other people

[ Page 2346 ]

look at things — a way that could be profoundly different and sometimes profoundly more interesting than our own.

Je suis canadien. Ainsi, et idéalement et politiquement, je suis canadien, et nouvelle-écossien, et ontarien, et québécois. Idéalement, nous nous appelons canadiens. Qu'est-ce-que la différence parmi ces provinces? Idéalement et spirituellement et politiquement, rien. Pour le pays et pour moi, c'est la même chose. L'idée canadienne est plus généreuse. Profondement, je crois seulement que cette maison, Canada, est à nous — à nous tous, anglophones et francophones.

M. le Président, je crois sincèrement que cette assemblée est obligée a montrer aux québécois ceci: l'amitié, le respect et les égards. Vraiment, c'est nécessaire a montrer maintenant l'amitié humaine, l'amitié politicale, l'amitié de la famille, avant le vingt mai.

Pourquoi est-ce nécessaire? Rester silencieux ces jours-ci serait fou. Que deviendra le Canada sans le Québec? Sans l'histoire sociale, l'histoire religeuse, l'histoire intellectuelle du Québec? Que deviendra le Canada sans le Québec — sans la culture, les arts, la musique, 1'érudition et la vitalité remarquable des québécois?

Enfin, nous perdrons. Le Canada deviendra une nation pauvre sans les traditions, les idées, l'animation, l'esprit, le cœur et le courage du Québec.

Enfin, nous perdrons absolument. Le Canada a un besoin énorme du Québec. J'espère que les québécois nous écoutent.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the great achievements of Canada's past, confident in the promise of its future, and desirous of maintaining the country united from sea to sea. That is the reason for this debate on this resolution. That is why it has been requested that this House reaffirm its commitment to Canada and our desire to continue to pursue those reforms which are necessary to provide the opportunities for the people of all regions of our land to reach their full potential within a united country.

In this Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia we're saying that we wish all Canadians to join us in expressing to the people of Quebec our love of country, our desire for continued unity, and that they continue to be, with us, a part of our great nation.

In my opening remarks, I wish to refer specifically to this resolution, because it so embodies the hearts and minds of so many of us here and in the speeches we have been hearing today and yesterday and over the past weeks — passionate, reasoned, logical dissertations why all of us feel so strongly that Canada is our country and shall continue to be our country.

Even the fact that this motion is before us produces some sense of sorrow, because our forefathers fought the wilderness, struggled and sweated and in many cases laid down their lives to entrust to us this country, which is indeed now one of the leading nations in the world. They endowed us with an enormous land mass, great people from every background and from every culture, and resources which for all practical purposes have barely been tapped. Altogether, it's an endowment that is more than enough to kindle all the dreams and all the accomplishments of which great countries are made. Most importantly, the energy and the sacrifices of those before us have provided us with freedoms and a quality of life that is the admiration of people throughout the world.

But now it is our generation that is entrusted with this priceless inheritance. It must be our commitment to cherish and nourish that bequest and convey it to the coming generation, our young people of today. One must ask: what are their perceptions? Uncluttered by two world wars and a worldwide depression, what are these children's perceptions of the transportation and communications explosions? How do they perceive what's happening in this country today? How do they see the rest of Canada? What do they expect of the Canada of tomorrow? Surely that which is expected must be a place of freedom and grandeur, a place of marvellous opportunity, a country to be part of and proud of, rather than a series of divided provinces squabbling over the remains of a once-great nation.

What are these youngsters hearing? The vacuities of sovereignty-association, the complexities of constitutional reform — I don't think our youth are much into these kinds of dialectics. But the youth of today are very aware of the uncertainties, and are very aware of the unrest. They can see the ugly clouds of separation forming on the horizon, and they have concerns. But in their minds I would suggest there is indeed a lack of clarity as to why any of this is happening; I think that in itself is significant and surely indicative.

There's a story abroad which I have to say, in my mind, is very unclear. If it's not baldly misrepresented, it's been badly told. That is sovereignty-association, the palatable label utilized by certain political elements who are advocating breakaway. But they are offering something which they cannot deliver, because with one the other cannot follow, as was expressed by my colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) most eloquently a few moments ago. There'd be far too much to be lost and far too little to be gained even to attempt this kind of a folly, be it from the perspective of the province of Quebec, of the other provinces or of Canada.

Then there are those who consider that constitutional impediment is the root and sole cause of Canadian problems, and perhaps imply that constitutional revision can be a complete panacea. We indeed favour constitutional reform — I'd say from every side of this House and from every member of this House. Certainly that is necessary, and we intend to press hard for it. But apart from whatever ends up in the constitution, we have all got to remember that it can never parameter human existence either for today or for the future, and it will always take more than just a constitution to make this country hold together.

It will always remain for those of good will to negotiate, bargain, ameliorate, to attempt to agree to arrive at genuine understandings among all of our people, provinces and governments. That's tough, but it can be done, and it must be done. That's the job for all of us. Never let us permit our country to fail or fall by our default — or by design. As a nation, it could be said that we carry introspection almost to a fault, and that we, as a nation and as a people, fail to truly comprehend all of that which we now have and how truly remarkable and marvellous that is, let alone envision our almost unlimited prospects for the future, which are exciting to the point of almost being beyond imagination. Canada is on the threshold of amazing greatness, with all of the excitement, prosperity and quality of life that can flow from that.

If it's reform, better consultation and increased participation in the decision-making processes of our Canadian federation — which we need to better bind the Canadian mosaic — then I say: let's get on with it. The fact that it is evident that reforms are needed in our country to better reflect local interests, local concerns and local customs is not a matter that

[ Page 2347 ]

should be looked upon as anathema, because through history mankind has always peaked and troughed through the cycles of centralism and decentralism and survived — and so, indeed, can Canada.

So I say: turn not our backs on Canada, but come to it; set aside cynicism; grasp it with every affection. Harken to some of the words found in that great book, The Unknown Country, which was written many years ago by Mr. Bruce Hutchinson: "The sounds of Canada are there to be heard, and the texture and living stuff of Canada is there to be felt, as is the full pulse of its heart, the full flex of its muscle and the full pattern of its mind." It is there to be seen, heard and felt, and it is there providing us with the richest fulfilment of any place on earth. It's not argumentative dialetic or constitutional axiom, but it's the freedom, spirit, emotion and love of nature, the desire to walk hand in hand with the destiny of our land and to be a part of it. All of that is that which has brought us together in one great nation.

This call is to those kinds of sentiments — sentiments of the heart, spirit and will that can reaffirm the confidence and the love that we have for our country and for the resolve of our future. Canada is a priceless inheritance passed to our generation from all of the generations before us. It's our responsibility to convey Canada to those who follow, and that has to be our commitment. Our country is the thrill and excitement of difference harmonized by the adhesion of common aspiration, rights and responsibilities, and all of the warmth and fellowship that can flow from those ties.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing an hour of decision. I say, let us all respond throughout our true north that we are strong, we are free, and we shall maintain our unity. O Canada, you have never forsaken us; let us not forsake you.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a pleasure to take part in a debate on a joint resolution moved by the Premier of the province of British Columbia and the Leader of the Opposition, expressing, as I hope it will, the unanimous opinion of the members of this Legislature. And it's a privilege to be able to say a few words — not written out, I'm afraid — reflectively, about the kind of problems that Canada faces.

I can recall, in 1973, talking with the Leader of the Opposition, although he didn't take me in his suitcase on that occasion, and we were both of the opinion that René Lévesque had so many fine qualities — oh, social democratic qualities too. He was the father of Quebec Hydro under the Lesage government, under public ownership. We were proud of him, and we thought he was taking a bad turn and going down what ultimately has to be a blind alley. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition said, "He's going to be the Premier of Quebec one of these days," because the Bourassa government was faltering and becoming a little arrogant in its breeches. So the Leader of the Opposition went down and met him, I think, in a hotel in Montreal, and they had a very fruitful discussion as two Canadians. They disagreed at the end of it on the question of separatism. René had gone a little too far down that road for turning back, although I think that the time is still there for him to be a great Canadian in the coast-to-coast sense.

That was an unfortunate refusal to take the suggestions and hear the pleas of the Leader of the Opposition. I hope the Premier will have better luck in terms of speaking with Quebecers, as he's going to in the next week.

The problem of Canada is so much outweighed by the fortunate kind of country we live in that the pride in being Canadian should be the thing we think most about rather than these problems. When we think of the peoples that really make up this country, it's not the country of 1867 anymore. Although later in the eighteenth century there were Macdonalds in Quebec who spoke — and I'm proud of this — only French; they couldn't speak a word of Scots or the tongue; they couldn't speak a word of English. They had come from the regiments that had been on the Plains of Abraham, and they had married near Rivière-du-Loup into French families, and they were francophones only. That's part of what our country is about, you know.

But since then, we've got to think about the other ingredients in the Canadian mosaic. People in this House come from ancestries all over the world: Lebanon, Holland, the Far East — not represented at the moment in this House — the native Indian population. Do you know that in 10 or 15 years, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Saskatchewan, more than half of the young school children are going to be of native Indian or Métis origin? They're winning the battle of the cradle on the wide prairies because their birth rate at the moment is ahead of the older settlers. Well, I shouldn't have said older settlers — they are the oldest of the settlers. You say Quebec has its peculiar differences in which we rejoice — Saskatchewan is going to have them.

Yet that's the kind of thing that still makes me proud to be part of that kind of country. You could have a country that was homogeneous in the sense of racial origin, or religious origin, or cultural origin, but I think it would be a dull place in which to live. I love Canada because I love the differences of its people and cultures, and I can't appreciate that the newcomers who now fall off the boats from the Far East, and from Europe still, and from all parts of the world, should in any sense be considered second-class citizens because they came later.

We know the native Indians are our first citizens, and what I'm saying is that the old feud — of which, unfortunately, the embers still glow — from the colonial wars of 500,400 and 300 years ago.... That's part of the problem in eastern Canada. But Canada is much bigger than that, and I hope it can turn its back upon the injustices which undoubtedly were there, as le Ministre des Terres (Hon. Mr. Chabot) a dit. There were injustices in Quebec, unquestionably. There were, too, in western Canada. The Ukrainians that came out and broke the soil in western Canada and lived through those hard winters by digging a hole in the earth and putting a mud roof over them had injustices, too, with the CPR and the tariff structure under which they had to buy from central Canada. There were injustices scattered throughout the whole country. But Quebec had its full share of them; no question aboutt that.

We hear echoes of those old colonial wars. Even in the United States they have echoes of them. They're going to be very serious in the United States in the next few years because they have a 2,000-mile border and, beyond that, they have within the United States now about 20 million Hispanics — using a very general term — and the border that cannot prevent immigration. They can't do it over 2,000 miles, and people are coming to places like San Diego or San Antonio, with the old Spanish names. They're going to have not just the problem they had with the black community, which has been solved, in terms of increasing opportunity, to a significant extent; they're going to have their problems, too, as a nation.

They're going to have their Quebec problem. Russia's

[ Page 2348 ]

having its Quebec problem. The lower third of Russia is now populated by central Asian people, and starting with Turkestan down in the west and moving east, one-third of Russia and, again, winning the battle of the cradle. And you know they went into Afghanistan unquestionably as an aggressor, but they also went in a little afraid of an unfriendly government on their borders of a country that was basically Muslim. So when we think of Canada's problems, let's put them in the world perspective. This problem of nationalism is something that's occurring all over the world. Nationalism is a good thing in terms of people reaching back to their cultures, finding their roots and preserving their languages wherever it is possible to do so. That is good and liberating of the human spirit. But it can become a dangerous, regressive tendency in mankind if it goes too far.

There are two forces in the world — preserving the differences of our cultures and languages, which is a great thing, but also the need for nations to solve in a national way problems that can't be solved in any other way, and to unify, in the sense of bringing to the international table at the United Nations or some other agency, problems which the human family cannot otherwise solve. The unity required to solve common problems can coexist with the differences in which we rejoice through the diversity of the cultures within the human family. Albert Einstein once said that nationalism was an infantile disorder — the measles of mankind. But I don't think that expresses the whole truth because there is much in nationalism that is good and liberating of the human spirit.

I wish I could say with the minister for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), who seems to emphasize the constitutional solution, that the constitutional solution in the BNA Act will save things. You know, you have a new senate, or you have a differently structured form of government, or the lawyers get together constitutionally and draft a new clause as to sharing rights over natural resources between central government and provinces. I don't think that we will solve.... We have to be open and flexible about constitutional reform in Canada, but don't think for a moment that the lawyers can save the Canadian nation. A nation is more than a territory; it is basically a feeling. Many of the constitutional problems that we face are often solved without changes in the constitution, through accommodations between governments and agreement and a sense of tolerance, and a recognition, in the particular case that we're discussing, that Quebec is indeed a different community that should be encouraged to be different because that is part of what makes up the richnesses of Canada.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I thought the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) gave a very thoughtful speech, and I know other members have in this debate. But he pointed out that we haven't come to nationhood in Canada because we don't own the dammed country. And he gave some of the figures. You know, we are having a big debate in British Columbia at the present time about coal, and here we go to our Kootenay area and we have an American multinational come in to take B.C. coal to Japan. We can do better than that, and we can be prouder of ourselves as Canadians when we begin to do things for ourselves and not be tenants in our own country. And the Québécois would agree with us as much on that point as some of us, particularly on this side of the House, agree with that point.

So I conclude, Mr. Speaker — having left out a number of the points I was going to make because I have scattered notes — that there are countries that are suffering worse problems than Canada. I think about Belgium, and I'm going to come back to the constitutional thing. Two nations struggle within the bosom of a single state there. It's a very prosperous nation and a very energetic people, but they have their Flemish side and they have their francophone side. They've made constitutional arrangements. There are the French-speaking areas, Flemish-speaking areas and Brussels in between, and the lawyers have done their work. Yet there is bitter fighting in the streets over the question of language. Part of the message we have to learn in Canada is to talk these things out, understand and be proud of the kind of country A e are, try to preserve our good humour and, most of all, a tolerance and an appreciation for the richness and the diversities of the peoples and the cultures that make up Canada. So I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying this: I don't think that Canada is negotiable, but everything else should be. I say, vive le Quebec différent, mais aussi vive le Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to just expand on some of the members' remarks in what has been a very interesting and unusually rewarding opportunity in this House, where there's common ground for all members from various sides to come together and present their various viewpoints.

First, of course, we all believe in our country; we believe in Canada. Our interpretation perhaps of the way our country or our province should be governed is different. We've come to a commitment to our country, or a re-commitment. I was pleased to move this motion, and have it seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). I listened attentively while the Leader of the Opposition spoke, making his feelings felt in regard to the continuation of this country, and extending to the people of Quebec with his remarks his desire that they stay and work with us in building an even stronger country. I have made note of his remarks and, Mr. Speaker, intend to attribute some quotations from his speech within the content of the speech I will give on behalf of the government, but hopefully on behalf of all of us, to the board of trade and chamber of commerce in Montreal next Monday.

I was interested to listen to the remarks of the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who perhaps more eloquently and with more feeling can describe to us the feelings of the people of Quebec making a choice such as they will be making on the twentieth of this month, and why their intense feelings have come to such a point in time that they are questioning their position in our country and in fact are dealing with a motion that means separation. For let us not fool ourselves that sovereignty-association in its name is a halfway step. Sovereignty-association is separation.

I've had the opportunity, as has the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), to speak with Premier Lévesque. I find him a charming man, and I've enjoyed working with him as a Premier within Canada. I look forward to working with him in the future as a Premier within Canada as well. I do know, and I've had the opportunity with my colleagues — the other Premiers of the other nine provinces — to define sovereignty-association for us, to help us understand what the question is that is being put before the people of Quebec.

I'm satisfied, and so are my colleagues, that sovereignty-

[ Page 2349 ]

association is nothing more than a clever way to say separation. Separation cannot be negotiated by our government, by any other provincial government, or by the government of Canada. It's unacceptable. It's unacceptable in its thought. It's unacceptable in the ultimate. But that is a free choice the people of Quebec will have to make.

This is a country that's built on democracy, and should they choose at this time to make that choice and take that course, then I would be the first to wish them well. But I'd wish them well with sadness, because their leaving would take a part of me, a part of our country and a good part of our future. The sadness would also be, Mr. Speaker, a sadness of what their future would be alone. It would not be a comfortable future now, considering the uneasy and uncertain international climate in which hostility and terrorism are expanded. It's not easy for old countries, it may be impossible for new countries, in that climate. It wouldn't be easy for them, and it would be tough for us. It's not in dollars and cents; it's not a balance sheet. But emotionally and spiritually our country would face a great loss. For indeed we are unique. I guess there's no logic to Canada. There's no logic to the physical boundaries; there's no logic to a country so large with such a small population at this time, but there's something right about Canada, and something that can be an example to other countries.

We set an example, Mr. Speaker, because when people came to our country from the various parts of the world, we haven't asked them to give up their national identities, their cultures or their customs. We have not taken, as did our great neighbour to the south, the United States, the attitude of the melting-pot philosophy, where everyone would become the same and merge into a single culture. We have asked all people and made them welcome to Canada. We've allowed them, asked them and encouraged them to continue to strengthen our culture with their culture and to celebrate their customs within a wide-ranging, multicultural Canadian philosophy. We have festivals, and that makes their cultures visible to each other. But the contribution their cultures make is on a daily basis, not just once a year at Folkfest. It's not just now and then when it's part of the community program, they dress up in their national costumes and bring that culture and share it with us in a very visible way.

The real contribution is the daily contribution that they make in many ways in sharing those things they brought with them to this country. Many of the people that came to this country, founded this country and still come to it bring nothing more than their culture, good will, ambition, hopes and their optimism. Many of them leave countries because they are poor and desperate. They have been denied the opportunities in those countries that they are able to find in Canada. That is the strength of our country, the strength of the people that came and brought their hope, and with that we renewed our hope. That is why I hope that on May 20 the people of Quebec choose to renew their hope and that we can work out the ground rules in this country.

Don't get fooled by constitutions and lawyers; constitutions can be written by people. Some of the noblest constitutions in the world are simple and straightforward, but they clearly define the ways in which the countries can and must be run. In our country, a federal country where we have complicated jurisdictions between federal and provincial governments, we must make sure the rules are clear so that we can achieve the type of destiny that can be Canada's. They must be clear, because we do not need the hostility of government fighting government at a time when good will is needed more than ever before. We need a constitution that guarantees to the people of this country that they can survive a bad government from time to time, because that is what a constitution does. It provides for government, but it provides the type of basic foundation that allows a strong country to survive poor or bad governments. You cannot always count on having an outstanding government in the country.

While it has been said that while this debate is being held we're talking to the people of Quebec about our hopes and aspirations for the country in which we hope they will share and the decision we hope they will make on May 20, we cannot ignore the rest of Canada. I have seen a growing willingness over the last four years. I've had the opportunity to meet with my colleagues across the country, premiers of various political philosophies. I have seen us all take many steps forward to an accommodation that could not be reached a few years ago. It's just a little over a year ago that some people were saying that if there were a list of 100 things needed in this country, constitutional reform would be 101. I don't believe that. I believe that if we had been able to achieve some of the accommodations to one another that would have resolved the concerns of the people of Quebec, perhaps on language and culture to the west who feel alienated in some of the ways in which we may be inhibited in building our economies, we wouldn't have some of the terms and some of the concerns. We certainly wouldn't be faced with a referendum in one part of our country today or movements springing up in the west talking about joining the United States. It wouldn't have happened. So it is important. It may seem dull and stodgy to many, but it is an answer.

Constitutional reform is merely a modernization of the structures which give our governments a better opportunity to work in this country. There's nothing wrong or mysterious about that. Along with that economic reforms are needed that are part and parcel with the opportunities and standards of equity that will be provided to the people of this country. They too go hand in hand. They too can be part of the discussion.

As I've said, I've seen my colleagues take giant steps forward in an attempt to reach accommodation. This government, the people of British Columbia and this Legislature have come a long way in the last few years in wanting to make Canada work and showing our willingness to look for new and realistic ways in which to modernize the structure of our country.

I've said many times that our country isn't logical and our regions are unequal. The resources of the regions are not the same. That's what makes each region so unique in its geography, demography, the values it has and its physical position in the country or to the world. But we have a common resource to all of Canada, and that is the human resource. That is where the federal government has a major role to play and can play a stronger role than it does today in guaranteeing some basic equity to the people across this country.

This debate has been good for all of us, Mr. Speaker. It has been good for all of us to try to put into words what we feel and to share, for once, our thoughts with each other in a positive way about how we feel in our hearts about this province and this country. The two are entwined. I can't think of Canada without British Columbia, and I can't think of British Columbia without Canada.

We have built a reputation in over 100 years in this country of being a country that is sympathetic and

[ Page 2350 ]

compassionate on the international scene. That reputation guarantees Canadians a friendly access to other countries of the world. Such a reputation was hard to win. I think someone said in debate that they thought Canadians were sometimes ashamed to be Canadians or a little backwards. That's not what I found when I have travelled internationally. I see people proud to be Canadians. They wear their maple leaf, because they know their maple leaf makes them welcome in almost every country of the world. It is an enthusiastic welcome that isn't shared with all of the people from other countries in the world. Our maple leaf means something; it means something to me; it means something in our country; it means something to other countries. It means something because 100-plus years of history have meant that there are other countries that know they can count on Canada to receive people when they are starving or poor. Canada is a country that has been willing to fight in world wars to protect the rights of those in other countries and their own. I've had an opportunity to visit at Adegem in Belgium to visit the graves of Canadian soldiers from the First World War. The people and the governments there still tend those graves. They still speak highly of Canadians. They love our country, because they know that we sent our youngest and our finest to protect them in their time of need.

Would we give up a history like that for some easy access for territorial gain, monetary gain or some short-term objective now, when our country has done such a job of building an international reputation of compassion and concern, that guarantees to our citizens the same type of reception that we would give to those of other countries when we enter theirs? Would anyone throw that away? Would anyone refuse to build on the opportunities we have for the future for some quick and easy solution called separation? Whether it be Quebec, the west or British Columbia, would anyone throw that away, make themselves vulnerable and lose what we have? I think not. I think not here in British Columbia. I think not in the prairie provinces. I think not in Ontario. I think not in Quebec or in the Atlantic provinces of this country.

I think that we have been too shy and too slow to declare our true feelings and share our feelings in this country. I think we've been too quick to criticize, too blind sometimes to see. We've shown a lack of understanding that is the only way in which we're going to achieve the type of conclusions or agreements that are necessary to keep all parts of the Canadian family happy and to guarantee to the young people of our country the opportunity to travel and work in any part of this country. It's necessary to guarantee, as we've tried to do since we've been government and moved a long way, that those from French Canada who come here with their families will have the opportunity of having their families taught in French, instructed in the language of their birth, or to have the right to learn to speak French, for those of our citizens who wish to do so.

As the Education minister said in debate, it has been enthusiastically subscribed to by the students of this province. The demand is there. It means the dream is there and the concern is there. Our young people are sending us a message. They care about Quebec. They care about those who have another language and another culture with which we share a country. They care enough to learn. They want to be a part of it. They're not doing it by force; they're doing it voluntarily.

I guess that's the spirit of our country: the quiet, unstated but positive actions Canadians take individually. From time to time and quite often they move far ahead of government. I think governments have been behind the wishes of the people. It's time for governments to lead. Mr. Speaker, those are the types of sentiments I will take, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, when I speak to Quebec next Monday.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) says: "Vive le Canada!" I say long live Canada! Je suis canadien.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE: We are all going to have to make a bit of a transition after the debate we've been having to get back into the discussion of estimates, and I think that....

HON. MR. MAIR: Stay nice, Barbara.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I think that I will stay nice, Mr. Member. I thought that perhaps it would be a good time this afternoon to deal with — I don't like to call them minor items; they are important items — some of the smaller and more unrelated items that I want to discuss with the Minister of Agriculture during his estimates. Perhaps one of the better ones to start out with would be the Women's Institute — which he is responsible for — because I think that's an organization that we both agree is a very worthwhile addition to the agricultural community in British Columbia and one which has been assisted by the Ministry of Agriculture over innumerable years.

I would like to commend the minister for two years ago having made some slight increase in the grant that is received by the Women's Institute. I think it's $16,000 that you make available to the Women's Institute. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? That is a very commendable thing. But I would point out that they do a very commendable job too. A lot of the work they do is not specifically related to agriculture, but it is all related to the well-being of our province. It is interesting to note that during this past year that particular group donated $22,000 to the Children's Hospital. Now that is higher than the average donation because they had a special drive on in this particular year, but they make regular contributions of several thousand dollars to both the Children's Hospital and the Queen Alexandra solarium.

The Women's Institute is a participating organization in the minister's other program — aid to developing countries — and they have sponsored some very valuable programs under aid to developing countries and, in fact, have contributed some $9,000 during the last year in the matching program that the minister was talking about when we discussed aid to developing countries previously. That is another way in which that organization is assisting the agricultural community and contributing to the well-being of not only British Columbia but the international community. Another

[ Page 2351 ]

one of the Women's Institute's responsibilities, one that they take on very regularly, is the sponsoring of 4-H Clubs. That is a multi-purpose job that they take on within the ministry — sponsoring those 4-H clubs which the minister also sponsors — and they do a good job. I know my own institute for many years has sponsored a handicraft group, and the young women who participate in that club have gone on to become leaders in the 4-H movement. It is an excellent organization, which is doing a great job among the rural young people.

I do have one concern with the 4-H movement while I am speaking of that, and that is my concern that many of the routine tests, exams and programs put before those 4-H young people originate in the United States. Very often, for example, when there's a questionnaire that a young person has to answer — a test in order to qualify for some advancement within the 4-H organization — those questions relate to who is the President of the United States, rather than who is the Premier of Canada. I think that the minister would be well advised to look at those particular things that go before those kids and ensure that they do have a Canadian and a British Columbia flavour. I know 4-H is an international organization, but I would like to see us having some provincial input and Canadian input into those tests and questions that are put to the young people in the movement. It's a very valuable movement, it does a great job for young farm people, and we should try to ensure that it retains a Canadian and a British Columbia flavour.

Going back to the Women's Institute, of course, another thing that they undertake — it's a new thing they are doing — is the PNE booth, which was very well received. They've had their demonstrations there for many, many years, but they're updating and changing their format. I find that the B.C. Women's Institute has made a giant step away from the sort of tea-and-cookies organization which it had become in some areas, into an area that is much more interested in extending itself into the community and participating fully in the decision-making process relative to local and provincial community interests. Along with that, they are still doing all their other things, the CNIB, the cancer drive, a lot of money and effort put into the northern Canada program. That money is raised basically through little sales of work, donations and the various programs where women throughout the province get together and raise funds.

I'm really suggesting to the minister that I would like him to look again favourably at upping the money allocated to that group. They have a very active board, which has a very large responsibility throughout the province. They have to come in for meetings, and they're really handicapped in the amount of money that they are able to spend in order to carry on the work of their organization.

Of course the minister is aware of the international organization with which women's institutes are affiliated, the ACWW, which is meeting this year in Hamburg, Germany. They have triennial conventions, and their next convention will be held in 1983 in Vancouver. The minister, the Minister of Tourism and I had some communications relative to some extra funding. Some assistance was granted to the elected people. But my concern was, and still is, the funding for the one paid officer of that organization, who is going to be responsible for all the logistics and arrangements for the 1983 conference in Vancouver. It was very important that that particular individual have the opportunity to attend the Hamburg convention. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened, because the funding was not forthcoming. If I'm wrong in that — I haven't had an opportunity to check just recently — I would be very glad to admit that I'm wrong and very happy to learn that funding was made available so the secretary could attend that conference.

I hope that the Women's Institute can continue to grow and develop and be the kind of companion organization to the Farmers' Institute that it has been during the past few years.

I was very interested to note that in District H, the area where the Minister of Transportation and Highways is from, the farmers' and women's institutes combine their district meetings and have an exchange of speakers. I think that's a very excellent idea, and it's one that I think would be well promoted among the institutes in other areas, because it does allow for that interchange of ideas. One of the nice things about it was that the Farmers' Institute was able to have lunch with the Women's Institute, and their lunches are always very delicious.

Leaving that subject, perhaps we could just look a bit at some of the problems that have come to my attention that relate particularly to specific services and staffing within the ministry. One of the more recent letters I have, dated May 5, relates to the Vancouver Island area. The letter is from Errington, and it indicates that as of August that area will be without the services of a horticulturist — that is, a resident horticulturist. Mr. George Earman is being transferred from that area to Prince George, and Mr. Alan Littler is apparently retiring. These people are very disappointed that they will not have a horticulturist there. They understand that they will have to obtain the services of a horticulturist located in.... I think it is Cloverdale — on the mainland anyway. I'm wondering whether or not the minister is considering appointing another horticulturist to serve in that particular area. It certainly seems very unfortunate if we don't have a horticulturist available on Vancouver Island.

Here is another concern, and I hope it has been rectified now. Apparently there was a problem with the lab at Abbotsford, which had to shut down because of some problems with its incinerator. The case that I had in point is that of a specimen — it was a lamb, I think — which was forwarded last August, and the report on that particular specimen was not available until November 20. That's a terrifically long time. I know it was a bit complicated; the deputy minister has advised me that it was a case that was to be checked for copper; I think it was eventually sent to some other area to be tested. But that sort of delay can be very difficult for the farmer that's out there waiting for the results, to find out what he's going to do about the rest of his herd or flock — if there are more falling prey to this. That kind of delay, from August to November — as I know the minister will agree — can be a real disaster. I know there were extenuating circumstances in that particular case, but we certainly have to ensure that those things don't happen any more than is absolutely necessary. In fact, even once is too much if, as a result of that, a whole flock of sheep fell to some kind of a problem that could have been corrected had that result come back.

Another letter that I've received comes from Grasmere. They tell me that there there are no personnel available to do crop soil tests. They had other problems as well, but the soil testing seemed to be the problem where there had been tremendous delays in getting results back from soil samples. I don't know just what the procedure is in that particular area, in Grasmere — whether or not the individual in question had perhaps gone an incorrect route. But in this particular instance they had a long delay, and their complaint was that there

[ Page 2352 ]

was nobody available to do the test. I'm not sure just why that should be, but perhaps the minister can clarify that just a bit at a later date.

I'm just going to carry on with these rather unrelated items and get them all off my desk on to your desk over there.

Crop insurance. Is there any move to include hail under crop insurance? I think it was at one time under crop insurance and has now been removed. I think part of the problem was that the premiums were very high. I would like the minister to just fill the House in a little bit on his approach to the whole crop insurance program and what he's proposing on that particular program — if he is intending to enlarge it; if there are, in fact, problems with the premium. Is that the reason that hail was removed, or was it lack of participation? What has happened with the crop insurance program? It's something that we don't involve ourselves with too much down here on the Island, but this was raised by people from Fort St. John who felt that the program wasn't providing the kind of service that they would like to see.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

They were also very concerned in Fort St. John about the amount of staffing there. They said that they had only two field workers in Fort St. John, who not only were attempting to do the whole job in that area, but they were having to do their own paperwork. There was no one in the office. Farmers would come in to get various pieces of information or pick up forms for various things and would find that the office was locked because the workers had to be out in the field, as they should be, doing the job that they were appointed to carry out. So there was some concern about that. At least, perhaps, someone could be put in the office there so when.... You know, there are long distances involved; there are long trips. If, in fact, that office could be manned....

Now I realize I may just be giving the minister a great platform here, because I know he is reorganizing his whole department. Perhaps he's going to get up and tell us about all the changes he's going to make that are going to correct all these things. But I would certainly hope that we could have someone in the office in those.... You know, Fort St. John is one place, but there are many places, many of those centres, that are miles and miles away. It's a long trip for a farmer to come into town, and it's difficult when he comes in and finds that office closed. I would hope that in the reorganization the minister is carrying out there will be a provision to ensure that those offices are manned during normal business hours.

I think that's all the sort of unrelated tidbits I have here. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on those items.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd just like to respond to the member and compliment her on her homework. She touched on a tremendous number of items, and I hope I've got them all down. If not, I'm sure she'll raise them again.

With regard to the Women's Institutes, we have the grant of $16,000. We do assist them with the tri-annual convention that they hold. They have been in my office and met with me and are on an organization program. Within the last two or three weeks I have signed papers for the organization of the Bridesville Women's Institute, which is in my riding; and the Douglas District Women's Institute is one that I have just signed as recently as today. So they are very active.

I don't have the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) with me, but we were discussing, when the Women's Institute executive visited in my office, the trip to Hamburg. I believe I'm correct in saying that there were two tickets made available through the Ministry of Tourism for that visit to Hamburg to attend the world conference of Women's Institutes — I'm not sure of the exact title of that conference.

I recognize that they are going after the convention for Vancouver in 1983, and I can assure the member that I will give every consideration to possible assistance for them in holding that convention over and above our normal assistance that we would give.

With regard to Mr. Alan Littler, who is retiring at the end of this year, he would be replaced. Mr. Enman, I believe it is, is going to Prince George. We would be servicing that out of our Victoria office. We feel that having the horticulturists in Prince George is a better use of staff, and we feel that the staff in Victoria can handle the problems on the Island.

I believe you were talking about Grasmere and soil analyses taking time to get back from Kelowna, which is where they go at the present time....

MRS. WALLACE: There's nobody to take samples, nobody to take tests.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes. I've been in that area, Madam Member, to places like Grasmere and Baynes Lake. I had the opportunity to visit that area with the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). As you are aware, I am sure, we have staff representatives in Cranbrook, and two staff representatives in Creston. Again, employees' requirements are based on need and what the demands for their services are in that area. As you know from the estimates, we moved the number of staff members from 545 up to 551. I guess if we had the available funds we could place staff members and open up offices in numerous other places in the province; however, we have to be realistic about what the cost benefit is of doing such a thing. So we attempt to respond to the needs, and where there is a demand, we certainly do our best to have the people on site.

Crop insurance. The premiums are, as you know, paid 50 percent by the federal government and 50 percent by the farmer, and the province administers it. At the present time we have 1,654 growers participating in the crop insurance plan. I'm sorry, Madam Member, I don't have the detail with me regarding how that breakdown goes, but we're into a good number of commodities. I could get you that information, if you wish, because I just had a report provided to me by staff a few days ago to respond to a question that was raised to me by a constituent. That program, as I say, has 1,654 participants, with a total coverage of $36 million, the highest it has ever been. So there is good participation in the program.

MRS. WALLACE: Does it include hail insurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Hail and crop insurance. Yes, hail is included.

MRS. WALLACE: And that is in the north — the Peace River?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The northern Peace River.

Again, I can get staff to check it out, but they can't give

[ Page 2353 ]

me the response right here. It may be partial field damage. It seems to me I recall something about there being limitations — spot loss. I'll talk to staff and maybe get a little more detail.

The Fort St. John office is staffed constantly on a day-to-day basis. If there is sickness of a staff member, the district agriculturalist is there, and they would just have to go next door and talk to them. But we do have that office staffed on a regular basis. I believe those were all the questions that you had raised.

MR. REE: May I ask leave to introduce a school group that is visiting us this afternoon?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a group of students from St. Thomas Aquinas School in North Vancouver. There are 61 students in total, of which 23 are guests from Sudbury, Ontario, a place where I always had a great deal of enjoyment when I have visited. They are students here under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Ian Stuart, and I'd ask the House to welcome them, if they would.

Mr. Chairman, might I make one comment? I've got a short note from the students. It was passed in here. They were here at the time of the debate, and I'd like to read this note: "Tell Quebec to stick around. We may need them and vice versa." It is signed by a number of students.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to ask the minister a consumer question. I'd like to deal with that part of the brief that the National Farmers Union gave you around April 1, which deals with farm machinery legislation. What I'd like the minister to do, after I've read some of the notes, is to indicate, working his way around the rules and not saying I'm asking about future policy, whether he would give us some impressions of what he thinks about the need for legislation in terms of farm machinery.

Just to enlighten the minister, I'll quote from the brief by the National Farmers Union, in which they say:

"Our organization has on numerous previous occasions stressed the need for the implementation of farm machinery legislation. Your government is apparently not convinced that such consumer protection legislation is essential for B.C. farmers, although it's generally accepted as necessary in other western provinces.

"The investment of individual producers in farm machinery needed for food production is growing rapidly. The size and cost of such machines represent major investments for many; still they remain unprotected in the event of performance failure. "

Might I just add here, Mr. Chairman, that according to the agricultural statistics fact sheet, that the ministry put out in April 1979 — I haven't seen a later one — they indicate that the value of machinery and equipment was then in the order of $346 million. We're probably looking, I would imagine, at something like a half-billion-dollar industry in terms of equipment and that kind of thing.

Going back to the brief:

"We submit farmers in this province should not find it necessary to be exposed to unnecessary risk. We recommend that farm machinery legislation including the following features be implemented:

"(1) The licensing of all farm machinery dealers and companies who do business and require a proper repair distribution system to be set up.

"(2) Warranties on new machinery as follows: tractors, combines, other self-propelled equipment; one-year warranty on all other equipment.

"(3) The rejection of new machines for non-performance.

"(4) If parts are not available at dealer's place of business within 72 hours of ordering emergency repair parts, dealer and the company must supply equipment to the farmer at half the rental rates established by the provincial machinery board. A farmer who feels aggrieved may apply to the provincial machinery board for compensation due to loss of time or crops.

"(5) All warranties, repossession procedures, emergency parts, servicing and rejection of equipment proceed to be written into the contract of sale.

"(6) No farm equipment may be repossessed by any credit institution until such time as the provincial machinery board issue an order.

"(7) A compensation fund to be set up in each province to be contributed solely by machine companies who conduct farm machinery."

Now the minister may be aware that there are at least three provinces that do have legislation. The Manitoba Legislature brought in a bill in 1970, and they have since done some revisions within the act itself, called An Act Respecting the Sale of Farm Machinery.

Let me just go to the other two first: there's the Farm Implement Act, which was from Alberta; and then there is An Act Respecting the Sale of Agricultural Machinery, which was from Saskatchewan. All of these are pretty well the same, but they meet a lot of the considerations in the brief which the National Farmers Union submitted to the minister. While it may not be generally known in this Legislature, I did spend five years farming, and I know a little bit about equipment and the kind of problems you can get with....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's quite true, Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

HON. MR. CURTIS: Where?

MR. LEVI: I spent five years farming in Israel. I had a lot to do with tractors. Previously I'd been a mechanic in the army, and they put me on these tractors. I was spending endless hours cannibalizing one to keep the others going and that kind of thing. It's a very expensive....

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor tractor!

MR. LEVI: I didn't get what the Minister of Environment said, but if he was cannibalizing any of those planes he was flying, I'm going to walk from here on in.

As the minister probably knows — and I'm sure his staff have acquainted him with this fact — if you're talking about that part of the farm industry which has a capital investment of something like a half billion dollars a year, while it's not generally accepted that we should have consumer laws for

[ Page 2354 ]

just about everything that's going on, it seems that three provinces — certainly three of the western provinces — have accepted the idea that these kinds of controls and regulatory aspects of legislation are necessary, particularly because of the cost expended in terms of machinery. The warranty idea is certainly important, and also the access to parts is very important. If you're a long way from where you can get parts, you can be in a very expensive business if you have a major breakdown. Even if you're able to get an alternate machine, it's also a cost factor if you have to go to one of your neighbours.

I'd be interested in hearing from the minister just whether they have given any consideration — without him telling me that I can't ask the question because it's future policy....

Rather, how does he react to that section of the brief by the National Farmers Union, who are asking for the implementation of this legislation which presently exists in the other three western provinces? I'd be interested in hearing the minister's remarks on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm aware of the National Farmers Union brief. The request for legislation concerning farm machinery is an annual request; they have brought it forward in previous years. This province has instituted a complaint service through the Ministry of Agriculture where, if a farmer has a complaint because of lack of service by a dealer, staff take up their cause and notify the company's head office. In most cases it's been very successful. Where we've had responses regarding warranties and or guarantees or lack of parts, we've been able to resolve some of the problems, so much so that I should mention that another province in Canada is considering a similar type of program. The difference between British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba is certainly a difference in land base — the type of agriculture. You're speaking of the three major prairie provinces that have agricultural activities on a large-scale base. Of course, their farm dealers are fairly large, fairly successful, and are able to maintain proper service facilities.

If we brought legislation of a similar nature, Mr. Member, into British Columbia, I think we may find that it would cause a bigger problem than we have, because in some instances those farm equipment and machinery dealers are small operations, and to require that they have and or provide immediate service for the farm equipment may result in their closure, and then we would have a more serious problem.

We feel that for the needs of British Columbia, the present system of having staff working with the farmer and the farm organization and having a complaint service has taken care of and resolved most of the problems that are raised in the farm community.

MR. LEVI: While I appreciate what the minister is saying about the service offered here, he did say that if we were to meet some of the criteria of the brief — he didn't say "criteria, " but I'm using that word — or the standards looked at in the brief, it becomes very costly to the dealers. Well, that's true if they're overdone.

Perhaps the minister would inform me about this. I'm not aware whether his ministry has put out a report on the effectiveness of the complaint board, and also if there are any shortcomings in this. I don't think everything operates that smoothly, particularly around the question of machinery maintenance. That is an important part of it. I gather, from what he says, that they are able to enforce the warranties — that is, to get the manufacturers to do something.

First of all, does the ministry put out a report about this, and are there some areas — I mean, he's being very candid about everything now; he can be candid about this — that are not being met? There are, in fact, some problems in respect to availability of parts, or that kind of thing. First of all, is there a report, Mr. Minister, that's available, that I can peruse on this? I would be interested to know about that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would advise the member again that the program does work, we think, reasonably well. But I would be quite prepared to provide him with some information with regard to the details and the effectiveness of the program; we can obtain some material for him.

MR. MITCHELL: Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is not known as a main farming community in this province, but we do have a lot of rural residents who have got into part-time farming, and they are adding to the farm income of the province in many ways — raising not only beef cattle, but also rabbits, honey, birds, and so on. One of the main groups in my community are the sheep farmers.

One of the problems of the riding, being a partial bedroom community to Victoria, is that people are moving out into the rural area and each home that goes up.... Normally people move out there because of their children, and each child seems to have a dog. One of the problems we have in this area is that the dogs and the sheep just don't mix. Wherever there is an increase in the population, an increase in dogs, there is also an increase in the amount of sheep being killed.

When the NDP were in power they set up the Domestic Animal Protection Act, and part of the Domestic Animal Protection Act was the funding of a domestic animal protection officer. I know that within my own area the particular officer was very effective. For what reason I'm not too sure, the government shut down this service. Once it was shut down, the Capital Regional District, being fairly responsible — I take it it was one of only three in the province — went into attempting to set up their own dog control officer. When they brought in their bylaw, they brought in a bylaw that said that they would make compensation to those people in the area whose animals were killed, and they specifically referred to a section of the Domestic Animal Protection Act that would give compensation.

Along came the minister and by order-in-council he wiped out order-in-council 1204. This is dated, I believe, April 24, 1979. "On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, orders that, pursuant to the Domestic Animal Protection Act, the Capital Regional District be exempt from the operation of the Domestic Animal Protection Act." Maybe in their wisdom they felt that this was a wise move, but it did two things. It wiped out the opportunity for the CRD to make compensation for the animals that were killed, and it also left it open to a section of the Municipal Act, whereby the owner of the sheep has to sue the owner of the dog which caused the damage. It then became quite a complicated system. The intent of the Domestic Animal Protection Act was lost.

I would like to ask the minister: has he given any consideration, in conjunction with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), to bringing in some legislation

[ Page 2355 ]

or some amendments that would give the people within the area the protection that they were receiving under the Domestic Animal Protection Act as to compensation, so that the money collected by the Capital Regional District can be given to the people who have lost animals, be they sheep, chickens or whatever? I feel that this is needed because the service that the Capital Regional District is trying to take over since the government has wiped out the domestic control officers — that they bring in this legislation at the earliest part.

Also, I think serious consideration should be given to bringing back the powers to the area that are presently under the Domestic Animal Protection Act. One of these is that if a farmer or an owner of animals finds a dog killing his animals, he would have the right to kill the dog or to put the dog down. This is being denied, since they are no longer receiving the protection of the Domestic Animal Protection Act. This is not in the legislation that can be granted under the municipal bylaws.

I feel that this protection for the small farmer and for the community raising animals — be they rabbits, dogs or sheep — is needed, because we're having a bulging community out there. There are more homes, dogs and kids. It's not that they want to start a domestic war between people who are raising animals and people who are raising dogs.

There is money available under the capital region dog control act. There is legislation on the books right now. If this order was changed, the pound keepers in that area could have some of the protection that is granted to all other communities except the three that have set up their own dog control program. I would like to know if the minister has any plans to bring in any legislation to cover these two main points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister, the Chair will advise all hon. members that during Committee of Supply the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the Domestic Animal Protection Act, there is provision for compensation if an animal is killed by dogs. In the Capital Regional District they would apply to the regional district for compensation. The regional district, of course, has dog control, as you mentioned. They receive the revenues from licensing and then they can pay three-quarters, I believe the figure is, of the average price of the animal. That is in the present program as I understand it.

MRS. WALLACE: You wiped that out with the order-in-council.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If that is the case, I'd appreciate a copy of the order-in-council you're referring to, because I think we have it in there, and you may be missing another order-in-council. You may not have looked far enough, hon. member. However, be that as it may, that's the way the program is set up.

In regard to giving the regional districts similar powers to those a municipality has as regards the killing of dogs, that matter is pending at the present time. I've given consideration to that type of legislation.

MR. MITCHELL: I might be wrong in bringing this up again, and if I am I know the Chairman will correct me. I'm not trying to discuss legislation that's coming in — I'm thankful that he mentioned that there is some — but our advice is that the Capital Regional District cannot give money to someone whose animal has been killed if that person knows who owned the dog that did the killing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We're talking about domestic animals?

MR. MITCHELL: Domestic animals, yes. If the person is known, they have to go through the procedure.... Because they're governed by the Municipal Act, where the person is known the municipality can't pay something out for a debt for someone else, because it's covered under a section of the Municipal Act. The amendment has to come in from both sections, through your department and maybe an amendment to the Municipal Act. The money is there, the legislation is.... The intent is there. Is that correct?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Carry on.

MRS. WALLACE: This is a very difficult thing to discuss without talking about legislation, but I think that the problem occurred when the order-in-council was passed which made the Livestock Protection Act non-applicable to the Capital Regional District, because then the Municipal Act came into effect. Under the Municipal Act there are certain specifications of what can and can't be done. I would hope that the minister is going to bring in an amendment so that will all be corrected.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Okay, That's the answer. Thank you.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, okay. We didn't talk about legislation, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, all around it.

MR. MITCHELL: He didn't tell us anything.

MRS. WALLACE: No.

Continuing on this business of dog control, I still share the concern of a lot of people in the outlying areas that dog control really should have remained in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, rather than attempting to farm it out to the regional districts. I understand that there have been three regional districts — two in the Okanagan plus the Capital Regional District — that have taken on that responsibility. And that's all. In the rest of the areas, the act applies, but there is no control. In the famous words of my sheep farmer in the Cowichan Valley: "The one advantage of this is that we're teaching all the dogs to read, because every farm has a sign up saying 'Dogs shot on sight.'" You, know, it's not fair to the dogs; it's not fair to the owners of those dogs who are attempting to take good care of them and have them licensed. The odd time a dog does get away, just wandering down the road with no harm intended, but "bang!" — that's it. Of course, any dog that has no licence is fair game, and any dog that is shot doesn't have a licence for very long, I can tell you, Mr. Minister. That soon disappears. I know of one sheep farmer who just shoots the dogs, takes their licences off, and the dogs go in an open trench. A very bad situation

[ Page 2356 ]

has developed, because there is just no control in those areas. Even in the area in the Capital region where there is an attempt to have some control, I had a case brought to my attention recently. The Capital region is trying to do a job there, but because of the difficulties in getting funds and so on, we had a case where an animal was killed by a dog, according to the owner. The chap who came out and made the inspection indicated that the animal was killed by a dog. The report was filed, and then somebody who had never seen that animal, a superior officer to the person who had filed the report, said: "Oh, no, it wasn't killed by a dog. It was killed by a cougar, and therefore there's no money." Those kinds of things are happening, Mr. Minister. It was your responsibility that this was put out to the regional districts — the three that have it — so I think you have a responsibility to follow up and ensure that it isn't just a hodge-podge thing that isn't working. You have that responsibility, and it has to be properly funded and properly manned if it's going to do a job. Certainly you have to have the right rules and regulations so it can operate, which is not the case right now.

In the areas where there is no provision at all, I'm sure that the dollar cost that the ministry is having to pick up for damage that is being done is far more than it should be. Because if we had the kinds of controls that we should have in those areas.... I would urge the minister to review his whole attitude towards this business of dog control, because it does affect the farmer. Sure, it's also a community problem. But it really does affect the farmer, and the farmer needs the protection. And he's the minister that has the responsibility of protecting the farmers. I would urge him to take some action — have a second look and see if we can't do something to get this thing rolling and get it actually working, because the regional districts are not in a financial position to move in; they're not prepared to move in, and it's just a vacuum out there with dogs causing a lot of trouble to farmers.

While we're talking about animals running at large, I have this communication — actually it's a petition. It starts out by saying it's not a petition. It's from the Prince George area. I think perhaps if I can just read it that's probably the best way. It starts out:

"This is not a petition; it's just a few of us who are concerned and tired of the continual battle of trying to keep neighbours' livestock from devastating our gardens, haystacks, fields, terrorizing the children, and bulls breaking every fence that comes between them and whatever they want. Of course, this is the problem of rural-urban interface.

"I have written previously regarding marauding livestock, stating there would be a range war, and as the Department of Agriculture and court records show, for some strange reason the outskirts of the city are developing into neat little parcels of land called subdivisions. The region calls this progress, but why is the legislation governing animals running at large in unorganized territory not changed to keep up with the progress? Let's not waste our time trying to get the pound going into effect. We all know how useless that is.

"The price of beef is excellent; some of us are channelling money into developing land, and legally fencing. Others buy more cattle to run at large. There is no legal fence that will keep a one-ton bull out. I pen my own bulls up so my very young dairy heifers don't get bred, only to have the neighbour's big Charolais bulls break the fences. Consequently, I have paid for two caesareans this year and now have two prime cows that can't breed.

"Two Charolais bulls use other neighbours' children's wading pools for their daily drinking troughs."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's true. It's funny, Mr. Minister, but it is a serious problem to the people who are having to cope with this kind of situation. How would you like it if you had...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor, please.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, from Hoodoo Lake Road, signed by some 12 or 15 people who live in that area. They're concerned; they've got a problem. I wrote back and sent them copies of the Trespass Act and the fence act and all this kind of thing. They wrote back and said: "Try to enforce it."

I've got another letter here which says: "Thank you for your letter.... It would need at least eight or ten people to herd cows, if you did have an area strong enough to hold them. By this time it's too late anyway; the crops are all damaged."

So there is a problem in this area, Mr. Chairman. It's a problem that falls under the jurisdiction of this minister, and it's a problem that he's not doing anything about. That is why I am bringing it to the attention of the House today. That is why these people have contacted me in my position as critic for agriculture and asked me to present this information. They feel that they have not....

MR. KEMPF: Why didn't they contact their member?

MRS. WALLACE: I just have to interrupt for a minute, as I have been interrupted by the member for Omineca. These people did contact their members. They did contact the Minister of Agriculture, as the minister will confirm. They also contacted me. No one else has brought up this matter on the floor. Therefore I am bringing it up, as my duty and responsibility as agriculture critic for the opposition, Mr. Chairman. That member for Omineca doesn't seem to understand how the democratic process works.

I would like the minister to advise the House what, if anything, he is proposing to do to protect the farming community that finds itself in this position. We have the interface of rural and urban in such conflict in these outlying areas. Suburbia has really interfered, particularly with the ranching industry. It is a real problem. We know it's a problem. It relates to more than Agriculture; it relates to many other ministries.

Those ranchers and those people who are trying to do a decent job and keep their cattle fenced are faced with this kind of situation. Certainly the people living in the vicinity of the ranching community have these kinds of problems facing them. The fact that amused the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) so much, about bulls roaming at large and drinking out of children's wading pools, is

[ Page 2357 ]

really a situation that demands some attention. I am asking the minister to stand in his place and comment on what thoughts he has on how these problems can be dealt with.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have about 1,400 letters I want to refer to regarding various areas of the minister's jurisdiction, and it is going to take some time.

One of the things I would like to raise with the minister this afternoon is a problem. I'm not sure whether it's unique to my particular area or not. I would think it is probably a fairly widespread problem in the province. It relates to the very poor condition of some of the back roads, the farm service roads in my particular area, and the impact that is having on the cost of feed for livestock.

The feed companies have submitted briefs, I think, to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. That is part of the problem, because in the spring, when the break-up is on, the feed companies undergo load restrictions. They can only haul 50 percent capacity to the various farms — farmers of pigs, beef and various other foodstuffs. This is having a really profound impact on the whole farm economy in my area. The reason I bring it up to the minister is because he certainly has an area of jurisdiction here in terms of his interest and his mandate to try to provide foodstuffs at reasonable cost and to try to maintain family farms particularly as a viable economic unit. If the cost of delivering feed grains is doubled or increased significantly to accommodate the smaller loads that could be hauled over the roads in poor condition, then he can readily see that that is having a tremendous impact on the farmers in that area.

The feed companies, the farmers in the area and I have made submissions to the Ministry of Highways, and sought some assurance that there might be upgrading of those farm service roads to allow what is in some cases two or three months of load restrictions to be lifted and to allow the farm economies to flourish with some assurance of deliveries and without accelerating the costs of those grains to the farm. I know it is peripherally a matter for the minister, but what I really want from the minister is some assurance that he recognizes this problem and would be prepared to collaborate with his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), to see what might be done to make sure that the cost of delivering grain does not become out of sight for the farmers and have their margin of profitability be eroded to the point where they can no longer survive.

Believe me, Mr. Chairman, that is the plight of some of the people in my area. It is pretty widespread throughout North Okanagan, the Shuswap, the South Okanagan, as a matter of fact, and the Kamloops region. The minister for Kamloops may have received representation on this problem; I certainly have from his riding as well as my own. I would like some indication from the Minister of Agriculture that he recognizes the problem. Perhaps he has had some dialogue with the Ministry of Highways as to what might be done to eliminate this particular problem, which is a peculiar one touching his department as well as the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

The only real thing I can see is a priority set by the Ministry of Agriculture to upgrade these back farm roads and service roads so that at least foodstuffs can be delivered to the livestock without facing this acceleration in cost. I think the Minister of Transportation and Highways would look kindly on this kind of allocation and this kind of priority. I think he would particularly be prepared to recognize the need if his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, were to confirm and recognize the problem as well. I would appreciate very much hearing the minister's response to this particular problem.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, before I respond to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), I'd like to respond to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) with regard to the marauding livestock in Prince George North, which I think is the one she referred to.

The report I have from staff indicated that the recorder of brands attended a public meeting on March 1 held at the Nukko Lake hall — which is in the middle of the area of concern — at the request of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), and explained that the legislation was in place with respect to the trespassing of livestock. Mr. Chairman, I don't know where you were, but the Minister of Labour sure was looking after those constituents. I know you were too; I know you were concerned. But I just wanted to point out to the member for Cowichan-Malahat that there was a meeting held. We had a supervisory district agriculturist and a district agriculturist from Prince George there, and they discussed the matter...enclosed copies of legislation. Basically, I guess, Madam Member, they did to a considerable extent what you did by mail. They went right to the area and had meetings. I'm not sure whether they resolved it, but they certainly took action and advised the various peoples of their rights.

I should mention also that although pound districts may not solve the problem of arriving livestock, they do help to a great extent. We've had several new pound districts organized in the Prince George area. I'm not sure whether this would be one of them.

To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke: yes, we have good dialogue with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). We have had special consideration given to the problem you raise — moving in feed or fertilizer, or in one case seed potatoes, to an area where he has given us relief from the highway restrictions. That restriction, as you are well aware, is a short-term problem. Nevertheless, it comes at a time when there is certainly a need, possibly, for feed or fertilizer or whatever. However, conversely, in allowing heavy vehicles on those highways there could be some costly damage to the highway, which would institute a major repair, and that may cause greater problems for everybody in the area, including the agricultural community. But, yes, we are in good communication. We have had some special consideration given to us from time to time when we've requested it.

MR. KING: I appreciate that the real answer here lies in the basic upgrading of those farm roads, and I appreciate that the Ministry of Highways cannot accomplish that in terms of the total problem over a short period of time. But I want to submit, Mr. Chairman, that the problem is not that short-term. In some areas of the province it goes on for a matter of six weeks or two months.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Revelstoke.

MR. KING: No, not Revelstoke, Mr. Chairman. We in fact have no farms around Revelstoke that I'm aware of; they are all in the Shuswap and North Okanagan areas.

Depending on the year, the breakup period can be quite lengthy, and it is my understanding that they need deliveries

[ Page 2358 ]

of meal and whatever as frequently as every two days, depending on the size of the herd and so on. It is very much an ongoing problem. It puts the feed company in a very difficult position. If they are restricted to 50 percent, then obviously they have to recover the cost somehow, and they can only do that by charging more to the consumer. What I'm suggesting is trying to identify some of these areas and trying to give priority to upgrading our secondary agricultural road system in the province of British Columbia. I would think the Minister of Agriculture should be a prime mover in that objective, and that is what I request from him.

The other thing I would suggest that the minister might consider is the case where you have a fairly centralized feed supplier. They are being subjected to vastly increased costs because of load restriction. The upgrading of the road system cannot be accommodated in a quick fashion to alleviate this problem. The ministry might look at some short-term system of subsidizing the deliveries so that the increased cost is not passed on to the farmer. The minister takes the position that it's just a short-term thing — and granted in most cases it is — but the minister can appreciate also that that short term can have a very serious impact on the margin of profit to the feed company. Rather than have the cost passed on to the farmer when the economic viability has been interrupted, in effect, by the government, I would suggest that the ministry itself should look at the obligation it has to offer some short-term subsidy in those kinds of circumstances. I would appreciate the minister's response to that suggestion.

HON. MR. FRASER: I just want to add a comment to the remarks that have been made by the various people about the basic problem here. I met the farmers in Salmon Arm. It's a double problem, in a way, as far as this ministry is concerned. The weighscale branch and the force load restrictions are put on at spring breakup. This spring I asked them to give some consideration.... The basic problem here is that most of these farmers, for good reason, I imagine, haven't got any storage for grain. It's probably because of the expense of it. Everything is modernized now, and they're hauling with large diesel units and tanker units with trailers.

On the subject of upgrading of roads, I would suggest that that isn't the solution, although we'd like to get along with it. But once the roads are upgraded they'll enforce the regulations more than ever because they've got a good route and it might not necessarily stand up in spring breakup. That's the point I'd like to make.

Just while we're on spring breakup for roads, the farmers aren't the only ones with a problem, as I think the House knows. We put the loggers in the interior and the north right out of business for three months with load restrictions. I've been trying through the engineers to see if we can shorten that period, but it is weather conditions. Some springs are good, others are not so good, but this one here is of short duration. As I say, we'd certainly like to upgrade the road, but in the meantime I've asked them to be considerate in enforcement of load restrictions in spring breakup because of feed for animals.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Minister of Transportation and Highways' contribution, and I recognize full well that it is a major problem and a very difficult one to come to grips with, but I would suggest that it's not really appropriate to compare the problem which farmers have with the problem which the forest industry has. I know that in economic terms that has a profound effect on them as well, but they can, after all, close down for a period of time and still perhaps catch up on some of their production at a later point. But you cannot fail to feed animals for a period of days and weeks and months; they obviously have to be fed. The emergent part about it is that that feed has to be available, and if the cost accelerates over that period of time — you know, the feed company has to recover their expenses — then it's going to have a major effect.

The thing that I'm concerned about is that many of the small farms will probably fold up and say: "Look, this is just not viable. We can invest elsewhere, and we can find a similar return without all of this hassle." It's my view — and I'm sure it's the government's view — that we should be doing everything we can to shore up the agricultural community and make sure that we retain the capacity to produce as much of our food as we possibly can.

I appreciate the Minister of Highways' problem. I appreciate, though, and I admit it's not an easy one.... I think some additional consultation on it perhaps would be a good thing, and I really think in light of the fact that the government enforces the load restrictions, we might look at some cooperative way of sharing the increased cost burden that flows from the government's load restrictions to protect the highway system. That's something that the Ministry of Agriculture could take under advisement and consideration.

We always seem to be a little bit reluctant to assist in funding in any way existing enterprises, but we always seem very anxious as governments to offer new capital and grants and forgivable loans to new enterprises. I think that sometimes it is more prudent to offer a little bit of financial assistance to retain existing enterprises as viable operations, particularly when their viability and their economics have been jeopardized in some way by government initiative and government policy. I would strongly recommend to the Ministry of Agriculture that they have a look at assistance in a financial way either to the feedlot people who deliver the grain or to the farmers who have to pay the increased cost for the very short-term period in which the breakup affects them. I make that suggestion in all sincerity to the minister.

MRS. WALLACE: I think it would perhaps be good, at this particular juncture in the debate, to talk about the situation that has occurred here on Vancouver Island during the work stoppage on the CP freight service. I know the minister is very familiar with this. I have written him regarding this and I have had some considerable contact with the local feed companies on the island, particularly with Buckerfield's, who have kept me informed week by week of the various costs that have been added to the various types of feed to the various farmers as a result of having to bring the grain in by truck rather than on the barges. I know that the minister has indicated that there will be an attempt to pick this up through the federal-provincial freight subsidies program, but this has amounted to a fair number of dollars.

The Nanaimo Co-op, for example, effective April 21, put a surcharge of $15 per long, metric tonne on all their feeds. Each week it varied at Buckerfield's for the various feeds, and these are related again to the long tonne, I believe. Hog feed is $14.55, dairy feed is $15.97, turkey feed is $9.68, layer and growing feed is $7.04, broiler feed is $7.58, and so on — varying week by week, depending upon just what the market was doing.

I know that the minister has indicated that he has

[ Page 2359 ]

requested the feed boards and the federal minister for a special increase in that federal freight assistance, to make reimbursement to the farmer. This is being billed as a surcharge to these farmers on Vancouver Island. So it's well accounted for. It's separate and distinct in the billings, and it's a charge that the farmers have had to pay. Now I'm wondering at what stage of negotiations the minister has arrived in dealing with Mr. Whelan and getting this assistance from the federal government. Hopefully that will be successful. But if it is not successful, then will the minister assure the House that the provincial ministry will ensure that the farmers on Vancouver Island are not penalized with this extra surcharge because of that work stoppage? Will you tell us where you are at in your negotiations? If in fact there is a breakdown and there is nothing from the feds, will you assure the House that the Vancouver Island farmers will get this covered by the provincial ministry?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the movement of feed to Vancouver Island, we're working well with the industry and have assisted in providing scheduling of loads coming across. I have discussed it with Mr. Whelan, the federal Minister of Agriculture, and provided him with documentation. He is reviewing that matter at the present time, and hopefully we can get federal assistance to cover the increased costs which range from about $7 per tonne to $25 per tonne in some instances. The federal government has a precedent for such assistance, as I understand it, so there is a good chance that we'll get it. I cannot comment to the member as to whether or not we would move in, should the federal government not come to the assistance of the growers. It would be something that we would have to give consideration to after we determine whether the federal people are going to go. I'd prefer to get it from them.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I thank the minister for being so honest with the House in telling us that he is not prepared to make a commitment to protect the farmers on Vancouver Island in the event that the federal government does not come through.

When the minister was introducing his estimates — and I think I have the quote — he was talking about the various programs of the ministry, and he said: "These programs ensure continued growth and job creation." As the debate continues, I become a bit concerned that these programs are not doing that. It seems that there's always a shortfall. There's the interesting thing. There are the problems occurring at Maplewood. There are the problems that are occurring in the commodity marketing boards. All of these problems indicate to me that the minister is not ensuring continued growth and job creation. It's just not happening. I think perhaps the minister will just have to think about those remarks until next we discuss agriculture, because I see the House Leader on his feet.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.