[ Page 2501 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Liquor distribution branch personnel changes. Mr. Macdonald –– 2501

BCBC hiring practices. Ms. Sanford –– 2502

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Maplewood Poultry Producers

Deputy Speaker –– 2503

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Howard –– 2504

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2506

Division on vote 9 –– 2507

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2507

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2508

Mr. King –– 2509

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2509

Mr. Nicolson –– 2516

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2517

Mrs. Wallace –– 2517

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2518

Mrs. Dailly –– 2518

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2520

Mr. Levi –– 2521

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2523

Appendix –– 2524

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens on Sunday morning has had a widespread and most harmful effect on our neighbours to the south in the state of Washington and on the residents of a large number of other states of the United States, who have sustained not just inconvenience but in many cases severe damage. Lives have been lost and the lives of many are endangered. I am sure that all members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia will join me in expressing to all who have been so drastically affected our sincere concern and sympathy in this emergency.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty today to ask the Legislature to welcome Mr. Tom Unwin and his class of students from Port Moody Senior Secondary School.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I understand we have some members of the Welsh Rugby Union visiting us in the gallery today. They are here on the occasion of their centenary and will be playing at Royal Athletic Park tonight. In the gallery we have: Gwyn Roblin, president; Rod Morgan, tour manager; Cliff Jones, president-elect; and Myrddin Jones, senior administrator. I would ask the members to welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Considering the scores on the rugby team's tour, I'd ask that they have some sympathy for the Vancouver Island team.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We are very fortunate today to have two very attractive young ladies visiting us from Hope in my constituency. These girls have shown a very keen interest in the political system in British Columbia, and with young people like this showing such an interest in the democratic system I can say there really is hope for British Columbia. Would the House please welcome Terry Feser and Tammy Smith.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I ask the House to welcome a leading family from Maple Ridge, Mr. Walter Hayes, his wife Suzanne, their children Patrick, Lynda and Jennifer, and also Mrs. Hayes' mother, Frances Neubauer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Saturday afternoon I had occasion to spend a good two hours with the Hon. Speaker Schroeder, and he conveys through me his very best wishes and greetings to all.

Oral Questions

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH
PERSONNEL CHANGES

MR. MACDONALD: I have an oral question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who met last fall — I think it was in October — with representatives of distilleries: Seagram, Potter, Hiram Walker and one other. Did the subject of Mr. Nick Clark, who was then the director of purchasing for the liquor distribution branch, come up and was it discussed at the meeting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, it was, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: A further question. Did the representatives of the distillers indicate they wanted Mr. Clark removed or given a lateral transfer or an upward demotion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to discuss matters involving one person within the branch. Yes, the matter of Mr. Clark was discussed at that meeting.

MR. MACDONALD: I repeat my question. Did not the distillers indicate they wanted him removed from that position of director of purchasing? Secondly, didn't you do so following that meeting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire at this moment to respond to the first question. What was discussed was private. That which involves Mr. Clark as an employee of the liquor distribution branch is something that obviously affects Mr. Clark. I have had no suggestions from Mr. Clark indicating that he wishes the matter to be brought forth. Mr. Clark was transferred to a different position within the ministry and he is functioning well in that position. Mr. Clark did not appeal the transfer to the job, and I have not heard from Mr. Clark that he wishes the matter to be raised in public at this time. If Mr. Clark wishes to be in touch with me and if he wishes his personal work history within the ministry to be discussed publicly, then perhaps circumstances would be somewhat different.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another question, but I want to make it clear that we're not asking about him as a person. We're asking, on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia, about him as the director of purchasing. It's the public who are asking the question. At the time of that meeting I asked the minister this question also: did he not have a separate meeting and discussion with the representatives of the distilleries that I've mentioned without the presence of Peter Bazowski, the deputy minister, and Bob Wallace, the general manager of the liquor distribution branch?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Regarding what?

MR. MACDONALD: The campaign funds.

If you're asking me in oral question period what the subject was, I'm telling you. Did you have a separate meeting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member asks if I had a separate meeting with some people. Would he please identify which people he is speaking of?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the people I'm mentioning are David Roche, executive vice-president of Seagram's; John New, executive vice-president of Hiram Walker; and senior officials of Potter's and Schenley's. Did you have a separate meeting with those people, apart from when your

[ Page 2502 ]

deputy minister and the general manager of the liquor distribution branch were not present and did you have discussions at that time?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the people referred to in the article in the Vancouver Sun, which the hon. member from Vancouver East so conveniently refers to, were present at the meeting in Vancouver, which was canvassed earlier. I'm not aware that I met privately with these gentlemen identified by the member.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is not aware of whom he met with. Did you meet and have discussions with any representatives of the distilleries in a separate meeting about that time? I'm asking you as minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not quite sure if the member has now altered his question — as to its being all as a group, separately, on any occasion, about any matter....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Say so. Campaign funds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Apparently the Leader of the Opposition wants the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I'm responding to an allegation the Premier made.

BCBC HIRING PRACTICES

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Provincial Secretary in charge of BCBC. In 195 out of the 200 buildings in the Victoria area alone, BCBC has replaced union employees with non-union workers, who perform maintenance and janitorial services in those government buildings. Could the minister explain why the policy exists to reduce the standard of living of employees performing work at government buildings by hiring non-union workers at largely minimum wage rates?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There is no such policy, as the member appreciates. I might say that at the first stages of the development of the Buildings Corporation, this government indicated that its policy would be in the direction of attempting to conduct maintenance work and other work of this kind on a contract basis.

If the member is referring to recent concerns of staff members of BCBC who have been involved in the maintenance work in these buildings, I've met with representatives of this group, Mr. Speaker, and satisfied them, I believe, that they have no concern over their future employment. In regard to the matter of contracts — which may or may not have been entered into by the Buildings Corporation — involving outside maintenance contractors, some of whom may be union and some of whom may be non-union, there is no law in this province which prevents that. I really think that the concern of the people who appeared before these buildings the other morning is not valid. Maybe they have some concern that their own jobs will be in jeopardy down the line. This is not the case. I assured them that the work they performed on this particular building and other buildings within the region here is exemplary. I think there is no doubt about the fact that they do perform a very good and high quality type of service. This problem has been escalated by virtue of the fact that the Buildings Corporation has entered into an arrangement to contract work in the Douglas Building and relocated some of the staff maintenance workers. There is no such thing as a policy, as you suggest.

MS. SANFORD: The policy may not be stated but it seems to be quite clear when in 195 out of 200 public buildings the government employees are being replaced by largely non-union workers working at the minimum wage.

BCBC net income last year increased by 14 percent, up to over $17 million. I am wondering whether or not the basic negotiated issues such as adequate wages and job security and working conditions are not of concern to an arm of the government such as BCBC. They are not of concern? No answer.

Well, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the Minister of Labour condone the practice of BCBC to replace union workers with workers who do not enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Could you explain, Mr. Speaker, why that's out of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's not for the Speaker to explain; it is simply to rule. If you wish to refer to the matter, it is found quite clearly in the fifth edition of Beauchesne on page 132, section 359.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will look that up. In the meantime I have another question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that in March of this year BCBC, through a contract, employed non-union workers to carry out alterations and renovations at the Ministry of Labour office at Deer Lake?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that particular contract. Since it has been raised, perhaps it might be advisable to explain to the House exactly what occurred.

Some leasehold improvements were required at Deer Lake Place, particularly within the Ministry of Labour. I might add at the outset that I was not aware of this particular contract or that it had been let. I cannot give you full particulars as to the tender amounts which were submitted. However, approximates, which I'm about to give you, are reasonably accurate. The low tender was something in the order of $24,000; the second lowest tender was in the order of about $38,000; BCBC awarded the contract to the low tender.

The job was approximately one-half to two-thirds completed, at which time the matter came before me that the contract had been awarded to a company which was not certified. A problem subsequently ensued, but through a lot of discussion the contract was completed by the company which was not certified, to the best of my knowledge. The differential of $14,000 was roughly 60 percent more. The problem I was faced with was that in looking after the treasury and the taxpayers within the province, I think that it was incumbent upon me to support the contract which was let until it had been completed.

I might also add, though, that that was rather difficult,

[ Page 2503 ]

particularly in view of the fact that it was done at Deer Lake Place. As we know, Deer Lake Place is handling negotiations between companies and unions. All companies are usually certified. That aspect of it bothered me greatly, but the fact of the matter is that the low tender had been awarded and the job was two-thirds completed. It was a subject of discussion between the building trades and the B.C. Federation of Labour, but it now seems to have been resolved satisfactorily.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, has the minister decided that in future, when he becomes aware of situations such as this, BCBC will not be permitted to carry out non-union contract work at Ministry of Labour buildings?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member. It inquires as to future policy.

The member for Comox has the floor — a new question.

MS. SANFORD: Has the minister decided that no further contracts of this type will be carried out at Ministry of Labour offices such as the one at Deer Lake?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, hon. member, the question does deal with future policy.

MS. SANFORD: Has the minister decided that he will not permit contracts of this type to be carried out at Labour ministry offices such as the one at Deer Lake? Has he made that decision?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I appreciate the sensitivity of the problem when, of course, it involves the Ministry of Labour. However, as a general policy, I do not think that I'm prepared to make a statement with respect to any government project. I believe that it's properly covered under the statute, as I recall — the Public Construction Fair Wages Act. I think there's a matter of balance in here which we must consider. Remember, we are responsible to the taxpayers of the province to secure the best possible contract for them.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Friday last the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked leave, pursuant to standing order 35, to move adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance: namely, the poultry industry in British Columbia. The hon. member made a similar application on April 11 last on a specific aspect of the same subject matter. That application was not in order for the several reasons later given, based on the prohibition set forth in Sir Erskine May and other authorities. On this occasion the hon. member is unable to bring herself within the requirements of standing order 35, in part for the reasons earlier stated, and additionally because of the provisions of standing order 35(6)(c) and because the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture are still awaiting further consideration in Committee of Supply.

Secondly, hon. members, at a previous sitting the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) raised a point of order relating to the necessity of tabling documents which may have been cited or referred to in the course of debate. The rules on the subject are clearly set forth in the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 421, as follows.

1) For the House to be able to demand that documents should be laid upon the table, three conditions must be fulfilled. In the first place, the minister must have quoted from the document. It is not sufficient that he should have referred to it or even to have summarized or paraphrased it in part or in whole. Secondly, the document must be a dispatch or other state paper. The rule cannot be applied to private documents. Thirdly, the rule cannot be applied to documents which are stated by the minister to be of such a nature that their disclosure would be inconsistent with the public interest.

2) A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House unless he is prepared to lay it on the table. Also, the rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda. The rule has been held to apply to public documents only — Parliamentary Debates, 1865, 179c. 489. Confidential documents or documents of a private nature passing between officers of a department and the department are not necessarily laid on the table of the House, especially if the minister declares that they are of a confidential nature.

3) Mr. Speaker Pooley, Speakers' Decisions, vol. 1, page 86, has said: "There is no rule requiring the production to the House of any private letters, memoranda or documents which have been cited or quoted from during debate." In applying these rules, this House, in its more recent practice, has not always insisted that a document quoted from be technically a public document before calling for it to be laid upon the table. It appears, therefore, that the most important test is whether or not a document has actually been quoted from, which would, subject to consideration of the public interest, be required to be tabled; or merely referred to or summarized, which would not require tabling. According to Beauchesne, fifth edition, page 116: "A private member has neither the right nor the obligation to table an official, or any other, document." Usually, however, when called upon to do so, private members in the House have tabled documents from which they have quoted in the course of debate.

Hon. members, on another matter, a point of order was raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) as to the obligation, if any, of the government House Leader to advise the House of the business proposed to be embarked upon at the next ensuing sitting of the House. The hon. member, with a view to assisting the Chair in considering this matter, has provided me with precedents of the practice which obtains in the House of Commons, Ottawa.

With respect to the practice in Ottawa, Beauchesne, fifth edition at page 50 states:

"(3) The government House Leader discusses with the House Leaders of other parties the business arrangements for the House and attempts to reach some compromise on the length of debate on each of the various items of business.

"(4) As a matter of practice, since 1968, each Thursday, following the question period, the government House Leader states, in reply to a question put by the House Leader of the official opposition, the projected business of the House for the forthcoming week.

"(5) The government House Leader also moves

[ Page 2504 ]

housekeeping motions, allots supply days and generally ensures that the House is kept busy in as efficient a manner as possible."

From what Beauchesne says it is self-evident that the statement of the House Leader as to future business is subject to some understanding or agreement between the parties in the House as to the length of debate on the various items of business and subject to unforeseen circumstances. On the same point the sixteenth edition of May at page 260 states:

"The member of the government who is primarily responsible to the Prime Minister for the arrangement of government business in the House of Commons is known as the Leader of the House. He controls the arrangement of business in that House while the program and details are settled by the government chief Whip.

"When each week's program of business has been arranged, the Leader of the House states the business for the following week in answer to a question put to him at the end of questions on Thursdays by the Leader of the Opposition and, whenever necessary, makes further business statements from time to time. He may also move procedural motions relating to the business of the House."

Subject to the contingencies which I have mentioned, such a practice has much to commend it, providing that party Whips are normally able to reach agreement as to the length of debate on various items of business. Perusal of Hansard will show that this House has not adopted any practice under which the government House Leader is required to make a statement or committal as to the future order of calling the items of business set forth in Orders of the Day. The practice has been that the government House Leader, at the close of a sitting, may respond to a question or indicate himself the business proposed to be undertaken at the next sitting. Accordingly, the Chair may not require a statement of future business to be made until such time as the House may see fit to adopt a sessional or standing order to so provide.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, in responding to your ruling about tabling documents, I want to express to you the concern I have about the distinction between responsibility of a private member and that of a minister. Rather than take the time of the House now, with your concurrence I'd like to relate the specific details of the ministers' refusal to table documents related to the second part of your ruling. Perhaps you could clarify that later.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $551,612.

MR. HOWARD: I was hoping, as you put the motion, that the Premier would have taken the occasion to rise first and deal with a number of matters that have been raised by way of questions, virtually since the beginning of the consideration of the Premier's estimates — questions that have gone unanswered. We know — and I think I need to say this again — that we have inherited in this land a system of government identified as responsible government. It is a system that has evolved over a long period of time in the United Kingdom as a result of contest and struggle against the Crown by the common people of that land. It is a system that evolved and said, as it says today, that government is responsible to the Legislature, and through the Legislature to the people in the land. In this case we're talking about the residents in the province of British Columbia.

In my view the Premier, up until now in any event, has shown a marked lack of respect for that time-honoured portion of our institution called responsible government by reason of his absolute refusal not only to answer questions but in many instances even to acknowledge the fact that they were posed. The Premier has been absent for a number of days now, both from the House and the Committee of Supply, in dealing with his estimates. It would have been my thought that since the last time the committee considered those estimates the Premier might have reflected upon the attitude he has toward the Legislature and the general public. He has an attitude of denying to them responses and answers to questions posed to him. We see no evidence of that yet. If it had been there, I'm sure the Premier would have risen at the beginning of the calling of the estimates today and dealt with those specific answers. Therefore it seems there are no regrets on his part about having refused or failed to answer those questions that were posed to him over the preceding days. Apparently he has no desire now to deal with them.

Almost in a sad way, I have to comment, that refusal strikes at the core of our democracy. We know that a minister can refuse to answer questions. That is resorted to very rarely and resorted to in its practice because of the delicacy of something at a particular moment that might be under negotiation internally within the department or with another government. In those instances that's respected, but a consistent refusal day after day on the part of the leader of the government, the first minister, to even recognize certain questions, let alone give any explanation as to why he refuses to answer them, is that which strikes at the foundation of our democracy and responsible government.

The Premier may gloat about this in private, Mr. Chairman. He may chortle and laugh with his colleagues about an effective stonewalling with respect to questions posed to him. He may rejoice with his colleagues about it, but that doesn't answer the simple question of why the Premier has taken the stance of thumbing his nose at the general public and saying to the public: "It isn't any of your business, general public, with respect to these specific questions." And the public does have the right to know. When the Premier thumbs his nose at the general public, it's about time the general public had an opportunity to decide whether or not he should stay there. That's what should be tested if the Premier is intent upon this course of flying in the face of our democratic institutions. He may think it's smart to have provided this injury to the concept of responsible government. By the Premier so doing, it reflects, I think, a therapeutic blindness to truth and open government. It's obvious at this moment that any further attempts on the part of members of the opposition to re-pose those questions to the Premier would be fruitless. They've been articulated, enunciated and asked on a number of occasions, all to no avail. There seems, therefore, no point in dealing any further with a person who holds a high office in this land and who has so injured that high office by refusing to pay attention to respectful ques-

[ Page 2505 ]

tions posed to him about what goes on within his high office, and what has gone on within it. That denial, on his part, of respect for this institution, of respect for the right of the general public to know, is tantamount to an insult to the general public and should not go unnoticed.

There is no opportunity in committee to put any motion that says the Premier has to reply to those questions. But there is an opportunity on another occasion to deal with it. The only course open at this stage, I think, is to indicate to the government and to the Premier that it is fruitless to waste any more time with this person and his estimates — this person who has such a lack of respect for responsible action in this Legislature. We therefore need a mechanism — and I think it's offered to us at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place — to express a lack of confidence and want of confidence in the Premier, specifically, individually — in that office and in the person holding that office. This requires, by rule, a substantive motion in the House so to say that, and at that appropriate time that will take place — under notice.

Let me then recite the substance of what such a motion should be and what it will be. It would be that the Legislature expresses a lack of confidence in the Premier of this province by reason of his failure or refusal to answer certain questions in Committee of Supply, to wit:

a) relating to the proposed sale of uranium at a meeting which the Premier had with the Commission of the European Communities in September 1977....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. It is hardly appropriate that the procedure that a member is going to adopt in the House be pre-reviewed — if I may put it that way — in Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not pre-reviewing it, Mr. Chairman. I want to recite, if I may then, questions which have been posed in Committee of Supply, which the Premier has steadfastly, obstinately, arrogantly refused to answer, in the hopes of providing him at one fell swoop with the opportunity to answer them. I am reciting them for that purpose.

b) relating to the proposed sale of uranium in Korea in October 1979;

c) whether the Prime Minister of Canada telephoned the Premier with respect to the resignation of Chief Justice Farris;

d) whether the Premier discussed the resignation of Chief Justice Farris with the then Attorney-General of the province;

e) whether there was a secret Social Credit Party fund or funds handled by someone paid from public funds, working in the Premier's office;

f) whether any money paid from public funds as lease fees for ferries sold, on a lease-back arrangement, by the provincial government to eastern financial interests was ultimately paid into any secret Social Credit Party fund or funds handled by someone working in the Premier's office;

g) whether anyone in the Premier's office was a signing officer for any secret Social Credit Party fund or funds;

h) whether certain accounts payable by the Social Credit Party were sent from Social Credit Party offices to the Premier's office for the attention of and action by Mr. David Brown, and whether the said David Brown was the same David Brown who was employed as a communications planning adviser at a salary of $36,432 paid from public funds;

i) what amounts of money, if any, were raised by employees working in the Premier's office for deposit to any secret Social Credit Party fund or funds;

j) whether the Premier investigated a public statement by one Mr. Tony Tozer, an employee in the Premier's office, that a secret fund had been used to pay the costs of the so-called "dirty-tricks" seminar and, if so, what action the Premier took to correct the situation;

k) whether the Premier had approached the government of Canada to renegotiate the federal-provincial agreement which relates to financial assistance from the government of Canada for ferry and coastal freight services in and for British Columbia;

1) whether the Premier interfered in the operation of the legislative Committee on Crown Corporations by pressuring the Chairman thereof to postpone a meeting which would have examined B.C. Hydro's application to the National Energy Board for the export of firm power to the United States;

m) whether the Greater Vancouver Regional District had been consulted prior to the Premier's announcement of the proposed Annacis Island bridge;

n) whether the Premier was aware that phony letters to the editor were being prepared by the Social Credit caucus research staff who were paid from public funds;

o) whether the Premier was involved in arranging for one of his employees, Mr. Tony Tozer, to set up interviews between the police and the staff of the Social Credit Caucus Research Bureau;

p) whether the Premier had a meeting with Victoria businessmen to discuss the operation of a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria;

q) whether the Premier made any commitments of public funds to subsidize the Seattle-Victoria jetfoil service;

r) whether the Premier knew that the Seattle-Victoria jetfoil was going to be operated under a United States flag and with a United States crew;

s) whether any private company which has any of its directors also as directors of the B.C. Development Corporation, a Crown corporation, has received any loans or grants from the B.C. Development Corporation;

t) whether Doman Industries specifically received any land from the B.C. Development Corporation;

u) why one Mr. David Brown, while working in the Premier's office, was involved in authorizing a payment of $2,500 to Goldfarb Consultants of Toronto;

v) why the Premier would tell a group of Victoria high school students on April 29. 1980, that he ''didn't announce'' the forming of an ethics committee within the Social Credit Party, when he did announce in October 1979 that he would bring forward a resolution to the Social Credit convention to establish an ethics committee:

w) why the Premier said on September 27, 1979, that, "We have no intention of having our party try to manipulate the media through hotlines or letters to the editor," when on May 27, 1975, he sent to Social Credit constituency associations material marked "personal" and "strictly confidential," saying: "It's hoped that this new material will be useful to those in the constituency who are directly in the field of communicating in hotline shows and in the preparation of material in the letters to the editor column in newspapers circulating in your area."

x) why the Premier would not answer with a yes or a no the question: "Does the Premier believe the general public has a right to know what happens in his office?"

Mr. Speaker, the substance of that will be dealt with at

[ Page 2506 ]

another level. I hope it will be filed in the House as a notice of motion at the appropriate time. We will sit there hoping on our part that the Premier will have the decency to call it for debate and for a vote thereon; otherwise we can spend no further time dealing with this person who has such a low regard for this Legislature and the right of the general public to have answers to those questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's very instructive to know that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has been able to recite the alphabet for us this after noon. He also rehashed a lot of questions that have been dealt with and rephrased others into a conclusion which was not correct, changing in nature things that were said to make them appear differently. It will be interesting to compare what the member has said before in this debate and what he said today.

Those questions I could answer, I have answered. Those that belong in another area of responsibility can be posed to the ministers responsible, and the member knows it. However, what I found offensive this afternoon — when the member for Skeena is finished getting more instructions on what to say from the Leader of the Opposition; I suppose most of what he says comes from the Leader of the Opposition — were statements that somehow he has a great love for the democratic institution and parliament, a great sensitivity, and that I, as the Premier and leader of this party — and in fact perhaps our party — have not. I resent that, and I'll put both my private and public records on the line against those of the member for Skeena. I'm proud of my record of service to the community. I'm proud of my record in this country and in this chamber. I'll put my record on the line with the member's any time, or with that of any other member of this assembly, for that matter. I find it offensive that they can establish a so-called attack to try to suggest that somehow the government is insensitive to the Legislature and to the process, because their questions are badly phrased or out of order or belong in some other area to be asked to find answers. Those questions have been dealt with. However, I think perhaps the public have had an opportunity to witness, through this period of time and beyond, I guess, the conduct of the opposition in this Legislature and their standards.

I don't know if they've received the same questions at their convention last week about what they were doing, but I was asked about them when I was visiting Trail on Friday night. I had a great opportunity for a great Italian meal with the Colombo Lodge, who were putting on their seventy-fifth anniversary. I must say that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), a member of the opposition, was at that dinner, and he was at the weekend celebrations in his constituency. I was there as well. I enjoyed talking to him about a number of these issues and was very interested in his comments. But I would say that out there there was a question: what is the NDP doing? What is the opposition doing? Why are they dragging their feet? What is the matter in the Legislature? I tried to explain as best I could, but I could only tell from the government's side. I'm not able to explain the strategy, now that the member for Skeena has taken over direction of that party, along with the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), in developing House strategy. We know that the member for Coquitlam-Moody is in on these strategy sessions and this is what he agrees with — his tactic, his style, a style we'll see more of, because it's new to this House, and it's developed during this session and since the election, of two members who have brought their new tactic from their experience in Ottawa, I guess.

However, to get back to the questions that were or weren't asked, they have been dealt with or can be dealt with in other areas. I'm afraid that the opposition has been worried that perhaps their questions are asked in the wrong place, but we have lots of opportunity for estimates of specific ministers, specific questions, in the future. I'll be interested to listen to them take advantage of that opportunity then to see if they're as interested as they say they are. It will be interesting to compare the questions that have been asked in the last little while with those that will be asked in those areas where they should be directed.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it's not very refreshing to have to listen to someone so incurably infected with his own arrogance. Those questions....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As the hon. member is more than well aware, there are certain words that are not generally used, and the latter word is on the list. I would ask that in the spirit of debate all hon. members....

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I used the word earlier this afternoon, and it was accepted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly not as viciously, hon. member, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. HOWARD: I will certainly withdraw the word "arrogance" and replace it with "stubbornness": stubborn blind refusal to recognize what is truth and honourable dealings in this House.

Let me reiterate it: the questions that I recited a moment ago were all directed to the Premier during the estimates. He can't toss them off to somebody else. They were not, as the Premier intimated, rephrased; they were taken directly from Hansard. They were not distorted to give them a different meaning. They were extracted from Hansard. The only person who has done any distortion with respect to them has been the Premier. He said they were either out of order or something else. Every single one of them, for the Premier's interest or benefit, was in order and so held to be by the Chairman of the committee. The Premier just can't toss them off in that weak, insipid manner. Be that as it may, the Premier has once again said to the general public of this province: "You do not have the right to know what goes on in my office." The use or misuse of campaign funds, the whole phony letters campaign, the dirty tricks activity, the simple uncomplicated meetings that he had with business people.... He's telling the general public that they have no right to know what he does with the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, there's no point in going any further. We intend to file a notice of motion, when the House meets, setting out a lack of confidence in the Premier. If the Premier has got any guts at all about it, he'll call that motion immediately and we'll have a vote on it.

Vote 9 approved on the following division:

[ Page 2507 ]

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 23

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that there should be a vote 9 1/2. The first minister now has a deputy. Every minister that has a deputy has an administrative vote, and we don't see that before us. We are just wondering what is happening now that there is the very esteemed Lawrie Wallace in the office of deputy. The poor chap has no vote whatsoever in this House. We were just quite concerned that we might be out of order here, and that vote 10 is likely out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, vote 10 is not out of order at this stage, hon. member. However, your point will be taken by the Chair.

MRS. WALLACE: I think that this would perhaps be a good opportunity, inasmuch as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is also in the House, to raise an item with the minister that I've been waiting to discuss for some time under his estimates. I relate to the sale of milk.

I think, for the benefit of the members in the House, it would perhaps be well if I just retraced very briefly what has happened with the sale of milk in British Columbia. In 1960 the Milk Industry Act came into being, and it made provisions for various controls on the sale and supply of milk. Under section 4 it indicated that:

"No person shall sell, offer for sale or supply milk in fluid form unless the owner or operator of the dairy farm on which the milk is produced is, in the case of milk which will be sold or supplied as pasteurized fluid milk, the holder of a subsisting certificate classifying his farm as an approved fluid milk dairy farm, and, in the case of milk to be sold or supplied as raw milk, subject to section 5 of this act, is the holder of a subsisting certificate classifying his farm as an approved raw milk dairy farm."

Under another section of the act — I think it's section 6 — it specifies that a municipality can send a notice to the Minister of Agriculture saying that in their particular area they would like to have raw milk provided.

At the time that act was passed in 1960, when in fact there was much more disease in the dairy industry than there is now, there was a provision made for the supply of raw milk under very strict controls and regulations. As time moved on, the government of the day moved to eliminate the sale of raw milk, and in 1968 an order-in-council was passed, which excluded, by school districts, nearly the entire province. There were other orders-in-council that did this as well. In fact, at the present time, I think there are only two areas that are allowed to produce raw milk: one is on Cortez Island and the other on Saltspring, I believe it is — two of the Gulf Islands. The opportunity to produce or supply raw milk has been literally removed in the province of British Columbia. I recognize some of the reasons behind that; it was a health concern.

But the problem that has come to my mind very forcibly during the last few months is that there is a tremendous amount of raw milk being produced and supplied in this province. Nobody can tell you how much because there is no regulation or control over it. I am surprised at the number of people that are in the production of raw milk. The unfortunate thing is that within the ministry there is really no provision for any inspection. The only time the ministry involves itself — this is my understanding from the staff in this ministry — is if a complaint is laid. If someone complains that someone else is selling raw milk, then the ministry goes out. They talk to them. They say, "You must not do this, and if you do it again we will take you to court," and that is it. If they continue to sell and if someone again complains, then the case goes to court.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

According to my understanding there is not the staff nor the provision nor the inclination to inspect these raw milk dairies. As a result, those dairies are producing milk with no controls. The people who are buying the milk from those producers are trusting in the honesty of the producer to provide that milk, to have the cows properly inspected and tested, to properly chill and care for the milk, to care for the containers of that milk. But there is no legal protection for those people. Not only that, but the person who is supplying it is breaking the law.

It seems that the minister is going to have to make a decision as to which way he is going to go. If, as in the letter that he circulated to all members some time ago, signed by himself and the Minister of Health, he is really sincere in his expression there that there is this kind of danger from drinking raw milk and we must drink pasteurized milk, then he has to do something about the inspection of the raw milk dairies. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that there's a great deal of raw milk, produced by the commercial dairy farmers, consumed in this province quite legally. I don't know of any commercial farmer who sells his milk and buys it back after it's been pasteurized. Now there's probably no concern there, because those cows are tested and those dairymen are all drinking raw milk from tested cows. There's an additional problem there and the dairymen themselves are beginning to face up to this problem. Many of those dairymen are selling

[ Page 2508 ]

raw milk on the side as well as supplying the pasteurized market. So that's another part of the problem.

The dairymen certainly have a concern about this, because it's an unfair competition in their marketplace. The dairymen are required to meet certain specifications and standards. At the present time they're paying high prices for quotas; they have a very sophisticated kind of barns, milk houses, colling tanks, etc., and the whole supply system. They're in competition with people who don't have to do any of that.

It has been tried previously and the cases have been dismissed, but there is a move now to legalize this whole process of selling raw milk by selling shares in the cow, because it's not illegal to drink milk which isn't pasteurized from your own cow, but it is illegal to supply milk from a cow to someone who doesn't own it. I know of two cases presently being prepared to go to court concerning selling shares in cows, and the present owners will simply become cow sitters. If that occurs, it's going to be a very severe threat in this particular situation.

So I'm suggesting to the minister that he has two alternatives. He can really lay on a police force and go out there and try to control this raw milk, which will be a pretty expensive business and I think probably a very ineffective one. Some of us can just barely remember, though I'm sure all of us have heard of, the days of prohibition of liquor. Certainly that didn't work. I don't think prohibition of the sale of raw milk is going to work either, because there are a great many people who are convinced that they want to drink raw milk. They don't want to drink pasteurized milk. I'm not making an argument one way or the other, for or against. What I am saying is that the government has a problem and should face up to this responsibility to ensure that if those people are drinking raw milk, they are protected. What I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister move to once again allow raw milk dairies to produce in this province, with proper controls and inspection, and with the same kind of costs and requirements that are presently facing the commercial dairyman who is shipping to the pasteurized market, because without that there is a developing threat to the commercial dairy industry in B.C. as well as to the health of British Columbians who are drinking raw milk that is not being properly inspected. I would certainly appreciate the minister's comments on that particular topic.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought maybe the member wanted to ask a few more questions before I responded. I think the member is correct in saying that there are two existing dairies that are supplying raw milk. There is an inspection service for those, but no new dairies were to be established, and none have been. There is no licence available for the operation of a commercial raw milk venture. The Ministries of Health and Agriculture are in agreement that the sale of raw milk does constitute somewhat of a risk to the consumer. The two existing dairies were there when the legislation was brought into place. As a result, they've been allowed to continue, but they are very closely inspected. There is a risk to the consumer in the use of raw milk. The time-frame involved in getting that milk to the consumer could cause a problem, as opposed to going through the pasteurization system.

I would have to say at this time, Madam Member, that I would not be prepared to look at an expansion of raw milk facilities in this province. I think we've made that quite clear in our communication to the public. Those commercial dairy farmers who do consume their own raw milk certainly know the state of their farm operations and the cleanliness of their animals, their barns, etc., and have, in their minds, eliminated the risk to themselves and their families. But I think to go into a large-scale commercial operation of the sale of raw milk would be a backward step, considering the fact that we've come a long way from the days of Louis Pasteur. I think what we've accomplished has been to the benefit of all the consumers, so I'd have to say my position hasn't changed.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has indicated that he is not going to change, as far as any amendments to the act are concerned. What is he going to do about the sale of raw milk? Is he going to let it continue without inspection or regulation? Is he going to establish a police force across this province that will ensure that people don't drink raw milk? Is he going to beef up his dairy branch so they'll get out and inspect these farms? Or is he just going to wait until somebody, perchance, happens to report that this is happening?

The problem isn't going to go away just because he doesn't change the act. The problem is there and it's going to get worse. It is getting worse. If he hides his head in the sand and doesn't face the problem, we're going to be in a situation where something is going to happen; where we are going to have someone contacting undulant fever or TB, or picking up something through the improper use of antibiotics — unless he does beef up that inspection. I suggest that that's a horrendous task which he can't accomplish, because people are going to find ways around that law. I'm very sorry he's taken the position he has, but having taken that position, is he then going to go the other half of the way and do something about raw milk sales? Is that what he's telling us?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Our position hasn't changed to, you might say, inspect and allow the sale of raw milk. I think it would be a backward step, as I mentioned before. The two recognized dairies that were in existence years ago are still being inspected and they are allowed to sell. But we don't encourage, nor do we want to see, the expansion of raw milk sales. That is why we have been very emphatic to anybody who has corresponded with us, asking our position on raw milk. The member refers to a letter that has been sent out jointly by myself and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) where we are, in effect, making those people aware that we do not encourage it and we are not prepared to recognize it. If somebody wishes to consume raw milk from their own herd or their own cow, that is their choice. If somebody wishes to buy it over the fence the same way as you can buy eggs, chicken, fruit or vegetables, that is a farm operation. But we've attempted to make the public aware of our concern in regard to the use of raw milk.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't understand the minister. He says if you buy milk over the fence, that is a farm operation. Under the act that is breaking the law.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm aware of that, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE: Are you going to just turn a blind eye to that and let that go on until we have some outbreak of disease, or are you going to do something about it? That's the question I'm asking.

[ Page 2509 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I agree with the member in regard to the sale of raw milk over the fence. I'm just saying I can't put a policeman at every farm gate to ensure that people don't either have this given to them as a gift or buy the raw milk. We are saying publicly, and have for the past number of years, that we do not encourage and we will not recognize the expansion of the raw milk industry.

MR. KING: I want to ask the minister a very brief and precise question before I go on to a number of other matters that I have to raise, and that is whether or not the minister can advise me if he has made a decision regarding the Biberger case, which I have frequently consulted with him about. If he has, I would appreciate knowing the essence of the decision, either by note or if he wishes to state it in the Legislature.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has been very patient with my office in regard to a response to a query he raised some time ago concerning the Bibergers, who purchased hogs from Tranquille Farm. Those hogs had, or were alleged to have had, I believe, the disease or affliction called rhinitis. I can only tell the member that I have taken his recent correspondence — the last letter that he sent to me — and forwarded it to my ministry with the direction that I wanted the matter reviewed immediately by senior staff and a recommendation sent back to me. I have not received that recommendation yet. The copy of the member's letter went to my staff early last week.

I'm sure the member can appreciate that our problems in the past week have been with another part of the agriculture industry, namely turkeys, and there has been a tremendous amount of time spent on that problem. As a result, I haven't seen the response. My deputy minister and senior staff should be here shortly and I may have further information for him when they arrive.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have a real problem with this particular case and I feel very strongly about it, While I certainly have no great desire to make it a public issue, I am in the position where I am duty-bound to raise it in detail in the Legislature unless I receive some definitive answer from the ministry prior to the passage of the minister's estimates. I think that's fair enough. I would much rather see the case resolved satisfactorily to all concerned rather than raise it as what I feel is a rather scandalous case in the province of British Columbia. So perhaps I can defer going into this specific case until after the minister's staff arrives, with the hope that they may have a decision regarding this matter.

There are two other areas that I want to raise. One of them I did raise with the minister at an earlier point. I just want to run back over it briefly. It involves the Ministry of Transportation and Highways primarily, and yet the implications are very serious to the Ministry of Agriculture. It concerns the road restrictions that are placed on secondary farming roads in the springtime in the Okanagan, Shuswap, Kamloops, and the interior generally. I know there's no easy answer, but I would like some indication from the minister that he appreciates the importance of this, and that he might be looking, in collaboration with his colleagues in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and others who may be affected also, for a solution that is going to do something for the people. Basically the problem is that for varying periods of time each spring the spring breakup creates soft road conditions. The Highways ministry puts on a 50 percent load limitation and the feed companies are thus restricted in the load they can carry to the area farms. One can say that it's basically a problem of lack of storage facilities on the farm; be that as it may, if one has a large herd of either hogs or cattle, they need almost daily loads of feed to accommodate their herds. There's just no realistic way the farmers could afford the kind of vast storage facilities that would accommodate any significant storage of feed supplies. So in most cases they have to rely on delivery daily. On the other hand, when the feed companies are restricted to a 50 percent load, their economic viability is impaired. They say: "Well, if we're going to be required to haul just 50 percent of the load, then obviously we're going to have to recover our costs somehow. We're going to have to charge the farmer a higher price." I think the minister appreciates just as well as anyone else that the margin of profit in the farming community is pretty narrow. This kind of cost increase imposed because of the poor condition of secondary roads would simply render, in many cases, their operation economically unviable.

As I indicated at the outset, I'm not blaming anyone for this condition; it's a fact of life. But I think the minister might well take under advisement with the government generally the possibility of either subsidizing the feed company for the period of the breakup while the restriction is on, or the farmer if he has to pay a higher cost for the feed, or, if not that, some kind of major allocation of funds to upgrade the roads in the areas most seriously affected.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) properly pointed out that it's not only the agricultural industry; forestry and other commodity dealers are affected through closures. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, the problem with the agricultural community is much more acute, because while you can close down a forest operation for a matter of six weeks, you simply cannot neglect to feed your livestock for a period of two days, much less six weeks. So we can appreciate that it's a very imperative problem for farmers and for the feed companies.

I have met with the people involved; I know the Minister of Transportation and Highways has as well. All I'm really asking from the Minister of Agriculture is a recognition of this very serious cost problem facing a significant area of the agricultural community and his commitment to me that he will recognize this problem and try to come up with some alternatives that might assist in the circumstances. I'm not asking him for fail-safe solutions. I know it's a complicated one. His sensitivity and his recognition of the problem would certainly give some comfort to me, as a representative of an area affected, and to the farmers and feed companies in the area as well.

Mr. Chairman, the other point I wanted to raise — and I raised this at an earlier point in brief fashion — is again a question divided among a number of ministries, but I submit is primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. It involves the farmland classification for taxation purposes. I outlined a case where an 89-year-old gentleman, or someone approximately that age, had lived on a farm in the Salmon Arm area all his life, and in his later years, of course, was unable to maintain the farm as a productive unit. As a consequence, the farm production failed to meet the standard criteria for preserving the farmland classification that provides a preferred taxation rate to productive farms as well as some other benefits, such as the use of purple gas and certain

[ Page 2510 ]

discounts on commodities related to farm use — machinery and so on.

Now I want to assure the minister and the House, Mr. Chairman, that I don't argue with the general formula used by the government's Assessment Authority, which is dedicated to ensuring that farms are productive units and contributing to the food supply; in other words, it's a taxation calculated to drive farmland into production. As a general principle, as a general yardstick, I agree with that approach. What I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that there should be exceptions to that general guideline, and I suggest that those exceptions should relate to senior citizens who have worked on a farm, who have owned a farm and produced food for, say, 15 or 20 years as a minimum, and who then in their later years are unable to maintain production up to the acreage requirement set by the Assessment Authority and hence lose their farmland classification for taxation, which puts them in the position where they simply have to sell the farm and get rid of their homesite.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you can appreciate that some people who have lived on a farm for 40 or 50 years — in some cases longer — are singularly reluctant to leave that home setting. They have more than a financial investment in that lifestyle; they have a sentimental and a family investment in that farm in terms of the lifestyle that they choose and the lifestyle that they're accustomed to. All I'm suggesting is that there should be an exemption for senior citizens from the normal production classification that is required to maintain the farmland classification.

I think there are two areas that should be given consideration: one is the senior citizen and the second is the person who becomes handicapped for one reason or another after having farmed and operated a viable operation for 15 or 20 years. He has proved his bona fides during that period of time. Surely the reason we have this formula is to drive farmland into production and to ensure that hobby farmers do not get the benefit of a preferred taxation rate. I agree with that concept and that approach, but surely we can be flexible enough to allow handicapped people and senior citizens, after having farmed for 15 or 20 years, to continue to enjoy their homes and their lifestyle until such time as it's either passed on or sold at their discretion, free from the kind of punitive taxation that results from changing the classification from farmland to residential. The cost increase is such that senior citizens just cannot afford to stay on a 20-acre parcel, much less a 100 acre parcel.

Now most of these people — many of them, anyway — are pioneers, and they have invested a lifetime in production for our province and for our people. All I'm asking is some consideration that they not be punished in their later years and driven from the home that they've become accustomed to. They're not trying to cheat the system; they're not hobby farmers trying to tie down a large plot of land for privacy; they are people who have been caught up by that element that catches up with all of us. That's age. After they have invested at least 15 years of labour in the production of food, they should not be victimized in that way. I would like to receive the minister's reaction to the proposal I put forward for those two narrow areas: for people who become handicapped, having farmed for 15 years, say, or 20 years — whatever — or for senior citizens in the same kind of circumstances.

Now I appreciate that there is one outlet for senior citizens, and that is the tax deferral. But you know, Mr. Chairman, although it's available — and I agree with that principle too; after all, our government brought it in — the reality of it is that many of these old people simply will not take advantage of that option. They feel that they have to maintain their property free from encumbrance or liability, to pass it on at the appropriate time to heirs and so on. I disagree with that proposition, and I think that the tax deferral system is something that more seniors could take advantage of. But the minister can also appreciate that if the classification were changed from farmland to residential, the deferral of the kind of taxes that flow from 100- or 150-acre farms under those circumstances would eat up the real value of the total package within a short period of years, perhaps before the property was in a position where it could be liquidated, or where it could be passed on or sold as an estate. In other words, the longevity of the farmer might outlive the tax deferral regulation. So there is a real problem.

I think that the government could at least look at the situation of the elderly and the handicapped and be flexible in terms of applying this general guideline — which is a good one — of taxing farmland in such a fashion that we drive it into production. It's a good principle, but we don't want to deprive senior citizens of their home to accomplish that objective, I submit.

I'm going to let it go and hope that the minister responds to the two areas that I've outlined for him — with the full knowledge that he hasn't got total control in either one of these areas; but he has a significant interest and a significant responsibility as the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the deputy is here, perhaps he might like to respond as well to the earlier question I raised.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response to the item raised by the member to do with restricted loads on highways, a week or so ago, when we had the estimates up before, both the Minister of Highways and I responded, I think, in a fair amount of detail to your question. We both recognize it's a short-term problem. It happens in the spring breakup, and the restriction is there because of serious damage to the roads. If you allowed the full loads to go over, you'd totally break down the road, which means costly repairs. It could mean accidents to other vehicles driving that road.

One thing the member neglected to mention — although he did touch on the need for daily deliveries to some farm operations — is that this has been happening, as you and I are both aware, Mr. Member, for years and years — the spring breakup, the restricted loads. I think that in the main farmers anticipate that time and provide for sufficient feed on hand to get by in most cases, because it is something that relates to every farm operation where some of the secondary roads have serious restrictions on in the spring of each year. I can tell the member that I would certainly cooperate and communicate with the Ministry of Highways in making sure that there is no serious problem. However, I can tell the member that to my knowledge I have not, in the four years that I have been involved as Minister of Agriculture, received a complaint regarding load restrictions on roads during the spring breakup.

It is a good point to raise, Mr. Member, in regard to subsidizing the delivery of feed to the farm operations, but I think we'd run into a question as to other deliveries that were made by trucks in all other sectors of the economy on those same roads. When you subsidize delivery of one commodity, then you had better look to subsidizing the deliveries of all

[ Page 2511 ]

commodities in all service vehicles. That, I think, would cause a problem.

I guess, just in closing that item, Mr. Member, I would certainly like to, first of all, see any complaint that you've received. Secondly, I can assure you that I will work with the Ministry of Highways to see whether or not there are some areas where we can resolve the problem. But I don't think the approach that you have mentioned is the answer. As I say, I think in most cases where you've got a commercial farm operation they have lived with this problem for years and certainly want the road in good condition, Therefore they are quite prepared to accept the restrictions and anticipate them and ensure they have ample feed on hand.

The farmland classification for assessment purposes. I am glad that the member agrees with the concept that the Ministry of Finance has put into place. You said that you weren't talking about the hobby farm operation. You mentioned something about a 150-acre farm where a senior citizen and-or handicapped individual couldn't operate the farm. Dealing basically with the senior citizen, there is the homeowner's grant, which is a substantial contribution now to cover those taxes. I believe it is $580 a year, which applies to the residents, of course, which does go against their total taxes.

You did mention the tax deferral approach which they can take. Dealing with a commercial farm operation 100-150 acres or smaller — a 10-acre orchard or whatever — those senior citizens can maintain their farm classification by leasing out. As long as the operation generates the income required under the classification through the Assessment Authority, as long as the senior citizen leases it out and it maintains its farm classification by producing food, then they have that relief, you might say, for taxes, as it is still being classed as a farm. That is the approach that I think would be taken by almost every senior citizen who didn't have younger members in the family to carry on the farm operation. They would lease it out; they could have some revenue coming in, and, of course, it provides a job and revenue for anyone who wishes to lease the opportunity. It maintains it in good condition for an eventual sale. If they just left it fallow it would certainly deteriorate in its value.

I think those two approaches, Mr. Member.... In regard to the farm classification for senior citizens, again I'm not aware of the concerns you have raised. They are awfully good points to raise in the House, but I think they are both amply covered in the responses I've given.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his response. With respect to the road problem, my suggestion of a temporary subsidy is just an idea. It's one that I'm not wild about either. I don't particularly like to see a subsidy. On the other hand, I don't buy the minister's argument that because you subsidize one commodity you subsidize them all. Surely there is a difference between the imperative need for the supply of livestock and other commodities on which life and death and well-being of either farm animals or human beings are not reliant. There is a good deal of difference between the imperatives involved in that kind of supply as opposed to certain other kinds of commodities. However, that is not a solution that I look to with any great enthusiasm either, but neither do I look to the possibility of the cost of foodstuffs for animals being increased to cover the cost to the supplier to the extent that the farmer can no longer make a go of it.

I will get to the minister a very detailed submission which both the feed companies and the local hog producers, particularly in the Shuswap area, have sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as well as to my office. I was under the impression that the minister had received one but I'll check on that.

It's not a matter of it being just a 150-acre farm. I used some examples. There are many small parcels of land — 10, 15 or 20 acres — some of them large, but very few. Most of them are comparatively small parcels of land which seniors may have grown gardens and some fruit on. Perhaps they had sales from the gate which justified enough earnings to retain their farmland classification in the past. It's not easy to lease out that kind of parcel of land and assure that it's going to be productive by a lessor. If it were a large parcel like the one I indicated of 150 acres, that may be a logical thing to do. I have really encountered about 50 of these problems, both in my riding and in the Minister of Tourism's (Hon. Mrs. Jordan's) riding in the North Okanagan. People are getting hammered by it, and many of them have small parcels. I think that we could show some flexibility in those circumstances, despite the fact that the tax deferral is available. Many of them simply won't take advantage of it — the point being that in the final analysis, if people are forced off their properties simply because they can't meet their taxes.... That would be the effect, despite the homeowner's grants.

Some of the increases are spectacular when you go from farmland classification to residential. They are very spectacular, and there's absolutely no way that the homeowner grant would adequately cover that. So if we're going to force them to sell out, many of them will require senior citizens' housing in town, which there's a shortage of. Many of them would probably be less healthy, because they've lost their way of life and the serenity of their farm.

In the final analysis, if we want to be very crass and mercenary about it, aside from looking at the psychological well-being of the people involved, I suggest that it's penny wise and pound foolish in any event. I suspect that the lost revenue from preserving the farmland classification would be more than made up for by the savings that would be realized by keeping them on their land and in the domestic surroundings which they have been accustomed to. We force them out of there and we chase them into the towns and villages, and it's our responsibility, as government, to provide them with senior citizens' accommodation, probably increased health care needs, and recreational needs. So there's no saving involved. Leave them on the farms. Do it for the senior citizens. They've earned it. Give them a bit more flexibility.

Mr. Chairman, I have to assume now, I guess, that the minister did not receive any good news from his deputy regarding the very tragic case of the Biberger and the hogs that they purchased from the government farm at Tranquille. Am I correct, Mr. Minister? Mr. Chairman, I like to think that the ministry is going to do the right thing on this matter, and I'm very reluctant to raise it. I'll let the minister respond.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the Bibergers which the member refers to has been discussed at staff level. Maybe I could just make a few comments first of all, because I know the member is quite agitated over it; and to a certain extent I don't blame him, because I think we fumbled the ball a bit. We certainly didn't do it intentionally, and we attempted to resolve the problem. My staff have communicated with the Bibergers. It seems that when government gets involved, government is 100 percent wrong or

[ Page 2512 ]

100 percent right. I guess there's no middle ground. Maybe we can try to resolve that.

The Bibergers purchased some hogs at Tranquille Farm, and when they returned to their farm they found that the hogs developed what is called rhinitis; it was evident that they had it. As a result there had to be some medication, quarantine of the animals, feed bill, etc. — a substantial additional expense was incurred by the Bibergers.

It all boils down, though, to the purchase of the animals, and in many cases livestock is bought by viewing the animal. You can all remember the story about trying to look in the horse's mouth at his teeth to tell his age — that type of thing — and by going around and feeling his legs and muscles to tell whether he's of sound body. It's something similar with any livestock, where the buyer identifies the animal, looks at it and determines whether or not it's the one he wishes to purchase, and finally a deal is made and he takes the animal away. It's a living thing. It's not a commodity that you might say has a warranty in case a part fails. In this particular case, the Bibergers feel that they were sold animals that were somewhat misrepresented to them, and the animals didn't prove to be sound. In most cases where you go to a private sale — and it is, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) interjects across the floor, a buyer-beware situation — you identify the animal, look at it closely and purchase the animal. There's no certificate that says that this animal is free of all possible illness.

Unfortunately, we got caught in the middle, I guess, because we attempted, as I understand it from staff, to oblige the Bibergers. There are conflicting stories. Nevertheless, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) feels that my staff is in error. I haven't really got to the bottom of it yet. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke felt somewhat dismayed that he wasn't invited to the latest meeting. Maybe that was an oversight by my ministry. Also, when he did attend the meeting he found out that it was with — I won't call them junior staff members; that's not fair — people who had contact with the Bibergers before, and that there wasn't a senior representative of staff there, and that it almost — to use his words — felt like an inquisition of the Bibergers.

I've just asked my staff whether or not they've had the opportunity to review it. The deputy minister advises me that he hasn't. He's offered a suggestion of possibly, you might say, a three-man tribunal — or something like that — to sort of weigh the evidence and make a recommendation. I've advised him that I want a recommendation on my desk, and I'll make the decision, after seeing all the information put before me, as to what is a fair and reasonable settlement.

Mr. Member, where did we err? Where did we go wrong? We didn't go out and solicit buyers for the hogs; the people arrived on the scene, saw the animals and determined to buy them. The question is raised as to whether or not the Bibergers asked if they had any afflictions. The responsibility of staff may have been to determine whether they had given them a clean bill of health. Who's to say who is entirely right or wrong?

Mr. Member, if I recall correctly, the bill submitted by the Bibergers was for some $19,000. I find that unbelievably high — unrealistically high. I'm not sure of the total price they paid for the hogs. My deputy minister says they paid approximately $200 to $250 apiece for the hogs. I can't recall the number they bought, but I think it was about two or three. We're talking about a capital investment of...I'll even go so far as to say, between $500 and $1,000. They identify them as having a disease, and the bill that they submit is for $19,000. Now, Mr. Member, I think there's got to be some realistic rationalization of the problem.

I know you'd want to respond and make your points. I think that's only worthwhile, because then my senior staff members here can hear your position on the matter. I can only tell you that I will be getting their recommendations on my desk. We'll be making a decision, and I think I could give you a commitment, Within a week we'll have a decision on this, and we'll so advise the Bibergers of our position with regard to any compensation.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to keep this thing fairly low-key. I find myself angered by the minister's response. Nevertheless, I'll try to maintain my good humour, and point out that there has never been a question as to whether or not the hogs that were purchased at a government farm had in fact atrophic rhinitis; that has never been denied either by the staff at Tranquille Farm or by the ministry. There was a proposition put forward that it's a very difficult disease to identify and, perhaps, due to the nature of it, all pigs may have dormant traces of atrophic rhinitis. It's a very complex thing. The government has at their disposal a laboratory at Abbotsford, and veterinarians who can make this determination. There are certain visual signs of the disease which become apparent at a certain stage — that is, a twisted snout, which becomes extreme to the point where the pigs can no longer eat at certain times. Indeed, I think it gets to be worse than mine.

The pigs that were purchased from Tranquille Farm did display these signs, I think it was, three months after. I'm not going to recite it chapter and verse like a lawyer in a courtroom. I believe they were purchased in November or December; about April they showed the sign. They were in fact isolated at the Bibergers' farm from the time they were purchased — for, I think, a one- or two-month period, on the advice of the local vet. The disease was ultimately manifestly evident. One of the sows and her litter were slaughtered and their heads sent to the government experimental farm at Abbotsford. Rhinitis seemed to be confirmed by the report; there was a bit of a question, but not very much. The scientific lingo leaves some escape hatches; but it appeared, I think, to any reasonable lay person that, indeed, the pigs had rhinitis.

Now the position taken by the ministry at the outset was the same position the minister now takes: let the buyer beware. The defence proffered by the ministry at the outset was that the Bibergers did not ask Tranquille Farm whether the pigs were indeed healthy. I think that is an absolutely scandalous proposition. To put forward the idea of "let the buyer beware" from a government enterprise is something that is not even practised in that old buccaneer private market anymore. For the minister to suggest that as a defence when, in fact, there is evidence that the personnel of the farm had knowledge that their herd was infected when they sold the pigs.... Now that point is in conflict. But be that as it may, to offer as a defence the idea that the farmers should have asked whether the pigs were healthy.... And since they did not, we have a right to sell them infected stock.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, come on! You told....

MR. KING: Well, that's the inference, Mr. Chairman; that's the clear inference.

[ Page 2513 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, even after the research lab looked at it and there was some question in their mind? What about a herdsman — how do you expect him to be better than a scientist, for crying out loud?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, there will be ample time to reply.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not questioned the fact that the pigs were infected. I am not suggesting that the herdsmen should know or not. Whether they knew or not, at this time to say that the Bibergers are partially responsible, simply because they didn't ask whether the stock was healthy, I say is scandalous. You know, Mr. Chairman, we have a Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the whole and primary function of that ministry is to protect consumers in the marketplace against sharp practices in the private sector. In fact they prosecute people who take that very harsh and narrow point of view — "let the buyer beware." The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs holds that when a commodity is sold, be it an animal or any other commodity, it should be what it appears to be.

For a public agency, a government agency — particularly one patented by the Ministry of Agriculture — to take the defence of "let the buyer beware" is just unbelievable. The minister said that in the privacy of his office to me. At that time I assumed that it was a slip and I would not have revealed it, had he not re-quoted it here in the House. I was prepared to suggest to him that that point of view is unacceptable, and indeed he conceded, in his office, that it was. Now to hear him re-emphasize that here, re-issue it as an argument, is really unbelievable.

The issue is that the pigs were infected. The ministry now accepts that. There has been no serious argument against or denial of that finding. I've got a copy of the veterinarian's report in my file here. I believe I provided the minister with a copy. I think the evidence is sufficient to show that the pigs were infected. It may be that the farm wasn't aware of that at the time they sold the pigs, although that's in dispute.

Be that as it may — we'll leave that aside — it may be that the Bibergers have asked for too much in compensation. It is not my position now, and indeed it never was my position, to dictate to the ministry what should be paid as compensation. I simply ask for recognition that very competent young farmers — hard workers and honest people — have been dealt an unfair blow by government. I accept without equivocation the proposal that this issue be put to independent people for arbitration. That's a fair response.

Mr. Chairman, it's far different than the response I received just over a week ago, after I had met with the minister in his office and he had promised a review. He notified me that I would be informed of a review when it occurred, so that presumably I could attend, since I was an interested party. His letter states: "Mr. Bruce Richardson, head of our property management branch, has been given this assignment and will be contacting all persons concerned." Now since I had raised the matter with the ministry, I assumed that I was a "person concerned." Since I am an elected MLA, I would assume that the minister would grant me the right to represent my constituents and recognize that I am a "person concerned."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, but you know what we were talking about.

MR. KING: Well, I accepted that I would be notified; I was never notified. I was notified by the farmers that they were called to a meeting in Salmon Arm on May 1 or 2 — I forget when it was — and they asked that I be there. So I flew up and I attended that meeting. Perhaps I should read into the record of this House my assessment of the meeting that I attended on that occasion. This is directed to the hon. minister on May 6, 1980:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"This will confirm our brief discussion of yesterday regarding a meeting of your ministry staff in Salmon Arm on May 1 relating to a compensation claim by Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Biberger. You will recall that this claim for compensation stems from the purchase of four brood sows by the Bibergers from the government Tranquille Farm. At least one of the sows was infected with atrophic rhinitis and a subsequent litter were also similarly infected.

"I first contacted your ministry last October seeking the ministry's recognition of the Biberger's dilemma and a willingness to compensate them for the losses which have accrued to them since that date. Their letter, which you have on file, provides documentation of their claim. A number of propositions were put forward by your ministry initially — namely that the Bibergers did not ask whether the animals were diseased when they were purchased. A claim was also made that the Bibergers in some way coerced an unwilling staff at Tranquille to sell the pigs in the first instance. The Bibergers produced a witness who indicated that the Tranquille Farm staff offered no reticence and entered the sale of the stock without reservation. "

There is a letter on file to support that proposition.

"I attended a meeting in your office on March 14 and discussed this case with you as well as your associate deputy minister, Mr. Maurie King and Dr. Bob Avery. At that time you acknowledged that the fact that the Bibergers did not query Tranquille Farm regarding the health of the animals was irrelevant. The suggestion that this could be significant implies a buyer beware approach, which you agree was altogether inappropriate for a government agency. Similarly you agreed and acknowledged that there had been no resistance by Tranquille to the sale of the stock. In conclusion you suggested that a review of the case would be caused, and that I would be notified in due course. On the date of March 311 received your memorandum indicating that a meeting would be convened by Mr. Bruce Richardson, head of your property management branch, and that all persons concerned would be contacted.

"A meeting was indeed held on May 1 in Salmon Arm. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I was not notified by your ministry but rather received a call from the Bibergers notifying me of the meeting. Accordingly I travelled to Salmon Arm and attended with the Bibergers at 10 a.m. on May 1. I met a contingent of staff people including Mr. Richardson and three employees of Tranquille Farm. Mr. Richardson conducted an interrogation of the Bibergers — nay, I would characterize it as an inquisition.

[ Page 2514 ]

All of the points which had been previously laid to rest in your office regarding Tranquille Farm's alleged reluctance to sell, as well as the Biberger's alleged neglect in seeking assurance that the stock was healthy, were recanvassed. This, I must say, was done in rather an accusatory fashion by Mr. Richardson.

"Further points were raised regarding whether the Bibergers had appropriately identified the stock purchased from Tranquille and doubt was expressed that they had isolated the stock and were able to identify them as the source of rhinitis. Despite assurances from the Bibergers that the stock were isolated for a considerable length of time and housed separately with tattoo markings in the ear, Mr. Richardson continued to express doubts in this regard.

"The Bibergers are indeed competent farmers and business people, as can be attested to by the regional veterinarians in both Salmon Arm and Vernon, and I felt this line of questioning was unfair and unwarranted. This was basically the gist of the interrogation of the Bibergers, after which I made my own views known in a very strong fashion.

"These views are, Mr. Minister, that it was a patent denial of natural justice to set up an inquiry into the Biberger's complaint by commissioning the very people employed and associated with the accused government agency as its prosecutor, judge and jury at the hearing. I pointed out that Mr. Richardson and the other three Tranquille Farm staff had a vested interest in denying any liability and indeed giving any credence to the Biberger case.

"I was angered at the tone of the interrogation in addition to the format. When I left your office it was with the understanding that you would conduct a review of the claim and weigh the balance of probabilities between the Biberger case and the position of Tranquille Farm. After having taken this course it would seem to me totally appropriate for you to make a ministerial judgment as to the moral if not the legal implications of the case. To arrive at your judgment on the basis of a one-sided source of information received from employees of Tranquille Farm, who I repeat have a vested interest in protecting their own job security, is obviously without credibility.

"The one other point which came to light during the meeting in Salmon Arm was the claim by Mrs. Biberger that the herdsman, Mr. Robertson, had acknowledged his awareness that the Tranquille herd was infected with rhinitis prior to the sale. At the hearing, Robertson denied having made this acknowledgement. So this remains a moot point of the word of the Bibergers being weighed against that of Robertson.

"To deal once again, and very briefly in conclusion, with the proposition that the Bibergers' case is weakened by essence of the fact that they failed to inquire as to the health of the animals, I would offer this observation. The government of the province provides a ministry of consumer and corporate services dedicated to protecting the consumer in the marketplace. Basically this ministry provides support to those who have been unfairly treated in purchasing commodities, fixtures, etc. which are not what they appear to be and what good faith and sound business principles would dictate. To suggest that the government should so regulate the private marketplace while denying their own culpability in the case at hand by adopting the attitude 'let the buyer beware' is a proposition which I'm sure you must reject out of hand.

"In the light of the foregoing I urgently and sincerely request an early decision from your office with respect to fair treatment to this particular case. I have indicated to you that it is possible to achieve this fair redress without incurring legal precedent which might be difficult for the ministry. All that is required is some good-faith dialogue between your office and the Bibergers, in which I would be pleased to participate. "

Mr. Chairman, I think that's laid it out fairly. If the minister disagrees with the compensation which has been claimed by the Bibergers, fair enough. Set up an impartial agency to make an adjudication; set up an impartial agency to weigh the evidence of these farmers, who are hard-working, honest people, against the liability of the department, which seems to hang its narrow case on the proposition of "let the buyer beware."

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has an arbitration process. Even the Ministry of Human Resources has an arbitration process. Why is it not good enough for the Ministry of Agriculture? The minister cannot make a decision in this manner; put it to arbitration. In no way would I defend the amount of money the Bibergers asked, but I think they're entitled in fairness and in common justice to a day before some impartial agency, not before a kangaroo court like the minister submitted them to in Salmon Arm. The very people that were accused were sent to conduct the review into these people's claim. That's a basic and a patent denial of natural justice, and the minister knows it.

I want to make a final point, Mr. Chairman. When the minister says there were only four brood sows purchased, and the capital investment was only $250 an animal, that's a distortion. If the minister doesn't appreciate that, he's one heck of a poor Minister of Agriculture. If that minister doesn't appreciate that the introduction of that disease into a herd of 300 pigs froze entirely the right of these farmers to sell any breed stock — froze entirely the sale of any of their animals by the advice of the local veterinarian — then he doesn't deserve to be Minister of Agriculture. He wants to handle it as though the only implication is for the four animals purchased. Mr. Chairman, there was a special isolation requirement; there was special medication; there was the freezing and the loss of revenue from this herd of 300 pigs; and the Minister of Agriculture says: "Well, it was only a capital investment of four hogs." Well, only one of those hogs, Mr. Minister, was necessary to introduce this very, very serious disease to the herd, and that's precisely what happened.

So if you want to prejudge the amount that the farmers are asking in compensation, so be it. Put the issue out to an impartial agency and let them sit and hear the evidence and make an impartial decision with some vestige of justice involved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member, who has read his letter at some length and has made some comments regarding the Bibergers, maybe I can respond to give him some indication that all is not black and white.

[ Page 2515 ]

There were four hogs purchased at $250 apiece, for $1,000. They were bred sows. One of them proved to be barren, and as a result the Bibergers got two gilts in replacement for the one sow. That's good business practice on behalf of Tranquille Farm.

MR. KING: Common.

HON. MR. HEWITT: But fair. I mean, it's not misrepresentation; it's not a case where the vendor attempted to misrepresent or something. We promptly went back and replaced the one sow with two gilts.

As the member knows, I'm sure, and the Bibergers know, rhinitis is a common disease in hogs. There probably isn't a herd in B.C. that hasn't had some infection of it at some point in time. The member did mention that it was infected, that the head was sent to the testing station, and it was identified as having the infection. I think you said that even that decision was somewhat questionable. There was an offer to replace the animals infected, which is a practice of the trade in the private sector. Nobody misrepresented the animals that were there.

It seems, Mr. Chairman, that the public service has been attacked. The members identified this meeting as a kangaroo court. I believe Mr. Bruce Richardson, the head of our property management branch, who is responsible for these operations, was there. He is a fairly senior staff member and a very responsible individual, and I think he is recognized for his ability throughout the industry. I think the members attempted to put this into a case where we were against the Bibergers. I think my staff put in a fair amount of time to try and resolve the problem. As I say, I will attempt to deal with it very quickly now that the matter has been raised here.

But I want the member to know, considering that it has been indicated that we are bad corporate citizens, if I can use those words, in offering for sale animals that have been infected, and that we shouldn't be doing this type of thing.... You know, Mr. Member, you may or may not be aware of this, but the Bibergers have now made a contact with Colony Farm, a government farm operation, to purchase a boar sight unseen. They've made that contact. They're prepared to place money and purchase a boar from Colony Farm — a government-operated farm — sight unseen. I have some concern about the sale of animals in government farm operations, because we seem to get caught in this as being the bad guys, and I find that hard to accept. I think if the member can, beyond a reasonable doubt — and I don't think you can, Mr. Member — prove that it was that particular animal that infected that herd.... It could be that the Bibergers had bought from very many sources. I can't answer your question as to whether or not they bought from sources other than Tranquille Farm in the past short while. Rhinitis is a fairly contagious disease; it is also a common disease, and they could have got it from elsewhere.

What we are attempting to do is reach a reasonable solution to the problem. I can assure the member that I'll attempt to have an answer — a decision of the ministry — within a week. But I find it difficult to understand in the light of the able presentation that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke made that the Bibergers are back at the other government farm operation to purchase a boar sight unseen.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have submitted to the minister a copy of the specimen report from the veterinary laboratory on one of the sows that was purchased from this farm. It's identified as "68-K." It's in scientific language, but it seems to indicate that the rhinitis is present. It indicates the symptoms at least. I am not a veterinarian. The local vets at Salmon Arm and at Vernon had no difficulty concluding from this pathological report on the animal that indeed it had rhinitis. That has never been questioned up to this point, quite frankly.

The offer to replace the hogs, Mr. Chairman, flies completely in the face of the impact which the introduction of this disease had on the farm and the herd. I always understood that the Ministry of Agriculture was interested in and had some responsibility for controlling disease in farm animals and infestations of various kinds in farm commodities. Here we're saying: "Oh, well, even if it had rhinitis, we offered to replace the hog." I want to advise the minister that the local veterinarian advised the Bibergers that they they must not sell any pigs until the quarantine period on their whole herd had been effected. I know that there's no law that prevents them from doing so, but most conscientious farmers would accept the guidance and the direction of their local veterinarian. I wonder why the minister feels no compunction to do so. I find that difficult to understand.

Now his great revelation is that these big, bad farmers have come along now and made application to buy hogs from another government farm. What are you suggesting, Mr. Minister — once bitten, twice shy, and they should know better?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm talking sight unseen.

MR. KING: Do they not have a right to expect that pigs that are sold are healthy animals, when their local veterinarian has specifically instructed them that they must not sell any of their herd? Do they not have the right to the expectation, particularly from a government agency, that if the animal is for sale it is going to be healthy stock? My God, what a thin veil the minister hides behind. I am absolutely shocked and amazed that the minister would proffer this kind of defence for his ministry's position. If that's the case, why don't you write it in a brochure? Let the buyer beware. You can't rely on the Ministry of Agriculture. Perhaps that's the Social Credit credo that you've applied and enforced to every department of government. I don't know. If it is, I think the people have a right to know.

All I ask, Mr. Minister, from you is a commitment to put it out to an impartial agency for some arbitration. Let the department, by all means, submit their side of the argument, let the farmers submit their arguments and their evidence, and at least have some quasi-judicial or some independent agency sit in judgment — not the Ministry of Agriculture, as has been the case up to this point. That's all I ask, and I do ask the minister for that commitment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, the replacement of the hog was not because of rhinitis; it was because it was barren. We didn't say that we were going to replace that hog because it had rhinitis. We look at what alternatives there are. In the industry, if an animal has a problem, quite often it is a common practice to offer to replace it. In that particular case the one hog was replaced by two gilts because it was barren.

Mr. Member, I'm not standing in defence. I made an observation — just for the record, not as a defence of the ministry — on the picture you painted, which was totally

[ Page 2516 ]

black, that the same people are looking at a government institution to purchase a boar.

In regard to my commitment I did say, I believe twice now, that I will have this matter on my desk and reviewed for a decision hopefully within one week.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just briefly like to go back to one of the points that was raised. I will raise more of the details of this in the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), as they respect assessments, but really, in terms of an agricultural policy, I can see why we would want to go after the hobby farmer. I think it is really a good thing to bring in such a regulation which would guarantee that a certain amount of produce of a certain value be produced, in order to discourage the affluent professional who chooses to commute, maybe, from Aldergrove or Abbotsford or some such area, and live on perhaps a five- to ten-acre hobby farm, having a few horses, maybe raising a head of beef or something to get slaughtered.

But, Mr. Chairman, the policy, I think, has had a rather rough introduction in terms of its effect on quite a few people who I do not think were in the target group but nevertheless fell victim to it.

First of all, there have been some problems with the merging farms and definitions as to what is or is not agriculture. We have had the problem of assessors going around telling people what is and is not farming. They were telling people in my riding that stud fees could not be counted into farm income. There are some other areas, such as vermiculture, I think, that fell into a grey area. And I think that that matter was resolved after some further discussion, but only because the person objected. Had these persons simply accepted the law as they thought it affected them, and said, "A pox on the Socred government," or whatever, and just taken their lumps without fighting back, these people would have found themselves paying non-farm status rates of tax assessment.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The third problem is with the subsistence type of farm. In my riding — and, I think, in the riding of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) — there are a great number of people who produce food of some measurable value, but it is not for sale. I think, in one instance, of a person in Argenta who has and works a farm, and feeds not only his own family but also students who attend an alternate school — the Quakers' school in Argenta — and probably produces food of a value that might exceed the guidelines of the assessment, but, again, is being discouraged.

I really think that people whose major occupation is simply to farm, regardless of how commercially successful they are, should not be discouraged. In fact, if they didn't farm that land and put it into production, in some of these areas that agricultural land would not be in any form of production, because they're small isolated pockets of farmland; they don't even lend themselves to consolidation into a large, viable farm unit. These are in areas which have been divided and chopped up and in which some small pockets of agricultural land still exist. These people are in the agricultural land reserve.

There is a magazine put out called The Smallholder, and I think that the philosophy of these people.... It wouldn't be totally accurate, but you would get some recognition of their idea, as opposed to that of, say, a hobby farmer, who may be a professional, if you could label these people — it's a very inaccurate label — hippies. It would help you to understand that they are engaged in an experiment, in terms of putting some of the very small agricultural units into production. I think that something aimed at the affluent person, who's really taken farmland out of production, has really missed the mark in terms of hitting these people.

Then, of course, there's the item that was so well canvassed by my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — the matter of seniors. In this area, I've heard comments — and these are some of the things that have happened, which I'd like the minister to be aware of — that assessors say that lease income — where one senior citizen leased out his farm, and hay of some value was being produced on it — could not be counted as income. This was hitting somebody who had farmed that land for many, many years.

I think that what does come through this is that some of the assessors are not indeed wedded — in spite of major acceptance, I think, in most public opinion polls — to the agricultural land reserve. When people have complained to me, assessors have even been quoted as saying: "Well, none of this land in this area should be in the agricultural land reserve anyhow." They're saying it to the wrong people, because they're saying it to people that do want to see their land in production and haven't been asking to get their land taken out of the agricultural land reserve. But by bringing some of these personal prejudices into what should be an objective matter of applying government policy, it would appear to be an overt act, I suppose, to really undermine the concept of an agricultural land reserve.

I would canvass this matter more fully under the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but I bring it up to the Minister of Agriculture because I feel that some of the interpretations of the Assessment Authority are not serving the concept of the agricultural land reserve; and some of the private opinions given by some of the assessors were indeed undermining it.

Other interesting things have happened in this past year, which I relate to the minister: an incident where somebody appeared to appeal matters of this nature, as most of them did, before the court of revision. When they appeared they were told: "Don't make the submission to the court of revision. Come to the assessor's office." Indeed, some of these matters were cleared up. But if they had just taken the person at his word, they would have actually lost their opportunity to appear before the court of revision and to have had a decision made by their peers, which was their right. So there were certainly considerable problems in terms of interpreting this act. I think that it really should be studied very carefully and fine-tuned so that we not overshoot and end up harming people who really do have their land in production and are not simply affluent people who can afford to have a hobby farm where they do nothing more productive than maybe feeding a couple of horses.

The main thing I'd like to bring up in the estimates today is the limitation on outside earnings under the Agricultural Credit Act. I would hazard a guess that the original inception of the act was probably around 1974, unless we've amended it and brought in a new act with a new name; but this concept would go back to about that time. It's my understanding that there's a limitation on outside earnings, set when the act was originally brought in: if a person is in receipt of a gross non-farm income in excess of $25,000, then that person

[ Page 2517 ]

cannot qualify for agricultural credit interest rebates or reduction of effective rate of interest. I would think that back in 1974, when this was introduced, that would have been a fairly reasonable figure, but inflation, average weekly wages and other things have increased, and this has not kept pace. Probably it was a mistake in the first instance not to index it, but it could certainly be changed, and should be changed, in my opinion, because the main thing is that people who are building up a new farm and investing in a farm are working out not because they want to but because they need to in order to get more money for their investment.

This particular application, which brought the matter to my attention, involves the principal of an outstanding loan of $82,500. This was a 1979 application; the fixed rate of interest at that time was 11 percent. The person was paying $9,418.13 annual interest, which is a pretty hefty slug of interest when a person is working out and making a little bit in excess of $25,000 a year — probably logging and also trying to build up a farm.

If we wish to see people get into fanning full-time, I think that realistically we have to have this figure keep pace. It's my understanding from persons in the ministry that such a submission has been made, and that it's been kicked upstairs somewhere. I'd like to know if the minister has considered this yet. If not, when could we expect some adjustment?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the farm assessment, of course most of those questions could and should be directed to the Minister of Finance. However, I would point out to the member that there is an "emerging farm" classification. If the farmer submits a management plan — I believe they have a two-year period in which to prove up that farm to qualify — they can get that farm classification. So there is that opportunity for somebody who has made the investment in the land and equipment but who hasn't really generated the income to qualify for that. They have that out, you might say, in qualifying as an emerging farm.

In regard to the $25,000 ceiling, I can agree with the member that inflation has taken its toll. The purchasing power of $25,000 certainly isn't as great today as it was a number of years ago. That ceiling is under review.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to deal with a slightly different area at this point in time. When the throne speech was introduced, it indicated that there was going to be a change of the name of the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. I had hopes that perhaps we were really going to see some changes. I had hopes that perhaps we were going to bring under one umbrella the whole distribution system of food, right from the production of the food to the time when it arrives on the dinner table of the consumer. I have waited in vain for the minister to say something about this. I had hoped he would talk about this when he introduced his estimates; he didn't. I've waited for something to come before this House that would indicate that this change promised in the throne speech would be forthcoming. I haven't seen that. The only thing I've seen, Mr. Chairman, is an increase in the portion of this minister's budget that covers marketing.

So there is only one conclusion I can reach, and that is that this so-called Ministry of Food and Agriculture is simply going to be a Ministry of Agriculture that's going to put some more money into marketing the product, rather than getting into the whole food chain. I'm very disappointed, Mr. Chairman. It would seem that what is being proposed is something very similar to what has happened in Ontario, where the name is being changed to Food and Agriculture, but in fact the only responsibility there is for promoting the consumption of Ontario foods. While that's a worthwhile thing to do in Ontario, just as it's a worthwhile thing to promote the consumption of B.C. products in British Columbia, that is not really a Ministry of Food and Agriculture, because there are many more facets in the distribution of food than simply the promotion of the local product.

We've had a series of conflicting pieces of information relative to whether or not various levels in the food chain are making too much or too little. We've had some examples very recently in the processing industry, which has fallen under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. But when you get to the wholesale and retail sectors in the food industry, that's beyond his purview. I had hoped that with the change in the name, we were going to be able to have an umbrella Ministry that would have the control over or the responsibility for the whole food chain. That has not happened, so I'm very disappointed.

Certainly in Ontario, the change in name has meant nothing except perhaps a few more dollars. That seems to be what's happening here. It's done nothing as far as the producers of oysters are concerned. For a long time they have lobbied for this very thing: that the Ministry of Agriculture have a change of name to Food and Agriculture, so that the ministry could in fact encompass more meaningfully the oyster producers who presently are organized under the marketing legislation of the Ministry of Agriculture, but function under the Ministry of Environment, which is responsible for fisheries. They had hoped that this would be a meaningful change, and it hasn't happened.

I had certainly hoped that we were going to have a much broader scope, that we would have the opportunity, under the Ministry of Agriculture, to review the whole food process. I hope that still can happen. I recall, and the minister will recall, in the famous — or infamous — days of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, when we talked about whether or not that committee was going to make such a recommendation, and that if we did, the recommendation should be a meaningful recommendation, and the ministry should be prepared to have a meaningful change — not just a change in name, cosmetics only. And that's what seems to have happened. I'm concerned about that, because I don't think that in a commodity as basic as food we should be spreading out the responsibility, where we have the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs all involved. It's much too easy to pass the buck. There are too many people and groups of people that fall through the cracks when you do that. It's much better if you have it all under one umbrella. Certainly the throne speech indicated that that was going to happen.

Yet these estimates do not seem to indicate that that is the case. We're simply going to beef up the marketing dollars and try in some way or other to make that the answer to a Ministry of Food and Agriculture. It's not an answer, Mr. Chairman. It's just another gimmick to attempt to fool the public into believing that we do have one minister who is responsible for food in this province. It's not happening. That's a disappointment and a concern. I would hope that the minister could tell us why we only have this cosmetic change. I know that many of us on this side of the House are concerned, as many must be on that side of the House, about what is happening as far as food goes in this province.

[ Page 2518 ]

I have some very grave concerns about the advertising practices that are followed in the sale of food. It's much more advantageous to the retailer of food if he can sell a product and make a larger profit. That doesn't relate at all to the nutritive value of that food. If there's a package of some kind of pre-cooked, pre-sugared cereal that's full of plastic whistles and it has an international advertising campaign behind it, that's the thing the supermarket is going to feature on their shelves before the consumer is going to buy that. Certainly if you're talking about food you have to talk also about nutrition. Of course, then you're into another field, and that's the Ministry of Health. I can remember when I was first in this House trying to talk about nutrition under Agriculture and was told: "Sorry, you're in the wrong ministry. You have to talk about that under Health."

These are the kinds of problems that are concerning the opposition in this supposed change — a change in name that may or may not happen. We've had things in the throne speech before that haven't happened, and it may not happen. But certainly I do see some extra dollars in that one particular facet of this minister's responsibilities for marketing. I'm wondering if he is going to push nutrition. Is he going to have a program specifically aimed at educating the person who purchases food in this province as to the relative nutritive value that a consumer is getting for his or her dollar? Is he going to do that, or is he simply going to beef up the TV ads with the dogwood? And I'm not being critical of those, Mr. Minister. They've done a job. All those kinds of things that have been done, some by the ministry, some by the producers and some jointly, are good programs. But really they're a small amount of mind-influencing advertising compared to the number of advertisements that one sees relative to those money-makers that are on the shelves without any regard for nutrition.

I am concerned that this is not happening or, at least, appears not to be happening. I would hope that the minister could tell the House just what he is proposing. First of all, is he going to be responsible for food? Is this going to be something that's going to happen? If so, what steps is he going to take to ensure that the consumer at least has the opportunity, the knowledge and all the positive things that will make it easier for the person who purchases the food for our tables? What steps will be taken to ensure not only that we're buying B.C. products, but that we're getting the best value for our dollar and good nutritive content in that food, not just a lot of fancy packaging, additives, sugar and all kinds of things that are not particularly good for us? Those are the things that I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, and I'm wondering whether or not the minister is prepared to deal with that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the throne speech, it was stated that the Ministry of Agriculture would expand its mandate — I believe that's how it was put. I don't have the exact words here but it was in the throne speech. The session is proceeding and legislation will unfold as it should.

With regard to food and agriculture, if we were into that expanded mandate we would certainly be carrying on in improving, I guess, our involvement in the processing sector of food in this province. We would be looking to a more active role, along with the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, in the export markets for agricultural products. There is potential there in certain commodities. We would also carry on and expand our marketing promotion which, I think, has been somewhat effective. We've certainly, I believe, made more British Columbians aware of the diversification of our agricultural industry in this province and of the quality of our products. We would hope to also, if we were in that expanded role, maintain and capture more shelf space in our local supermarkets.

I can see a major role for us in doing those things, assisting and supporting the agriculture industry, the foodprocessing industry. I think it's pretty exciting, moving to that type of a mandate.

In regard to nutrition, although we do provide some assistance in the field of nutrition, both the Ministry of Health federally and the Ministry of Health provincially certainly work along those lines. We're there to lend support, but their mandate pretty well covers nutrition.

I would say, Madam Member, that I'm looking for that expanded role beyond the farm gate. I think it's important if we want to expand the agricultural industry in this province, and I would be very pleased to hear any suggestions you might have.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to deal primarily with one area with the minister. That is in the whole area of food, which, of course, has been pointed out ably by our critic in agriculture. Now that the ministry's title has changed we feel that we have a responsibility — and so does the minister — to discuss, perhaps in further detail, this vital area of great concern to all the consumers in British Columbia.

I realize that perhaps we should be dealing with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I don't want to put the whole load on the Minister of Agriculture in this area, but judging by the past record of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, his interest seems to lend itself primarily to the corporation aspect of his portfolio. We have had very little action from that minister in protection of the consumers' rights, particularly in the area of spiralling food prices. Therefore I am turning to the Minister of Agriculture, with the hope that he will be able to fill the great vacuum that has been left by the minister who should be responsible for the consumer in this area, but who seems to have abrogated that responsibility in favour of his great concern for the corporations of this province.

I particularly want to direct my attention to an area that I think he could do something about, because I'm quite aware that many people say: "Well, what can that government do about the whole matter of spiralling food prices? Is it something they can handle provincially?" I contend that there are areas. It's not easy, but I think there are areas that this government and that minister could be dealing with far more effectively to protect the consumer from rising food prices than they have shown their ability to do or their desire to do in the past.

We have had outlined on the floor of this House a number of times, again very eloquently and ably by our critic on agriculture, the sellout to Cargill. It is in that particular area that I feel this minister could do something for the consumers of British Columbia, if he had the right philosophy, if he could get the backing of his government. I think he could really assist the consumers of British Columbia in getting a decline in food prices.

I want to talk primarily this afternoon on the whole area of monopoly and centralized control of the food industry, because I feel this is an area that a government could take

[ Page 2519 ]

action in. Unfortunately, to date, instead of taking action to assist the consumer by stopping this wholesale sellout to the large cartels, we have a government that apparently does not believe in competition and that is willing to sell out to the large companies, Therefore I am on my feet this afternoon to make a plea to that minister to try and forget this commitment to this so-called free enterprise, as they are wont to say across the floor. We know it is simply not giving an opportunity for free or private enterprise when you sell out to large corporations.

Just to back up my contention that this is an area where government is abrogating its duty to the consumer, both federal and provincial, I want to just read into the record a few facts about the present corporate concentration in the food industry. I think we're all aware that in Canada both the food manufacturing and the food retailing industries are very highly concentrated. But to give you some examples — and I feel this lesson is perhaps necessary....

I notice that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who should be most concerned, has a very pained expression on his face, and I wish he too would listen to these remarks, because up to now he has shown so little concern, from what I can see, for the consumers of this province.

Here are some facts that I hope he will listen to, as well as the Minister of Agriculture. Four out of the 16 breakfast cereal manufacturers in Canada account for 95 percent of all breakfast cereal shipments in Canada; 4 out of 365 slaughterhouses and meat processors have 58 percent of the Canadian market; 4 out of 36 flour mills make 80 percent of all the shipments in Canada. Between 1961 and 1973 the number of dairies in Canada was reduced by more than one half. Between 1961 and 1973 the poultry industry doubled its size and halved the number of processors.

In light of those figures, we have this government caving in to Cargill, to make the statistics that we'll now be faced with even more overwhelming and condemning of governments that don't seem to be concerned about bolstering up diversified and smaller industries.

In 1961 Canada had 7,715 establishments in the food and beverage manufacturing industry, and they shipped $5.5 billion worth of food products. By 1973, the number of such establishments had dropped to 5,348, while output, however, rose to $9.9 billion. This was a 30 percent decline in establishment and a 98 percent increase in sales.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In 1951 the corporate chains accounted for 23 percent of supermarket food sales. In 1968 the chains had 47 percent, and by 1974 the chains had 57 percent. I regret I don't have more up-to-date figures on that, but we know that, if anything, because of inaction by governments on controls and regulations on this kind of takeover, it has increased. Food retailing in Canada is dominated, I think we all know, by George Weston Ltd., Dominion Stores Ltd., Canada Safeway and Steinberg's — which, of course, we don't have out here — and they account for over 50 percent of the total foodstore sales.

In 1968 the three prairie provinces established the Royal Commission on Consumer Problems and Inflation — and I think this may be found interesting to the committee — under Judge Mary Batten. The commission reported retail foodmarket concentration by Dominion, Safeway and Weston of up to 75 percent in some prairie cities. At that time the three chains were increasing their share of the market 1 percent annually, at the expense of the independent grocer. According to that commission's report, this has led to the unsatisfactory performance of the retail food industry on the Prairies.

Now some people may say: "Well, you know, that's the Prairies; this is British Columbia." At least they had a commission — and they had a report — to investigate consumer problems and inflation. Now some people may say: "Why another report?" Well, Mr. Chairman, at least it would be some positive action by this government if such a commission could be taking place here in British Columbia. Perhaps if you put the spotlight on some of these very, very upsetting statistics, then some action might follow.

That report called for an investigation into grocery retailing in Canada by the combines investigation branch. It called for that report. I would condemn the federal governments of the past who have never had such an investigation under the combines investigation branch.

I wonder if my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) would give me a little time and patience here. I know these figures apparently sound very dry to most of the members, but I can assure you that dry though they may be, there is a problem; and unless something is done about it, and unless we as members and you as government over there pay attention to some of these figures, the consumers of British Columbia have no hope.

The lack of response by the federal government, of course, to have the investigation detailed by that prairie report put into the combines investigation branch really comes as no surprise, because historically we know that Canadian governments have chosen corporation with business over control. Unfortunately, the present Social Credit government of British Columbia seems to be following along this same line; it's quite obvious not only by the inaction by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but by the inaction of the government generally. They don't seem to be concerned with imposing some regulations.

The first anti-combines act in Canada was passed in 1888, long before you were on the scene, Mr. Chairman. In spite of this act, and in spite of subsequent amendments, anti-combines legislation is still not working to reduce corporate concentration in the food industry.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is discussing economics, perhaps — if he can — with the Minister of Agriculture. I really would like the Minister of Agriculture to have an opportunity to hear what I'm saying because he can listen to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development anytime. So I would like him to come to order.

Anyway, in spite of this act and in spite of subsequent amendments, anti-combines legislation is still not working to reduce corporate concentration in the food industry. We have that combines act, but what good is the act if governments do not have the courage and the understanding to use it?

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will indulge me in reading some of this, because it does have statistics. A 1978 report released by the federal Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration concluded that a high degree of corporate concentration is inevitable, and that no radical change in legislation concerning corporations is necessary. Now that's the report that came out. It is not surprising, therefore, that all three of the commissioners had connections with business. They are an appointed commission. Talk about special in-

[ Page 2520 ]

terests — the commissioners themselves were very interrelated with business. Naturally when the report came out they were out to protect themselves.

Earlier in 1978 the Saskatchewan government produced a position paper on federal food policy which blamed higher food prices in western Canada on corporate influence over food production and distribution. They called it as it is. They blamed higher food prices — and this is what I wish the Minister of Agriculture would pay some attention to — on corporate influence over food production and distribution. Yet that very same Minister of Agriculture — whose attention I'm trying to get, Mr. Chairman — is the very one who helped move B.C. into further corporate control by the sellout to Cargill.

Meat is produced in western Canada and costs more in the west than in Toronto because of the lack of competition here. The effect of corporate concentration on food prices and profits has been noted elsewhere as well. Loblaw's, the parent company of Kelly Douglas, justifies Kelly Douglas' $8.2 million earnings in 1977 by citing B.C.'s high population growth and the less intense competition here compared to Ontario. They are actually stating, therefore, that B.C. has less intense competition than even Ontario. Canada Safeway makes a higher rate of profit than its American parent. One explanation that it offers is that it's the different competitive situation in Canada. In other words, we have become the fall guys and girls — whatever you want to say — for the American Safeway corporate bodies.

In British Columbia Kelly Douglas and H.Y. Louie account for 92.8 percent of the independent wholesale trade. Because they take their profits at the wholesale level, they establish a base retail price level for food products. Safeway seems to set its prices below those of Super-Valu, and the other smaller retailers follow suit. According to the report on concentration and integration produced by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, this complex retail- wholesale interrelationship, particularly in the case of Super-Valu, has necessitated a marketing posture that does not rely wholly on price.

In 1976, supermarkets — those grocery stores with annual sales of more than $1 million — accounted for over 70 percent of all grocery store sales in B.C. Of those supermarket sales, about 75 percent went to the top four firms — Canada Safeway, Super-Valu, Overwaitea and Woodward's. Of all food store sales in B.C. in that year, over 50 percent went to those same four corporations.

I'm winding up this section, Mr. Chairman. According to the Batten report the results of corporate concentration include — I want to re-emphasize this particularly for those on the other side who do not seem to be concerned about the results of corporate concentration — excess profits, excess capacity in stores, and advertising practices that tend to create monopolies. Corporate concentration breeds more concentration, as the large firms squeeze out the independents. They prevent newcomers from entering the market by pre-empting shopping centres, signing restrictive leases, meeting competitors' prices only in nearby stores, and using excessive advertising. We've all seen this in our province. And with all this goes higher prices.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have not bored the House too much on this late afternoon in reading these statistics, but I feel it's most important to bring up these statistics to the members of the government constantly with the hope that they will finally attempt to stop this corporate takeover in British Columbia. The tragedy of it is that up to now instead of attempting to stop it they are helping to increase corporate control over the food industry in our province. I would like to hear the minister react to some of these statistics and perhaps he can explain to us why he would allow another large corporation to take over in this province.

Mr. Speaker, just before I conclude, there is one other area I'm particularly concerned about. As was mentioned before, it's the area of nutrition. Very briefly, I would just ask the Minister of Agriculture if he and the Minister of Education have had an opportunity recently to perhaps work together on a more concentrated program of nutritional advice for the school children of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the statistics, I'm aware of some of those mentioned by the member for Burnaby North and some of the comments she made from, I believe, the report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. There is some corporate concentration in the food industry, but in some instances I think I could give you the effect of good corporate citizens in the food industry or in the province.

I think one that I could mention would be Canada Safeway. They are a major retailer of food in this province. They are a subsidiary of the American Safeway corporation, but I can tell you that Canada Safeway management has come to the fore on a number of occasions where there has been a backup of a product in the agriculture industry. I can think of greenhouse tomatoes, where we've had concern, broiler chickens and turkeys, where Canada Safeway has come forward and attempted to the best of their ability to move a product, and have taken a lesser markup in doing so.

I met with one of the top officials and his staff in Richmond. I can't remember his exact title. He is a new western vice-president in charge of operations, I believe. The purpose of the meeting was for him, first of all, to meet myself and my staff, and, secondly, to give his assurance that Safeway would first look to British Columbia and that wherever there was an opportunity to assist, they would certainly do so.

In regard to the wholesaling sector of the food industry, you mentioned H.Y. Louie, Kelly Douglas, and I think another one. They handle a tremendous amount of food at the wholesale level. In many cases the ability to handle food, to distribute it, to market it, to have the expertise.... In an industry where the markup is small and you are dealing with a perishable product, I think those wholesalers assure a better return to the farmer than if you had the wholesale sector fragmented into 100 or 200 small operations where they didn't have the expertise or facilities to quickly handle food that is perishable.

So there is a concern, Madam Member, in regard to the corporate presence in the industry, in the same way as there is a concern about corporate presence in any sector of our economy where you have large multinationals or large corporations with a dominance in the marketplace. I just wanted to point out those few examples where I have seen an image of good corporate citizenship in British Columbia by such firms as Safeway.

In regard to the withdrawal of our objection to the sale of Maplewood to Cargill, I have mentioned this story before; I guess maybe I haven't emphasized it enough. First of all, we objected to the purchase, as you all well know. We had indications that there was a Canadian buyer. As a result, we

[ Page 2521 ]

stated our objection. The Canadian buyer decided to withdraw from the scene. From that point on this ministry, the turkey growers of the province and the owner attempted to find another Canadian purchaser, but to no avail. We were concerned, as I've also mentioned before, not with just the Maplewood operation but with the total turkey industry in this province, and with ensuring that that industry survives. They have to have a home for those turkeys. If the processing plant is not available, they just won't have the market for those turkeys, and we'll have a serious problem. We'd lose the turkey industry in the province.

I can tell the member that we've worked hard, and we have been successful in regard to the Sooke plant of Maplewood. That sale is all but complete. This ministry and the federal Ministry of Agriculture have, through the ARDSA program, assisted with $780,000 to the Pan Ready, the purchaser of the Sooke plant — which isn't mentioned in this House by the opposition; it's always an attack on what this government has done with regard to Cargill. We went that extra mile, and we've assisted the Pan Ready operation in acquiring the Sooke plant. That plant is operating today in spite, I guess, of all the news to the contrary that was mentioned last week. Those jobs are protected. We've given assistance to the turkey, broiler and spent fowl industry on this island; we've got a market for their products. Let's face it, there should be some recognition of that, Madam Member; unfortunately, we get very little.

I'd just like to compliment my staff on the long hours they've put in in attempting to resolve that problem — and also the federal Ministry of Agriculture; everybody worked as a team on that one. I think I'd also like to compliment the Pan Ready organization, because they moved in and operated that plant, as of today, even before the papers were finalized. They've made that commitment. I would just like to say that sometimes we get caught up in this philosophy regarding multinationals and corporate citizenship.

I mentioned the Maplewood situation and how we resolved the plant in Sooke, and I've mentioned before the commitments that Cargill has made to Ottawa and to ourselves, with regard to the purchase of the Maplewood plant in Clearbrook. My prime concern in all this discussion in the last few weeks has basically been to ensure that we have a turkey industry in this province, and one that has a future.

MR. LEVI: It's interesting to find out that the minister isn't too concerned about multinationals. It doesn't seem to have upset him too much. He gave us a little catalogue of all the good things that Safeway has done. I would remind him that in the report on concentration integration, which was done by the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, on page 160 they talk about improved market access. They make a statement, and I quote: "Because of the highly integrated nature of some B.C. firms, in particular Canada Safeway's integration into selected processing operations, processors do not have access to a portion of the overall retail market. This is an extremely difficult problem to resolve because virtually any alternative would, in all probability, result in high food costs to B.C. consumers."

I suppose we have to start, Mr. Chairman, with pointing out to the minister that it's not just this group over here or this party that have had a great deal to say over the past several years about the very serious problems that exist because of multinational corporations. When we debated with the minister last week and the week before around the question of Cargill it was much broader than just the Maplewood Poultry thing. It goes along with the philosophy of that government versus the philosophy of this government. It's very clear that you are prepared to give away the vital resources of this province, whether they're resources out of the ground or, in fact, control of companies. That's the basic difference. Arising from that we have to raise the serious question of the production of food and the cost of food.

We cannot continue to rationalize the cost of food by giving the answer as was given in the final report of the standing committee saying that British Columbia is doing better than most people because we're not paying quite as high. That's very nice if you look at the averages which they look at. But 25 percent to 30 percent of the people in this province live on some form of fixed income, whether it's unemployment insurance, pensions, GAIN or workers' compensation. These are people who find it extremely difficult to meet the food budget. Because of the combination of increasing food costs, which increase every week and sometimes every day.... We simply have to look at the minister's own release which deals with the British Columbia food market. Their latest release was May 7, in which they used Vancouver as an example, pointing out that in May 1978 the Vancouver food basket was $54.93 and now is $65.86. That represents an increase of almost 20 percent. But we should add for the rest of the province, particularly in the north and parts of Vancouver Island and the interior, another 10 to 15 percent, because that is what food is costing those people outside of the lower mainland area. We simply can't keep looking at Vancouver as the ideal place, because food costs go down in Vancouver. That doesn't mean in any way that food costs have gone down in other parts of the province, because they haven't. They have the added costs of transportation and the general problems of running businesses up there.

I want to address the minister to a report they produced at the end of the select standing committee. They spent about $3 million. So far we have not been able to see any of the movements in terms of the recommendations made in that report. I particularly want to draw the minister's attention to the latter part of chapter 11, which was "general policy issues." This was after the committee had met on and off for almost two and a half years. They had done a number of studies — I think in the order of at least 30 studies — and they talk about a number of proposals. I would like to ask the minister what the policy of the department is in respect to the government encouraging the reduction of the amount of food we import into this province by making it possible for an expansion in terms of the family farm.

I have spoken to young people who have an interest in getting into farming. Of course, they find it extremely difficult. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will tell us, first of all, if he is concerned that we have to produce far more of our own food. Almost 60 percent is coming in from the outside, most of it from the United States. In order to do that we quite obviously have to increase the number of farms that we have. What is the minister's policy? What have they developed since they've been government in making it possible for young people to get into fanning? I know about the assistance that is given to farming. In 1978 over $60 million on federal-provincial programs was going into farming.

Now what is the government doing in respect to looking at the number of family farms and how many need to be

[ Page 2522 ]

increased, and what particular products the government would like to see them get into in order to reduce that high import of food? It's very nice for the small minister with a small brain, with small — what is it? — economic development, to tell us how well the forestry industry does because it's able to sell forestry and gain something like 18 cents on the dollar because it goes overseas. But we have to bear in mind that 60 percent of our food is coming in with a surcharge of some 18 cents on the dollar because we're purchasing in places like the United States. So the consumer generally is getting the hard end of the stick. That's a serious problem in respect to how we develop those kinds of programs.

I know that one of the general policy issues which my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat has made reference to is the suggestion that they change the name of the department. I don't treat changing the name of a department lightly. I think that the name is important, providing it's followed up with policy. Some years ago I was responsible for the change of name of another department in order to give the public a much better view of what that department did. It's very important, I think, that the public recognize that if in fact the minister is going to change it to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, fine; but what will come along with the change of name? What kind of policies? What is the general approach to the government?

Are they prepared to say, as they said three years ago, I think, when they participated in the federal-provincial discussions in terms of a food policy.... It was a popular thing in 1977 and 1978 to try to develop a national food policy. Eugene Whelan wanted very badly to have a food policy. The underlying emphasis in the food policy was to try to make available to the consumer in the cheapest possible way the most nutritious food that was available. There were some discussions at that level. Two or three elections got in the way and it hasn't got anywhere.

Okay, it's time for the province of British Columbia to enunciate its food policy. That food policy, I'm suggesting, has to look towards an increase in our ability to produce food, particularly because we are offering young people — particularly young people that have grown up on farms — to get into the whole business of farming; to increasing the number of family farms, and not looking constantly at the statistics which show that the number of family farms is reducing.

There are also other problems which have been raised by my colleagues from Cowichan-Malahat and from Comox, about the acquisition of land by people outside the country.

What is the policy that the government has in respect to attempting to reduce the amount of food coming in? Do they have a program? Is it something that young people can really become interested in? In the north, for instance, can there be some kind of development? Because one of the more popular areas where land is being bought up is certainly in the north, where literally thousands — I think tens of thousands of acres are now being bought up by people who do not live in the country. This leads us to that whole discussion about whether in fact that government is ever going to have legislation which is going to stop the purchase of land in this province by people outside — something which other provinces and other jurisdictions in North America have done. As serious and important as it is for us to be looking at our other resources, our most basic resource — and it's not renewable — is land. What kind of legislation is the government prepared to look at? Are they prepared to look at that forbidding of the purchase of large amounts of land by people outside of the country — where we have this absentee ownership — because that's a very important area.

That's the first area that one has to look at, in terms of what we are going to do to expand the number of farms — the whole business of creating more employment and creating more production in terms of food, so that we don't have to rely on what's going on in the United States particularly. There may come a time when in the United States they'll have to say to us: "We can't assist you anymore in the way that we thought we could." And then we have to rely on other offshore markets, where the cost of food will become extremely expensive. Then we will be in more serious trouble.

Now what is the strategy of that ministry? After all, in the final report of the committee they talked about general policy issues. All right, we've covered the question of the change of name, and I go along with the change of name, providing that behind the addition of Ministry of Agriculture and Food goes the whole explanation from the minister of a strategy of food. A strategy on the protection of land, particularly by people who are buying it from outside, is an important concomitant of what you're going to plan in terms of the provision of more food within British Columbia.

Certainly a lead was made by the previous government in terms of the financial assistance, and the federal government is assisting as well. And that was done, I think, in part because this is a recognition that we do need to become more self-reliant — not only as a province, but as a nation. So they have moved on in some positive way to do that.

There is the whole question of what is going to happen with the issues of corporate concentration. My colleague, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), has talked about corporate concentration. There are some serious problems. No doubt later on in the estimates under another ministry — I thought the ministry might have been called Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; then we could have dealt with all the food components under one ministry — we are going to be having some debates in this House in respect to the serious corporate concentration in the fisheries industry. I think that it behooves the government, first of all, to look at the idea of merging those three: food, fisheries and agriculture. That is the food base of our province.

We have to come to grips with the question of corporate concentration. We are seeing what is happening to the fisheries industry, in terms of that severe concentration. I know the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is looking and listening very intently. It comes under his ministry, I think. It is an inappropriate ministry for it to be under, but we will have to argue that when it comes up. It is inappropriate because that is part of the food chain. His function, in terms of the environment, is the protection of the food chain. We want the Minister of Agriculture to be a part of and responsible for the policy development of the whole food chain.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The minister has said that. Now that he has raised that very question.... He says, Mr. Member for Vancouver East: "Would I trust that minister to administer it?" That's what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he didn't say that. He was misquoted.

[ Page 2523 ]

You did not say: "Would I trust that minister to look after fish?" I wouldn't trust that minister to look after my tractor, never mind fish.

Now that we have had an interesting, light moment, the question is: if the government is developing a food policy, which the minister is making the first tentative steps towards, of having some administrative control over food, I hope that the minister will talk to the new Minister of Environment and tell him to be prepared to relinquish the fisheries. Then you will have a ministry dealing with all the aspects of food. That is worthwhile. If that is what the government is going to do, then we would like the minister to tell us. We have had no indication from the minister at all in any of the remarks that he has made so far in the debate that he has developed any kind of a food policy, that the government has a food policy, that it has looked at what is going to happen to the development of the family farm so that young people can get into farming — and not just those young people who are inheriting farms from their families. I'm told generally that the only way you can get Crown land is to have a farm, and then you can always get some extra land. But it's very difficult for somebody who wants to start out.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: What do you think I've been saying? You've got to make land available. In the area where he comes from, Mr. Chairman, land is being sold to people from outside the country and that's a very serious problem in view of the fact.... I was up there talking to young people who said to me: "They're selling the land to people outside and we, as British Columbians, can't get land in the province." That has to be looked at, because that's part of the food policy of the government. You're going to need to have that controlled.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know what you're talking about. You never did and you never will.

MR. LEVI: Ah, there's the minister, the one who's got his mind in neutral and his mouth in top gear. There he goes. There's the minister who sits quietly by while land in his riding is being sold by the hundreds and thousands of acres to people outside the country. If you think that is a good policy, Mr. Chairman — because he does — then that's part and parcel of the general giveaway of that government, in terms of how they are prepared to give away the resources of the province. You can always tell when you hit a nerve with that guy; he can never shut up.

MR. MACDONALD: What did you do to Ohira?

MR. LEVI: He hasn't done anything.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: He gave Ohira the chop; he's given young people up in his riding the chop. He doesn't care that they want to farm and he's not prepared to do anything. He doesn't do anything. He's never gotten up in this House and spoken once under development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When you were government you shovelled money out of the back end of a truck.

MR. LEVI: Will you bring that member to order, Mr. Chairman? He's the most disorderly member in this House, next to the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Order!

MR. LEVI: That got his attention!

Let me just recap for the minister the questions I'd like him to answer. What progress is the ministry making towards the development of a food policy? What is he prepared to offer those young people in this province in terms of assistance and advice to help them get into farming — the object of that being, as part of the food policy, that we become more self-sufficient and won't have to import any more than we have to and reduce that 60 percent? What is he doing? Has he given any consideration to bringing in legislation? Has he thought about it at all in terms of the terrible problems we have with the buying up of land, particularly farmland, by people who live outside the country, and particularly in the north? What is he prepared to do in terms of the policy proposals made in the report? What is he doing? Has he done anything at all?

He tells us that corporate consultation isn't such a bad thing; he's been able to call on Safeway, and they have done a couple of things to bail him out in terms of products. Okay, that's fine, but we re not talking about that kind of corporate responsibility. There's more to it in terms of the multinational and the transnational kind of control exerted. When you examine the composition of the Safeway empire, you know very well that it wields an enormous amount of influence in the whole food industry.

So I ask the minister to make some comments on the points I've raised with him. particularly in respect to foo& policy, the buying of land by people outside the country, and what he is doing about making land available to young people to do some farming.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to people moving into farming, we had an expansion of about 12 percent in food production in this province in the past year. The numbers of farm operators in the province is up to 20,300; just a few years ago it was about 18,000. There is a considerable amount of activity. There are new people coming on the farm. They can't just be the sons and daughters. The numbers are increasing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

In regard to imported products. with the federal government we were successful in the GATT negotiations in getting some seasonal tariffs placed on some of the commodities imported into the province. Along with the 85-cent Canadian dollar, it certainly has made our products somewhat more competitive with the low-cost, southern United States fruit and vegetables. So we've got a certain amount of activity, I think, in the agricultural field. Revenues certainly are up in that area, although I grant you expenses are as well.

With the numbers of people coming in, we've got the programs — the ARDSA program, and the ALDA program, and the Agricultural Credit Program. Lands, Parks and Housing, I believe, made some agricultural land available in the Peace River country. That was made available to people to acquire land and get into fanning.

[ Page 2524 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's more coming.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing tells me there's more coming.

I want you to know, Mr. Member, that those leases are normally agricultural leases, but with an option to purchase. In other words, they become property owners as opposed to tenants. Isn't that correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Which is a good policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, we were doing so well.

I would like to deal at a later time with the reorganization of the ministry, the regionalization of service.... We have the various divisions in the ministry — field operations, marketing and economics, financial assistance. We have all these various divisions, or branches, of the ministry, and their prime goal, of course, is to carry out the policies of the ministry to assist the agriculture and the food industry in this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

MR. HOWARD: Pursuant to the rulings you made earlier today, realizing there's nothing compelling on the part of the government to do it, I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us what business we'll be dealing with tomorrow.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to. We'll continue in Committee of Supply with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and several other ministers before the day is out.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

APPENDIX

9 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Forests the following questions:

1. Was Island Shake & Shingle the successful bidder for any offering of timber made by the B.C. Forest Service in the general area of Lake Cowichan?

2. If yes, (a) When was this sale completed? (b) How much timber was involved? (c) What were the terms of the sale? (d) Were there any other bidders and if so, who?

The Hon. T. M. Waterland replied as follows:

"1. No."