[ Page 2525 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 16). Hon.

Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 2525

Ministerial Statement

Quebec Referendum.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2525

Mr. Barrett –– 2526

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Victoria-Seattle ferry service. Mr. Skelly –– 2526

Acute-care hospital at UBC. Mr. Cocke –– 2527

Neighbourhood pub licences. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 2527

Medication for handicapped schoolchildren. Mrs. Dailly –– 2527

Unemployment at Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead –– 2527

Proposed mill at Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead –– 2528

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2528

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2529

Mr. Leggatt –– 2530

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2532

Mr. Levi –– 2533

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2534

Mr. Stupich –– 2535

Mr. Ritchie –– 2535

Mr. Cocke –– 2536

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2538

Mr. King –– 2539

Mr. Mussallem –– 2540

Mr. Barber –– 2541

Mr. Hanson –– 2548

Royal Assent to bills –– 2550

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce two very special guests who have come to us from the Mother of Parliaments in London. In 1964-65, Mr. Merlyn Rees was parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon. James Callaghan. Through those years right up until 1976-79 he served in the Labour Party government. He finished his term with that government as Home Secretary. Mr. Rees is accompanied by his wife Colleen. They have spent five days in British Columbia. Over those five days they have been impressed with the beauty of British Columbia and the dissimilarity of politics. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, let me share in the warm welcome to British Columbia by the Leader of the Opposition. We are always willing to share our province with those who come to visit from the Mother of Parliaments in England, and also to share it with many of those who have come to make British Columbia their new home. I also bid a warm welcome and share in the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. MACDONALD: I have the honour to welcome into the galleries three of my cousins, Miss Emily Chew of Vancouver, formerly of Penang, and Miss Lilian Lai and Miss Christina Lai, both of Singapore.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I am sure many of us noticed how quickly Captain Merritt left the chambers after offering prayers today. The reason is, as he advised us, that today his daughter gave birth to his first grandchild. Christopher David. I think we should congratulate the captain and his family.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like the House to welcome today a group of grade 7 students from Scarborough, Ontario, who are here visiting their counterparts at Monterey Elementary School in the heart of south Oak Bay. I ask the House to welcome them, along with their principal. Mr. Lane.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't have the opportunity to complete my introductions. I want to thank the Premier for his comments. Accompanying Mr. and Mrs. Rees in the gallery are Michael Morgan, Mary-Joe Campbell-Morgan and Glyn Jones.

HON. MR. McGEER: In the buildings today, but not with us right at the moment, are 54 grade 10 students from the Little Flower Academy in the riding of Point Grey. I would like the members to welcome them when they arrive.

There is a guest in the galleries with us right now who is one of the most famous band leaders of all time. Mr. Rudy Vallee is in Victoria to do a benefit concert at the McPherson Playhouse tomorrow night. Rudy tells us that it is the Preatest sound system in the world that he'll be playing through tomorrow night. He would like you to be there for this special performance celebrating his 50 years in show business. The proceeds will go to the Lord Chamberlain Players here in town. I wonder if the members could welcome one of the great band leaders of all time, Mr. Rudy Vallee.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, the members will make good music here this afternoon.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today. under the guidance of their teacher. Jim Adams, we have a group of students from Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver. During this past week. these students have been host to students from Nelson McIntyre Collegiate in St. Boniface, who came to North Vancouver under the guidance of their teachers, Lenna Glade and Bill Peckman. I would like this House to welcome the students from St. Boniface and also the students from North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. HANSON: I would like the House to join me in welcoming someone in the gallery today who works very hard on behalf of various cultural groups here in Victoria, Mr. Willie Swami.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, would the House please welcome a class from my constituency. They are from the Bradner Elementary School and are accompanied by their teachers, Miss Barron and Miss Sasaki.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a Victorian, Mr. Victor Nundoo, and Mr. Ahmed Patel from Vancouver.

Introduction of Bills

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 16, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1980, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

QUEBEC REFERENDUM

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement concerning the referendum that took place in the province of Quebec. Yesterday was a day of decision, not a final decision, but a decision by the people of Quebec to try and come to the table of Confederation and join with all provinces to build a new Confederation within the framework of our country.

I think all members of this House take heart that the people of Quebec rejected leaving the country — or association from outside the country — and chose Canada and a route of building the country from within instead. I know that I speak for all British Columbians when I express our desire to work not only with the province of Quebec, but with the other provincial governments and the government of Canada, and to meet at the table of Confederation to resolve not just those problems or concerns brought out in the referendum debate in Quebec, but concerns that have been expressed by our provinces in the Atlantic region, concerns that have been expressed here in British Columbia, and to deal with,

[ Page 2526 ]

hopefully in a positive and decisive way, the solutions that have been offered from a number of quarters.

In our patriotism and the decision of yesterday there may, perhaps, be some false expectation that the things that are wanted by the people of Quebec and the people of British Columbia can be easily achieved. Mr. Speaker, we see this only as the beginning of a very difficult task, one in which resolution cannot be achieved easily, but can be achieved if we have the type of dedication, flexibility and commitment to the country as a whole that will be required from all regions in order to accommodate one another within this great country.

Yesterday the people of Quebec said they want to pursue this course. I feel proud, with the members of this Legislature, that I was able to deliver on their behalf the results of a resolution passed unanimously in this Legislature and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition before that vote. I hope in some small way this encouraged them to make the decision to work within our country to resolve their disputes and their concerns and to build a better future for themselves and ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, today is a beginning. The referendum was not the end; it is a beginning of a challenge that can turn into Canada's finest opportunity. It is a chance to further develop a country that has unlimited possibilities if we have the will to set up the government structures that allow it to work, the flexibility to appreciate the differences of the regions, the language and the culture and if we allow the relationship between our people to grow to its fullest.

Yesterday then, Mr. Speaker, was another beginning for our country.

MR. BARRETT: May I thank the Premier for his statement and respond with just a few brief comments. It is true, as the Premier stated, that yesterday must be viewed as a beginning rather than an ending. I think all serious Canadians view the results of that vote in those terms.

If there is any impression abroad that a great victory has been won on the basis of logic and reason, that feeling may lead to the false impression that the problems that have been long-lasting in people's minds in regions of this country will be solved quickly with a written constitution. Such has not been the case with mankind. Laws and constitutions have been written and broken, but when there is a sense of good will, an understanding of tradition and a commitment to a greater understanding of what a nation is, then written words will indeed be the binding force.

We've had the opportunity in this country to express to our fellow Canadians in Quebec a sense of solidarity about this country. We're proud of its past, we're unsure of its future, but there's no doubt that there's an indication from a very good percentage of people that they want to try to make this country work in the best interests of as many people as possible.

I have only a couple of more things to say, Mr. Speaker, and that is that I feel that there should be a sense of humility for all of us who supported the no position and an understanding, openness and generousness to the 40 percent who voted yes. Those people, as witnessed on television last night, represent, obviously, a whole new young generation in Quebec. The statistics that gave the age breakdown of the vote indicated that most of the young people in Quebec voted for the referendum. It is those people to whom we must reach out; it is those people who become the challenge; it is those people who we must convince, as they look to their future as Canadians, that Canada is the place where they can fulfil their futures. I wish all peoples in this country involved in the development of the new constitution the greatest possible success, and I hope that there is the greatest possible involvement in drafting that constitution.

Oral Questions

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY SERVICE

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Will the minister confirm that during the past long weekend the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess combined carried 2,400 fewer passengers than did the Princess Marguerite in the same weekend of 1979?

HON. MR. FRASER: The answer to that is no, but I have some figures which I am pleased to give to the House. There were 3,424 passengers transported to Victoria from Seattle on board the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess during the first six days of the new royal service. I am pleased with the apparent acceptance of this, because during the first six days of the service provided last year by B.C. Steamship Company, 2,406 passengers were transported to Victoria from Seattle.

MR. SKELLY: In answering, the minister used two sets of figures. I wish him to clarify the figures for the May long weekend in Victoria. I hope that the minister will take the question as notice. Obviously, in his rush to prepare himself for the question, he did not get the dates or the figures, and I would urge the minister to check. Did the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess carry 2,400 fewer passengers than did the Marguerite in the May long weekend?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll repeat what I just said. For the first six days it increased by 1,000 passengers or an equivalent of 42 percent.

MR. SKELLY: The minister is also including people who were invited by the Social Credit government to take a tour on the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess and also those who were invited by Boeing Aircraft Corporation. The figures as a result are distorted.

I would ask the minister to confine himself to the three days when the thing was operating in free enterprise in the free market. That is what he should be concerned about.

I would also like to ask the Minister of Tourism, if I may, if she agrees that the decline in passengers on the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess for that holiday weekend represents a loss of tens of thousands of tourist dollars in the city of Victoria during the May long weekend over the previous May long weekend.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate that member's genuine interest in seeing this exciting new project become a major success, and I regret very much to advise him that his statements are wrong.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Would he confirm for the House that the Victoria Princess had 83 crew members

[ Page 2527 ]

and 72 passengers on board for its 6 o'clock sailing from Victoria on Saturday — less than 10 percent of a similar departure last year?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that at all. I don't go and look for pessimistic answers; I look for optimistic answers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the B.C. Ferry Corporation finally reached an agreement with the B.C. Steamship Company as to what the rental or lease fee will be for the Victoria Princess, formerly known as the Queen of Prince Rupert, for the Victoria-Seattle route'?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to answer the member, they are working on it, and in due course they will come to a very good arrangement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not familiar with what is happening in his own ministry. I will try another question. Over what period of time will the B.C. Steamship Company be leasing the Victoria Princess from the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

HON. MR. FRASER: From approximately last week until approximately October 7, I believe,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You guys want it to fail, don't you'?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

ACUTE-CARE HOSPITAL AT UBC

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, first, if I might ask if there is a doctor in the House. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Has the minister approved the operating budget of the new acute-care community hospital at UBC, otherwise known as the monument to McGeer?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's too bad; I was going to answer the second part. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. COCKE: Is it not unusual to have no decision reached on a budget so soon before opening? Normally the operating budgets are months and sometimes over a year before the opening; and the opening. I understand, is very soon.

HON. MR. MAIR: I can scarcely answer that question, having taken the first question as notice. I'll take that as notice as well.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise the House when the battle will be resolved between the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications and the Ministry of Health over the potential $600 per patient-day which is the proposed budget at that hospital?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I find that a very difficult question to answer, but I will certainly take a look at the entire question of the budget and bring an answer back to the House. I want to assure the members of this House that relations have never been more cordial between the good doctor and myself. We went out and opened that great university medical hospital the other day to a wonderful crowd. I think the House would be proud if they could see the institution now there, largely owing to the efforts of this great minister.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB LICENCES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A question was asked last week by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald): "Following the order-in-council of April 20, 1978, creating marine pub houses" — a new category of neighbourhood pub — "did the liquor administration issue a pre-clearance letter within four days to a company that became Grammas Marine Inn, of which the directors were R. Dale Janowsky and other members of his family? Did that pre-clearance letter go out and, if so, when?" To respond, the preclearance for an F licence to All Sports Marine Ltd. was drawn up on April 25, 1978, and forwarded to the solicitor for that company by Mr. B.E. Munkley, the then director of licensing.

The second question was: "If what I have stated is the case, that the pre-clearance letter went out within four days of the creation of these pubs, did the pre-clearance letter go out before an application for a marine pub house licence could have been received and in fact was received?" The answer to that question is no.

"Is it also true that under the old regulations relating to neighbourhood pub licences, this application could not have been granted because the site requested was within one mile of another site of a neighbourhood pub?" The answer is no; it can be a matter of discretion for the general manager.

MEDICATION FOR
HANDICAPPED SCHOOLCHILDREN

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Education. The mainstreaming of handicapped children has increased the number of children at medical risk attending school in our province. Such children require medication on a daily basis. There are few, if any, persons attached to our schools who are qualified under the Medical Act to administer such medication on a daily basis. What steps has the minister taken to provide medical personnel for this purpose'?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take the question as notice. I assure the member that it's a matter also of concern to me that teachers are in some districts being required to administer medication to a degree that goes beyond the handing out of an aspirin. I share the member's concern and I will respond at more length in due course. I thank the member.

UNEMPLOYMENT AT OCEAN FALLS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour. Of the 423 people who used to be employed at Ocean Falls. only about 200 have found em-

[ Page 2528 ]

ployment at other work. Only 32 of these new jobs are in the pulp and paper industry and are mostly in supervisory capacities, and about 100 of these people have had to find their own jobs. This leaves about 200 people totally unemployed in Ocean Falls. Has the minister contacted the 21 other pulp operations in the province of British Columbia in an attempt to persuade these operators to take on additional employees from Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I received a request something like at least six weeks ago to write to all of the other operations who have pulp mills, and I have received a reply — as a matter of fact, a very positive reply — from a good number of them. Also, I might add that many of the mills did send some of their industrial relations and employment personnel to Ocean Falls to interview a number of those people who were employed. Although the member did refer just to whether or not contact had been made with others, the other matters which he raised I would like to take as notice and provide a full answer in due course, if that's acceptable to the member.

There are a number of things, and I have been meeting with people in my ministry, Mr. Speaker — manpower, consultative services, joint programs between the federal and provincial governments — to assist most of these people.

PROPOSED MILL AT OCEAN FALLS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. At the time the government announced the Ocean Falls shutdown, it was announced that a flitch and chip operation would partially take its place. Can the minister advise whether a source of timber supply has been arranged for the proposed new operation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Forests ministry has been working very closely with personnel and consultants of the Ocean Falls Corporation in an attempt to determine areas which they could operate in. As the member recalls, one of the problems we had in the Ocean Falls area was that a lot of wood that was apparent in the area was classified as sub economic under normal operating and wood usage conditions. We have been working with the consultants, with the corporation, to find an area. I can't tell the member if that has been accomplished at this date, but as of a few weeks ago I understood that they were very close to actually picking areas that could be operated on a trial basis, as was the intention of the experiment by Ocean Falls Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

I have one further question for the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I noticed that.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise with you relates in part to the ruling you made yesterday about quotations by ministers of the Crown from documents which are identified as state documents and the like.

You will recall that on May 5 the Premier quoted from a document, and I read from Hansard for that day on page 2265:

Just to finally conclude it, from the federal-provincial first ministers' conference, February 5 and 6, 1979, summary record of proceedings No. 155: "The Premier of British Columbia indicated they also supported the draft text, but felt that it should be within provincial Jurisdiction to regulate companies such as B.C. Tel, which operates solely within the province."

I'm not able to find in Votes and Proceedings for yesterday that that particular document has been tabled pursuant to the ruling that you made yesterday, and the document appears to fall within the prescribed requirements. I wonder if we could inquire whether the Premier will table that particular document now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Inasmuch as it did occasion some 16 days ago, would you allow me just a short time to review the matter and bring the instance back to the House.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to that number of days ago, Mr. Speaker, I should say that when the committee rose and reported to the House, I raised it at that time as a point of order. You took it under advisement, and yesterday's ruling followed upon the point of order I raised on that day.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform all of the hon. members that His Honour the Administrator will be coming to the assembly this afternoon at about 5:45 to give royal assent to some bills.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE: Yesterday we had a rather low-key debate — in the shadow of Mount St. Helens and the referendum — dealing with the problems of agriculture. But as I thought over and reviewed Hansard, I had some concerns about the kind of answers that we received during the course of that debate. I am concerned that the kind of answers the minister has given this Legislature relative to.... For example, when I raised the question of the sale of raw milk, in the discussions following that the minister indicated: "Well, if they're going to sell it over the back fence that's okay; it's not in accordance with the law, they're breaking the law, but, okay, they can sell it; we're not going to investigate that." That's a very strange attitude for someone who is charged with the responsibility of making the laws of this province.

When my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) spoke of the problems that one of his constituents was facing relative to disease in his swine — atrophic rhinitis, a very contagious disease — that minister stood up and said: "Well, you know, the farmer didn't ask whether or not the product he bought was diseased or whether it was well." That's a very strange attitude. Is that the attitude we take when we're dealing with the government? Let the buyer beware that the government will sell him a diseased animal if he doesn't ask whether or not, it's diseased. That's a very strange attitude from the Minister of Agriculture.

[ Page 2529 ]

When my colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was speaking about her concerns about the corporate concentration in the food industry in this province, the minister stood in his place and said: "Well, you know, we have good dealings, good relationships with these large corporations.''

He showed no concern for an overall food policy, as was laid out by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). I don't think that's good enough for such a basic industry as agriculture. I'm not at all satisfied with those kinds of answers.

I'm not at all satisfied either with the kind of financial assistance that that minister seems to be prepared to give to agriculture in this province. He said yesterday that we never give him any credit, and he talked about the Maplewood plant in Sooke — how hard they had worked and how that had been arranged — and gave credit to Pan Ready Poultry Ltd. I congratulate the minister, his staff and Pan Ready on that operation. That's good. But how can we congratulate if we don't know? That was the first I was aware that that deal had been completed. I'm very happy that that has been completed and is underway. That's the way it should be: a local British Columbia company is taking over an operation that will be of benefit to both the producers and the consumers — and to the province generally in the economic arena. That's the way it should be. But when we come to the other half of that Maplewood plant, instead of that minister being prepared to make some low-interest money available to another group of producers.... I don't understand how he can stand in his place and say there were no other producers or no other local concerns prepared to take that over, because that certainly is not my understanding.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Name names.

MRS. WALLACE: He's saying: "Name names.'' The turkey breeders and turkey raisers in this province were prepared to take that over. They needed about $3.5 million of low-interest money, but this government was not prepared to put that kind of money into the agriculture industry in this province. They also needed — according to the minister's reports, I understand — a guaranteed loan to cover possible losses. The turkey growers don't think they would have those kinds of losses. But if they did need that guarantee, why not?

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister keeps saying: "I'm not going to buy it if that's what you want me to do." I would like him to do that, but I know he's not going to do that, and I'm not going to ask him to do that, because I know that's contrary to his philosophy. I wouldn't ask him to do something that was so completely in opposition to the things that he believes.

But that government does believe in pumping money into private enterprise to assist it. Why is there money available for everything but that particular agricultural plant — and other agricultural plants; a parallel case on a much smaller scale is the Willowbrook hog processing plant. My understanding is that they thought they had a government guarantee, but it didn't come through. As a result, that plant is now in the hands of the receivers, and producers who shipped into that plant before the end of April have not received payment for their pigs. The bank is now operating it and people who were fortunate enough to ship after May 1 are receiving payment. A little government money in that plant would have helped.

But we have this kind of situation where the minister sits back — no funding available. The plants are going bankrupt; the banks are taking over the operation of Willowbrook, and in the case of Maplewood, this minister has gone from one position to another and is now back in the position of allowing Cargill to come into this province again, even more so. We have said in this House before that the first mistake that minister made was in selling Panco to Cargill in the first place. Now he's in a position of going to allow them to extend their stranglehold, as it were, on the poultry industry. How can the minister take that stand after having said: "Look, we don't want them in because of the kind of corporate concentration that that's going to put into the hands of one particular corporation."? How can he reverse his stand on that position when the answer is right at his fingertips? It's simply a matter of assisting the local processors to get involved.

I can't help but wonder if somehow Cargill has already managed to get that minister in such a position that he can't say no. Obviously when Panco was sold there were no provisions in the contract with Cargill to ensure that the kind of improvements and expansion that they had intended to put in place would be carried out. What is the situation between that minister and the international corporation Cargill? Why has that minister taken these reverse positions rather than make a little bit of money available to ensure that that processing plant would remain in Canadian and British Columbian hands?

He tells us there's no other buyer. There is another buyer. The problem is that the government will not make funding available to that buyer. I am surprised, if this government and that minister have the kind of commitment they try to tell us they have to the agricultural industry in this province, why he is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is. That's the question I'm posing to that minister and that's the concern that we on this side of the House have relative to his most recent stand on Cargill. Now he's changed his mind before. He can change it again. The first time is the hardest, they say, and he's changed it many times. I'm hoping that during the course of this debate we can persuade the minister to change his mind once more and keep that international conglomerate out of our poultry industry, out of any further extension into the poultry industry so they do not control the 100 percent of hatching eggs, the 80 percent of turkeys and the 42 percent of broilers that they will control if he persists in the direction that he is now embarked upon. I just cannot express too strongly my concerns on this matter. I think the minister has a responsibility to face up to that decision and to change his mind once more, because that's the way to go, Mr. Chairman. If he would stand up and say he changed his mind, he would get nothing but applause from this side of the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think I should spend a few minutes on Cargill and Maplewood Poultry, for the record if nothing else.

I would like to go back in history in regard to why this government and this minister got caught, you might say, in the position that they found themselves in. In regard to the purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Let me give you some dates and some information. Madam Member, I'll table these letters if you so desire after I make my comments.

[ Page 2530 ]

On March 11 we received a letter from the Pan Ready Poultry Ltd. As you know, Madam Member, FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, looks to the province for its comments regarding any acquisition of a Canadian company by foreign interests. We had not responded to their request for our comments at that particular time and on March 11 I received this letter regarding the sale of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. in Clearbrook from Pan Ready Poultry Ltd.

"For your information I have been directed by the president of Pan Ready Poultry Ltd., Irving Reid, to send you the information contained in telegrams and letters sent to the Hon. Eugene Whelan, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa, and the Foreign Investment Review Board, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, letter of April 6, 1980, as follows and a copy of March 3 as attached.

"'The directors of Pan Ready Poultry Ltd., a British Columbia-owned poultry processing plant, are in a willing position to purchase Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd. The necessary financial undertaking has been approved by our bankers, a letter to follow. Signed, I. Reid, President, and four directors of Pan Ready Poultry.'

"The attached letter dated March 3, 1980, states the steps and conditions to be taken in the purchase of Maplewood Poultry Processors, Clearbrook, and J.J. Hambley Hatcheries Ltd. The letter has been agreed to and signed by Mr. Hambley, President, Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd."

W.J. Chesham, Secretary,
Pan Ready Poultry."

The Telex sent to Ottawa to the Hon. Herb Gray states, in regard to British Columbia's position:

PAN READY POULTRY, A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PACIFIC POULTRY PRODUCERS' COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, B.C.-BASED AND 100 PERCENT CANADIAN, HAS A SERIOUS INTENTION OF ACQUIRING MAPLEWOOD. PAN READY HAS RECEIVED AN UNDERTAKING FROM MAPLEWOOD'S OWNER WHICH ALLOWS THEM ACCESS TO FINANCIAL RECORDS AND PLANT RECORDS. FURTHERMORE, PAN READY HAS INDICATED THAT BANK FINANCING IS NOT A PROBLEM, AS A RESULT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, B.C. STRONGLY OPPOSES CARGILL'S APPLICATION.

That telegram was drafted and, I believe, was out on March 20.

On April 3, 1980, we received a telegram from Mr. Irving Reid, President, Pan Ready Poultry.

FURTHER TO OUR LETTER AND TELEGRAM OF MARCH 6 IN REGARD TO THE POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS LTD. AND J.J. HAMBLY HATCHERIES LTD. OF CLEARBROOK, B.C., AFTER THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE CASH FLOW POTENTIAL OF ABOVE-MENTIONED PLANTS IT IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR US TO CARRY THE CURRENT BANK INTEREST ON THE ASKING PRICE OF THE ASSETS OF $2.8 MILLION AND A FURTHER $2 MILLION ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE IN INVENTORY.

IRVING REID PRESIDENT, PAN READY POULTRY

As a result of that, of course, this ministry, this minister and the turkey producers — if the member hearkens back to some of the discussion that she has raised in this House before — had meetings and attempted to resolve the problem. One of the possibilities was the turkey producers, as the member mentioned.

The turkey producers advised after a number of meetings that they were in a position to raise $200,000 on an asset that would cost them, to get into operation, $6.5 million. I believe the figures were $2.2 million in capital and $1.4 million in improvements. A $1.5 million loss would be placed before them because of the market for turkeys, the large inventory and the long term before their major marketing seasons of Thanksgiving and Christmas. And $1.5 million for operating capital.

That's $200,000 with 3 to 31/2 percent equity. I think the member would agree that that is a very small equity to place before the government in regard to our programs to look at assistance. The operating costs that would be incurred may place that investment at risk, even though they may be able to obtain some government assistance. The percentages just didn't work out, Madam Member. We had several more meetings and discussions in attempting to see whether or not we could resolve it. I would suggest to you that this ministry and this government certainly looked at the turkey producers. They looked at a $200,000 equity on a $6.5 million operation.

The member neglects to comment.... Well, I guess she did comment briefly on the fact that $780,000 was made available through government assistance under our ARDSA program for Pan Ready Poultry, the company which advised us that they were in a willing position to buy Maplewood at Clearbrook and then reneged — after investigation, to give them their due. Nevertheless, they advised us two weeks later, after we took our stand with FIRA, that they couldn't proceed. In attempting to resolve the matter of having a processing plant on Vancouver Island, and also to complete the sale which would give moneys to the owner of Maplewood to resolve his problems, we provided for $780,000 worth of ARDSA assistance for Pan Ready Poultry to buy the Sooke plant — that deal which now has been completed.

For the record — I wanted to get it on the record with some of the comments that have been made — this ministry took a stand with FIRA and with the federal government because there was a willing Canadian buyer. When that failed, we made every effort to resolve the problem and attempt to find another buyer. So did the owner of Maplewood, but to no avail. As I have mentioned in this House before, the Maplewood processing plant is the tip of the iceberg. My major concern is to have a plant available for the processing of turkeys and chickens for the producers of this province.

MR. LEGGATT: I want the minister to respond to a series of questions, if he would, concerning the Cargill-Maplewood problem. One of the rationales — in fact the major rationale — the minister provided to the House in terms of the sale of Panco was that vertical integration was an evil thing. I think he would get some agreement from this side of the House on that. But the purpose of the Panco Poultry sale to Cargill initially was to prevent what he perceived as a government operation spreading vertically into the industry. He is now faced with the position where, rather than having a publicly owned British Columbia corporation operating in the industry, he has a privately owned multinational corporation, which is either the largest or the second largest in the world — they are right next to Kraft; they run

[ Page 2531 ]

one and two and I'm never sure which is first — and which is about to hold a clearly dominating position in the industry in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For the minister to stand up and say, "Well, we offered $780,000 here...." Cargill finds those figures miniscule. Cargill is not particularly interested in running its Panco operation at a profit, on the simple ground that they have some long-term objectives. One of the great difficulties is that this government doesn't have any long-term objectives. Cargill is a multinational corporation that knows where it's going. This government looks silly, because it doesn't know where it's going in terms of this particular industry.

I want to direct some specific questions to the minister. He may have full answers to them, and I would appreciate him responding if he could. I know he's busy with his assistants, but could I direct a couple of specific questions to him?

I would like the minister to advise, first of all, whether he's made a complete inquiry as to the reason for the Maplewood failure, and whether the Maplewood failure had anything to do with the price of turkeys over the last two years — particularly anything to do with the price of the turkeys that have come into the market since Cargill began processing turkeys at the Panco operation. The reason I raise this question is that I can recall two. three or four months ago — just as a person walking through a supermarket — finding turkey at 90 cents a pound. Now that's a bargain. We all have a duty to smile for the consumer when we see bargains like that, but I get suspicious when I see a bargain like that. I get suspicious because somebody might be loss-leadering, somebody might be out there manipulating those prices down to the point where their competition goes out of business.

I'd like the minister to look at section 34(1) of the Combines Investigation Act, and I'll read it for the record. section 34(1) says:

"Everyone engaged in a business, who (c) engages in a policy of selling articles at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor, or designed to have such effect, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years."

The question I have for the minister is this: has the minister inquired into the real reason for the low price of turkeys in the past two or three months, and was that price contributed to by the policies of the Cargill company and the operation of the Panco Poultry plant? In other words, was Maplewood faced with unfair competition because they had a giant multinational operation which could afford to stand losses over a very long period of time? The smaller operation could not afford to stand those losses and, of course, has wound up in serious financial difficulty and in receivership.

I know the minister will no doubt want to raise the marketing system in his answer, and I'd be pleased, because, quite frankly, I'd like to learn a little more about the way marketing boards operate in the turkey business. But I still know something about the Combines Investigation Act. I'm deeply concerned that once you've allowed a major multinational the size of Cargill — a company with fantastic resources, which can stand to lose as much as it likes over an indefinite period of time — to come into the province of British Columbia, that might have the impact of driving the price of the product down and leaving the small processor out of luck in the province of British Columbia. Now I know that was one of the reasons the minister gave for the original sale of the public British Columbia corporation to Cargill, and I would like the minister to direct his attention to that specifically.

The second question I'd like the minister to direct his attention to lies in the operation of the Maplewood plant itself — the reasons for Maplewood's failure. Why was that not an economically viable operation in an industry which had been economically viable? For example, in an industry where we have a quota system, why was Maplewood unable to compete with Panco? Why is Panco alive, Cargill alive and increasing its investments in the province of British Columbia, and Maplewood is out of business? You know, when the elephant gets a cold, the small guys get pneumonia and die.

One of the things you've got to examine as a government.... I'm glad to see the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) paying attention to this, because I think it's something he should think about too, in terms of his own ministry.

AN. HON. MEMBER: In what way?

MR. LEGGATT: Once you allow the elephants in the door, they jump all over the chickens, and in this case, the turkeys.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear that from Tommy Douglas'?

MR. LEGGATT: I learned a lot from Tommy Douglas; you should have listened to Tommy Douglas. Mr. Chairman, through you, if that particular minister had listened a little more to Tommy Douglas, he'd be over on this side of the floor contributing something, to economic development.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The member for Coquitlam-Moody has the floor on vote 10.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I've directed two specific questions. The third question deals with the present consideration of the application by FIRA.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I'd be very delighted if we would set aside some time in this Legislature to debate the record of the province of Saskatchewan versus the record of this government in the province of British Columbia. Any time! Lower taxes....

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Absolutely, I'd be delighted to talk about the way they've handled their potash, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members, including the Minister of Industry and Small Business

[ Page 2532 ]

Development, please come to order. We are in committee on vote 10.

MR. LEGGATT: By now I know that the minister will take his place shortly and tell us how many members of the opposition there now are in Saskatchewan and how many Social Credit elected MLAs are out there fighting the good free-enterprise fight. I know he's going to tell us where all those Tories have gone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 10, please, in committee.

MR. LEGGATT: Vote 10, all right. I'm always distracted by that charming minister, Mr. Chairman. He has a great capacity to wax eloquently — or non-eloquently from time to time.

The third aspect I wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture to deal with is the position that has been taken with FIRA. FIRA is a body that was created to make some independent decisions: FIRA is a body which may or may not accept the representations of any particular provincial government around whether something is for the benefit of Canada — and that happens to be the standard FIRA uses. Since the minister is fond of being open with the House, I expect he'd be delighted to table the original letter that he directed to FIRA setting forth his opposition to the Cargill takeover. I expect I'll see that letter tabled, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't write the letter to FIRA. Where did you get that?

MR. LEGGATT: You didn't write a letter at all. Did you just pick up the phone and give them a call?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Where did you get that about writing a letter?

MR. LEGGATT: The second question I would like the minister to respond to is whether he's willing to table the letter in support of the takeover. What are the distinctions between the two? Is the only distinction between the two that he could not find a Canadian corporation ready, willing and able? Is that the only indication or are there other reasons for the change of heart? I think the public is entitled to know whether there is any other reason, and whether he believes Cargill is an appropriate company to come over and take over yet another Canadian business. The reality is — and our agricultural critic from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has dealt with it in more detail and more eloquently than I can — that there is a double failure here. First of all, there is a failure to have a proper economic farm policy for the province of British Columbia, and this clearly shows, Mr. Chairman, a complete collapse.

The second failure is that he's gone to his fine pencil. He has gone and sharpened the pencil on Pan Ready. You know, the good old bottom-line government over there. He sharpened the pencil and said "no." That's what he's done to that Canadian corporation. Naturally they're not interested. They're not interested because these guys pulled the plug on Pan Ready and said: "That much and no more," There is something more important involved than having a look at that particular investment only in terms of immediate gain to the government in return of its investment. This is a time, Mr. Chairman, when this government should have had the guts to say: "Either we make Panco publicly owned, or at least we give small Canadian business a chance." And they didn't do either one, Mr. Chairman.

So I hope the minister will have a took at these things. I hope he'll look at section 34(l) of the Combines Investigation Act and tell us that Cargill is clean on this one, because I think the public of British Columbia are entitled to know. The least he should do is perhaps phone the director of combines investigation and do a study into the Cargill pricing system in the operation of that plant to make sure that we haven't seen a serious violation of the Combines Investigation Act as a direct long-term plan for taking over the industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's amazing how they can twist.

In regard to the Maplewood failure....

MR. LEGGATT: Which position do you have this time?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I can tell you, Mr. Member, in regard to the Maplewood failure, we didn't just sit down in a room and decide that we could or couldn't help the acquisition of the Maplewood plant. We engaged consultants to do an in-depth study of that plant on an emergency basis. They went out and reported back to us. So we had available to us outside consultants to get the possible approach that we could take.

You asked why the Maplewood failure occurred. Well, I can tell you that one of the major reasons is that there is a national problem in the turkey industry in the sense that there is somewhere in the vicinity of 18 million pounds of surplus turkey in this country. As a result there are a lot of turkeys that have been processed and are in storage, and it costs approximately 20 per pound to keep a turkey in the freezer by the processing plant, the wholesaler, or the retailer, wherever that product may be stored, and that, of course, contributed to the Maplewood failure because they had a large surplus of processed product on hand.

I can tell the member that prior to the closure of Maplewood, prior to the Maplewood matter even coming to the fore, my ministry, the producers, the processors and feed mills had a meeting in an attempt to see how we could move some of this surplus turkey — to put on a drive to move some surplus product. We had the cooperation of the retailers, some of which are the multinationals that that member seems to have such glee in attacking. There was good cooperation and good promotion. We all contributed funds to reduce the price of that turkey to move it into the marketplace, and this government, under one of its programs, contributed to that promotion program approximately $75,000. That was done before the Maplewood issue really came to light.

But in regard to Cargill's involvements and its pressures, regarding the anti-combines act, etc., I think the member's fully aware that the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board sets the production quota for the producers, and that production, of course, when the birds reach maturity, has to find a processing plant. Cargill is not involved in the production of birds, but is involved in operating a processing plant.

The member is also aware that the price is set by the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board, and the producer is paid for his product. That price is determined and the processing plant must pay that price, and then the processing plant adds value to it by processing the bird, wrapping it, freezing it and, of course, marketing it. Did the involvement of Cargill to this

[ Page 2533 ]

point, as the member seemed to imply, cause Maplewood's failure? I'd have to respond that it didn't cause Maplewood's failure. As a matter of fact, Cargill, up until the time that some of the Bell processing plant's turkeys were directed to it, only had 45 percent of the market. When the Bell's turkeys were directed to Panco, owned by Cargill, the amount reached the 60 percent figure that I have quoted before. But Panco — Cargill — absorbed the Bell processing plant's production, because the Bell plant had closed some months ago.

The reasons for Maplewood's failure are basically that they were running at approximately a $40,000 per week loss. The owner of Maplewood felt that he could only absorb that for so long and then attempted to resolve the issue by, of course, finding a buyer.

The plant is obsolete. That's one of the other reasons for its failure. And, of course, the high inventory impacted oil the owner of the plant.

You may ask then, why does Cargill make a move to buy Maplewood? I can respond to the fact that Cargill, when they purchased Panco, had a management plan, a five-year strategy, in which they were going to upgrade the plant and move more into modernization of turkey kill and broiler kill, and do further processing of turkey. They had to go into plant expansion with, I think, approximately $3 million of capital expenditures. I could get that accurate figure for you if you so desired. But they made a major expenditure, only to find that they ran into problems with municipal community plans, zoning regulations, and they all of a sudden found themselves non-conforming.

I've said this in the House before, Mr. Chairman, but I'll continue to say it. I'm not here to defend Cargill's position, but I do get frustrated and a little angry when the members opposite attempt to make a big political issue out of this thing when they fail to realize that it's the salvation of the turkey industry in this province that this minister is trying to achieve here.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also tell the member that Pan Ready Poultry, in its acquisition of Maplewood at Clearbrook, had the opportunity and the funds available from ARDSA for that acquisition if they so desired. They withdrew after analysing the situation at Clearbrook and determined not to proceed, even though they also knew those funds were available to them.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I should get a little political for a few moments. Let's go back in history to August 1975 and deal with the same Maplewood plant. I'll just read from a newspaper article:

"The provincial government is dragging its heels on a poultry processing plant deal which would help eight farmers get rid of their surplus chickens, a leading processor said here Monday. Bryan Hambley, head of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., said his company is still trying to negotiate with the Department of Agriculture for a $1.5 million loan that would help renovate and reopen the former Willows processing plant in Abbotsford. Canada Packers Ltd. closed the Willows in January claiming it could not continue under a union agreement signed in the previous month. One hundred and twelve employees were thrown out of work, and they staged a sit-in which lasted 36 days. When the workers ended the sit-in, they claimed it was a victory. Maplewood had announced plans to purchase the plant.

"Agriculture minister Dave Stupich had indicated the government would back a loan being negotiated by Maplewood. Stupich announced in March that Maplewood would get a government guarantee for a loan of $1.5 million. 'We're still negotiating more than five months later,' Hambley told the Vancouver Sun on Monday."

Five months, with a $1.5 million loan, with 112 people out of work — and the members opposite are raising an issue with regard to the Maplewood plant at this particular point in time. If you had moved a little faster in 1975, maybe some of the problems that exist today wouldn't be there. So don't look too deeply into the problems that face this minister, this ministry and the industry. I think you will I find that we made a valiant effort, not just this ministry but the industry itself, in attempting to resolve the problem.

MR. LEVI: One of the things that I'd like to ask the minister is.... Gradually, in a very difficult way, he's releasing little bits of information on the negotiations that have taken place with Maplewood and Cargill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm only repeating what I told you before.

MR. LEVI: If you were repeating, obviously you don't remember what you're trying to repeat. You said something about a $3 million capital improvement by Cargill. I'd like to put it to the minister — and I've put it to him before, but he doesn't want....

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's at the Surrey plant. That's the Panco plant, not the Maplewood plant. Get it right. You're always wrong.

MR. LEVI: We're dealing with Cargill at the moment — that's what I want to talk about. Just keep your cool. Obviously it's a very touchy subject with you. All you have to do is to be very candid with this House and table some of the documents. You tell us that you went to FIRA and that you made some kind of decision in November and then you made another decision in March.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't say that; you're wrong again.

MR. LEVI: Now we can presume that when they first applied to get it, you had no say in it at all. You never said to them: "We want you to let them purchase it." Then later on you went back to them and said: "Don't purchase it."

I want to just point out to the minister — and I want to do this by analogy, Mr. Chairman, so that I don't transgress the rules.... The Cargill purchase of Panco went through in December 1978. The Foreign Investment Review Agency publish a weekly communiqué listing all of the various takeovers. Now I put it to the minister: on December 14 there was a takeover which dealt with a proposal by Simpsons Sears and Sears, Roebuck, which is a United States firm. They had to make a proposal to FIRA as to what they would do if they took over the particular plant in which they were interested. There were eight pages of statement by the company saying what it was prepared to do if it were successful in its bid to take over this particular company. They were prepared to meet certain obligations. What we're trying to

[ Page 2534 ]

find out from the minister is whether he was privy to the obligations that Cargill said it would undertake to do in respect to the purchase of Cargill. That's the first thing. If Cargill was going to get involved in 1978 in respect to what they did with the purchase of Panco, there must be within the minister's files the company's undertaking in order to meet the requirements of FIRA. I put it to the minister that something went wrong in terms of the undertaking which Cargill made in 1978 in respect to Panco. They were not able to meet, and did not meet, all the conditions required to allow Cargill to come in and take over Panco. We have some genuine concern about that.

But we're not able to find out from the minister whether, in fact, he was concerned about their original takeover. He gives the example that they're good corporate citizens because they assisted in trying to dispose of the large amount of turkey product that was stored. Okay? That's fair enough. It's part of the problem that exists in the industry.

We have perfectly legitimate concerns on this side about the role of Cargill, not just in the turkey industry — we're concerned about all the things that they get involved with. We're not the only people; the U.S. Senate committee looking into multinationals also had major concerns about Cargill. These are not just "socialist concerns," as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) likes to say; these are concerns that are manifest among a large number of people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're playing politics.

MR. LEVI: I can remember that man in 1969 standing up and talking about the terrible things that were going on in Saskatchewan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister come to order.

MR. LEVI: He's leaving. The noise level will decline by at least 140 percent. So will the gas level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will remember that we are on vote 10.

MR. LEVI: Well, we got rid of him. That in itself made the afternoon for me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue on vote 10, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: The minister has been on the griddle on this particular issue of Cargill and Maplewood. He said so himself. He's always on the firing line about it, and every time we ask him a question he trickles out a little bit of information. He doesn't seem to feel it's such an important issue, but it is an important issue for the people on this side, and we are going to make politics out of it. We'll deal with multinationals. What we want you to do is to make available to this House some of those thousands of dollars that you spent on consultants' reports. You've trickled out little bits of information on the whole problem that Cargill had in terms of being non-conforming and being unable to get rid of their effluent and all these kinds of things. We've picked up some of that kind of information, so be candid about it. Don't just dribble the information out. Tell us exactly what you found out. You haven't told us that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I have.

MR. LEVI: Just be very frank with us and tell us.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've been very open about it.

MR. LEVI: It won't in any way move us away from our concern about a multinational like Cargill, but it might very well enhance the minister's argument, As he puts it, this is not a major issue. Of course, he goes back to August 1975, which is almost five years ago. Because at that time that government failed to deliver a loan, is this somehow a justification for what you're doing in not making money available to them in terms of their $40,000 loss? You offered them 20 percent. After all, as Mr. Hambley pointed out: "Why should I accept $20,000 when it was the government in the first place that put me into the position of the $40,000 a month loss?"

I would point out to you that we've had issued this week the order-in-council resume. One of the items in the resume is: "Development Corporation of British Columbia, financial assistance, Flying Princess transportation, $(U.S.)2,450,000.'' That's what it says. That's money going to a U.S. company to employ 80 Americans. That's what it's doing. That's Canadian money going down there in U.S. dollars — another 18 cents on the top — to provide employment for them. Yet you cannot justify in this House why there is a failure on the government's part to provide money to Maplewood so that they can operate to give 150 people who are Canadians jobs. We separate right down the line on this issue. We're not interested in what happened in 1975. We're only interested in what happened today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why didn't you loan them the money? Shame on you.

MR. LEVI: We made a mistake. Yes, shame on us, but we're not the government; you're the government. Don't keep telling us about all the mistakes we made. We're talking about a mistake that you've made and are making today. We're not interested in a history lesson. If you want to learn from history learn from that mistake in August 1975. The loan should have been made and it wasn't, but you're not even prepared to consider making the loan because you're the great free enterprisers. You're not going to assist Canadians, you're going to assist the Americans to the tune of $2.5 million in U.S. funds to create employment in the United States. Where's the justification in that? Where's the justification in that kind of philosophy that you have? You're so free enterprise you're prepared to go over the border to spread the doctrine.

Is the minister prepared to make available to us some of the documents — because you hired a management consultant firm to do the analysis for you — so that we can better understand how you reached the decision? Don't trickle it out to us; put it on the table, let us took at it. If we read it we've got the analysis, and if you're right then you're right. We don't seem to be getting that kind of' information.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not going to respond to many of the comments that the member raised because they raised them the other day and they've been responded to before.

[ Page 2535 ]

MR. LEVI: And we didn't get an answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Let me talk to him about the $2.5 million that went down to the United States in U.S. money, as he makes a comparison with the turkey processing plant here. I don't know whether you could even comprehend the revenues that will be generated by the movement of the tourists that come into British Columbia, Vancouver and Victoria, by that vehicle. You wouldn't understand it because all you can think of is acquiring socialist manufacturing plants or processing plants or whatever else you wish to look after.

MR. LEVI: Panco was a bad deal for you, eh? Fourteen million dollars.

HON. MR. HEWITT: All I'm saying is that you're using the comparison of the Flying Princess. You'd rather not have anything at all and see the tourist industry go down in this province. There's no comparison at all.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps all hon. members could come to order. All members are reminded that we are on vote 10. There have been some analogies drawn with respect to the vote of another minister, but we are on vote 10, the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. With that said. the Chair recognizes the member for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now we'll get some serious debate and I'll answer the questions.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said something under his breath that I didn't quite catch so I won't respond to it.

I would like to go back just a little further. Certainly the minister was warned as to what kind of an American corporation he was getting into bed with when he first negotiated the sale of Panco to Cargill. Cargill's reputation in Canada and in the States was very well known in this House. The former Minister of Agriculture, the former member for Skeena, knew what kind of an organization Cargill was and, to his credit, opposed the sale of Panco to Cargill. To his discredit, I suppose, he was the one that was actually in office when the deal was finally consummated. There is no excuse for the minister not knowing the kind of situation he was leaving himself open to in agreeing to sell Panco to Cargill.

I would like to know just how much difference there was in the price that Cargill paid and the offer that was made by Pan Ready to take over the Panco operation late in 1978. How many dollars' difference was there in the offer made by Pan Ready and the offer made by Cargill?

I would like the minister to confirm or deny the charge that I made in the House a couple of weeks ago when I said he was blackmailed. I did withdraw that word, but certainly it was widely reported that Cargill had threatened to close down turkey processing in the province if the minister and the cabinet didn't change their position and get down on their knees to Ottawa and ask them to withdraw their objections to Cargill taking over Maplewood.

Perhaps I should not use the word "blackmail," but I can't think of any other word that better describes that situation — the way in which Cargill was able to bring this cabinet to its knees and to plead its case in Ottawa. There is no excuse for the minister not knowing that he was leaving himself open to that kind of pressure when he first agreed to start dealing with Cargill.

I would like the minister to tell us about the promises that Cargill made to do something with Panco, to spend money improving the facilities there, to spend money getting into further processing. What happened to those promises'? Was there ever any call on Cargill to live up to his promises, ever any asking for accountability? What were they doing and why were they not doing something to live up to those promises? Was there ever any report asked for from Cargill?

I know the minister has said — and Panco has said, actually — that they were prevented from so doing because of Surrey's objections. I think we want something better than that. If Cargill was able to bring this government to its knees to get what it wants, certainly Cargill had some influence that it could have brought to bear on Surrey municipality if it really wanted to do anything constructive with the Panco Poultry processing plant. I would like the minister to tell us some more of the background.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

The member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed. I saw the minister making notes as I was asking questions. I see him smiling and he's saying things now, sitting in his seat, but he apparently hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and answer these questions. He sits in his seat and mumbles. Does the minister have anything at all to say in response to the points I made?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Make some more and I'll respond.

MR. STUPICH: I am getting all kinds of comments from all over the House but nobody will get up on their feet and say anything about it. The minister is still sitting there grinning and saying something that I can't quite hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair did not recognize you. The member for Central Fraser Valley was next on his feet after you took your place.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't asking the member for Central Fraser Valley any questions. I was asking the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our standing orders, hon. members, say the first member to rise is recognized by the Chair. The Chair will recognize the member for Central Fraser Valley on vote 10.

MR. RITCHIE: I am compelled to respond for two reasons. First, the member for Nanaimo did suggest that someone get up and answer his questions. The other reason is that I was so deeply involved in that industry over the years and particularly at the time when the Panco plant was offered for sale by the large grain company at the time.

To be very brief, I would like the House to know once and for all that the producers of this province, including the Pan Ready organization, were offered an opportunity to purchase the Panco assets. I was personally involved in trying to bring about a transaction that would have put the assets of Panco Poultry into the hands of Pan Ready and the producers. So

[ Page 2536 ]

there can be absolutely no reason for further discussion or criticism of this government in respect to the sale of Panco Poultry. Panco Poultry was offered to the producers; it was offered to the Pan Ready organization. Individually they attempted to put a package together, and they couldn't come up with whatever was necessary to swing it. Then they came together jointly and attempted and could not do it.

MR. STUPICH: How much was their offer?

MR. RITCHIE: I do not have the figures at hand that have been asked for by the member for Nanaimo. The figures will come forward to you. But I can only assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members over there, that they're only flogging a dead horse. Panco Poultry was offered to the producers and they refused it, and the same thing has happened this time at Maplewood. I can also suggest that, as our minister said, had the loan that was requested — and to some degree promised, back in 1975, to Mr. Hambley — been made available, he may not have been in the trouble today that he's in. I say that only because I think that at that time a loan could have been made available that would have made it much easier for Mr. Hambley to finance his operation and possibly not be faced with heavy expenses as he was faced with as a result of having to find his financing elsewhere.

So I hope that we can put to rest all of this nonsense that a special deal was made with Cargill, or that Cargill brought the government to its knees. That's a lot of hogwash. The producers were offered it and they just couldn't come together to do it.

I don't know whether the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) got an answer to one question. He asked why turkey was selling at 90 cents, and why it was that Cargill could survive in the turkey processing industry and Maplewood couldn't. I think that if the facts were known Cargill too have been losing a great deal of money in the processing of turkeys, only because of market conditions. Keep in mind that it's not a question of one processing company competing against another in British Columbia but rather of the processors of British Columbia competing with other provinces and sometimes with United States products. So it's all a general market condition.

It's rather irritating to hear this continual bantering about why we didn't do this and why we didn't do that. This government did its level best to keep these facilities in Canadian hands, and it was impossible because there wasn't a buyer in a position to acquire the assets. That's the reason — not that this government wanted Cargill to purchase it at all.

MR. COCKE: What the member has very efficiently and vociferously told us is that the government blundered in the first place. You see, Mr. Chairman, Panco Poultry was a going proposition and was a profitable proposition, serving the consumers in B.C. with our own plant. Recall that the NDP government bought that plant by virtue of the fact that it was going out of business if we didn't. We made a profitable proposition out of that plant and, beyond that, served two communities. One was the consumer and one was the producer.

Then this great concept of "free" or "private" enterprise, however you would like to describe it, got the better of the government. Really what got the better of the government was the fact that it was a profitable government-run proposition and that was very difficult for those people to take. So they offered it on the market, and they wanted it sold at a particular moment in time. I recall vividly going to the member for Skeena at the time, talking to him. I recall going to the member who is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), while the proposition was still floating, and telling them that there was documented evidence that the monopoly that they were selling to, or proposing to sell to, had a reputation that was quite unacceptable, particularly in this province.

I suggested at the time to the House — I suggested at the time to anyone who would care to listen — that our poultry industry would be in the hands of a cartel in short order, going the route that the government had chosen. We didn't have to be great prophets in order to make that kind of suggestion. We knew, for example, the reputation that Cargill had in the United States. We knew, for example, the reputation that they were building in western Canada at the time, having taken over a very large chain of Canadian elevators. We knew that they were under indictment or investigation everywhere from Interpol to the Senate of the United States. We knew that they had been charged on a number of occasions for all sorts of things, including a cartel proposition in the poultry industry in the States, where they manipulated prices. I feel great tears at this moment when the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) tells us that Cargill at the present time is losing because of a market condition. Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of condition that these cartels and monopolies create.

I stood in this House the other day and discussed how Procter & Gamble bought a little outfit down in the southern United States called Folger's Coffee. They've been going across the United States competing with General Foods, Maxwell House. They go from city to city and state to state, pushing the prices down with their competition, pushing every small producer — that is, all the small coffee-makers — out of business. Then all that's left of the market is for those two giants.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They don't grow coffee in B.C.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of Forests says: "They don't grow coffee in B.C." They don't grow it in the United States either, Mr. Minister. But you haven't got a clue, have you? You don't even understand the system you're putting forward. You haven't got a clue...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE: ...and it's unfortunate that a person with your mentality would be given a portfolio in any government, let alone this government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Minister of Forests will come to order, and the member will withdraw any imputation he has against the minister.

MR. COCKE: That he has a clue? All right, I suggest that he has a clue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster continues on vote 10.

[ Page 2537 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we were also told that Pan Ready refused.... You know, there is a limited market for an outfit such as Panco. That was obvious two or three years earlier when we took it over. Mr. Cohen came to the government of the day and said: "We're not going to continue to operate. We will send our poultry to Alberta or wherever, have it processed there and bring it back here." Now that is hardly good for the consumer. So naturally the government, in order to conserve 450 jobs, a going concern and a poultry industry in the province — that is, the poultry production in the province — going on in a healthy fashion took it over. But no, they smashed it. They smashed it in their vindictive way of trying to do in anything that the NDP had done before them, as they have now hurt their own prize tourist industry in this city by virtue of the fact that they blundered in transportation as they blunder in virtually everything they do.

Interjections.

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, they continue to blunder. What we said in '76 is as true today as it was then, and it will be true as long as this government survives — the worst government that we have ever seen in this province, bar none.

Just to give you a little background, Mr. Chairman, in terms of what Cargill stands for, let me read this to you. This is from Crown Publishers. It's on food profiteering in America. Actually, it's just a paragraph about Cargill. This was produced in 1975 before we got into this mess. and I wish the government had done some reading at that time. This is what was said in this particular expose:

"Cargill is the largest grain-raiding corporation in the world, but it also is in a position to sell seed to the grain farmers, then to put the harvested grain in its own railroad cars" — now we're talking about the United States — ''for transport to its own grain storage elevators. From there, its own oilseed processing plant can convert the grain into vegetable oils, or Cargill's own turkey hatcheries can use it to feed more than two million birds a year, or its Burrus Mills subsidiary can process the grain into flours and meals, package it in bags they make and sell it to you under their 'Light Crust' and 'Drinkwater' labels."

Vertical integration all the way from the bottom to the top is the way they like it and the way they're getting it in this province. It won't be long, because of this blundering government and this blundering minister, before we're going to have Cargill calling the shots on what we eat in this province. The president of Cargill here said recently in a meeting in the Fraser Valley: ''We are going into the feed business within a year." They're doing it here. The saviours of B.C. are going to be the millstone around our neck.

Mr. Chairman, they don't seem to understand that commitment to this fantasy — this "free" or "private" enterprise system.... As far as I'm concerned, it's neither free nor private. It's monopolistic and it's outside of the country.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Have they no kind of vision? Has that minister no kind of vision? He certainly hasn't shown any indication that he has.

This company, with sales of something in the order of $16 billion to $17 billion a year, as large as or larger than the total agricultural production of this country, let alone B.C., is going to be calling the shots: in my view, it has already started. It started when B.C. got forced into a position where we had to sell them our second plant. Now they're telling us they're going into the feed business — the same business, incidentally, that the member for Central Fraser Valley was in very recently, where he sold to some of his employees. I wonder if his employees and whoever owns the other 70 percent that I don't know about will be selling to Cargill. Whatever's going on, I don't like it, because it smacks of the past. It smacks of the behaviour of this company wherever they go — the same company that settled out of court with the country of India for shortweighting grain that was to go to starving children in that nation: the same company that was involved when glass and garbage got into some grain going to Russia.

Look, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very serious situation, and our province should never have been placed in this position in the first place. But having been placed in that position, now it's up to the government to bail us out — to get the agricultural business in this province out of that situation. Why should our turkey and chicken producers be faced with having to deal with that monopoly? Pretty soon those same poultry producers are going to be buying their grain from Cargill. Why do I say that? I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Because Cargill will say to them: "if you don't buy our grain, we won't sell your product." That's the way it goes in this good old free enterprise system. "If you don't buy our feed, we won't sell your end result." How do you like that?

MRS. WALLACE: They're already saying it with poultry.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

I just can't imagine anything more ridiculous, and the minister tries to defend that behaviour. I recall when I had the talk with those two or three other people.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I don't understand what you're talking about. Why don't you stand up on your feet instead of sitting in your chair, Fred Flintstone, and say something in the House and put it on the record? Then I'll argue with you.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You stand up and answer some of the questions that you've been asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would hon. members kindly address any remarks they may have, which must be in order, to the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm telling you the rules that I don't play by. Look at this headline: "Cargill Inc. Making Profit From Hunger." That's not the rules we play by over here. You're quite right. Mr. Minister. This is the kind of material that was available. I told the ministers at that time that I would make the material available to them, and did so. I recall sending a whole sheaf of it to Mr. Shelford, who became Minister of Agriculture. He asked me for it. The

[ Page 2538 ]

Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time said that he was very disturbed. We were all very disturbed. But now we're going further down the pit. We're going further into this cartel control of the agricultural business in this province. First there was pigs; now it's poultry; next it's feed. Then where do we go with Cargill? I don't ever want to see a big sign up in this province, saying "Owned and Operated by Cargill Inc."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He says he'd rather see it owned and operated by the people. I sure would too. Do you know who Cargill is, Mr. Member? Two families in Minnesota. They're not even on the stock exchange; they don't even have to declare under the SEC; they don't even have to make a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. It's a totally private, family-dominated company, with sales three or four times the size of the budget of this whole province. What are we talking about? The history of that company is anything but the kind of history that anyone would want to be associated with, if he had an ounce of decency in his veins. Mr. Chairman, obviously they lack that decency over there, if they can make those kinds of statements. Do some reading, Mr. Member, that's all I suggest.

I would like the minister to stand in the House today and tell us that he is going to do everything within his power to see to it that the poultry industry isn't taken further down the chute than it is now. Stand up and say that the government is going to give some support to the people who can put together the poultry industry in this province — for their sake and for the sake of the consumers.

I rode over on the ferry with two poultry producers and one marketing person the day before the minister made his statement. They were coming over here to see the minister. Do you know what they were talking to me about? They were hoping that they could get support to put together a new co-op that would be like Pan Ready in the chicken business; they would like to duplicate that in the turkey business. Did they get any support? Well, we didn't see very much evidence. The very next day the minister got up and announced that they were going to FIRA to ask that Cargill be permitted to buy the turkey processor.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You do a good job of sitting over there and making a lot of noise.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'll sit down when I'm prepared to. I would hope when I sit down, Mr. Chairman, that that minister gets up and tells us something that might be positive, rather than those ridiculous remarks that he makes from his chair, indicating to me that he has absolutely no sense of responsibility toward his portfolio — none whatsoever.

If the minister is serious, then he can stand up in the House today and say that the government will back a B.C. co-op in this province. It's not sold out now. The Foreign Investment Review Agency has not had time to change its mind again. So let the minister stand up and say that he's going to support a turkey producers' co-op, that would at least assist this province in keeping its own direction and its own ability to head toward the objective. That objective surely must be:  mâitres chez nous — masters in our own home. That's what we'd like to be — masters in our own home. All those snide little remarks across the way don't diminish the argument for that in any way, shape or form.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to the question raised by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — who is not here at the present time — going back to 1975, Pan Ready poultry offered $3 million conditional wholly on government guarantees for the amount of funds. They didn't have sufficient in the way of equity. They were looking at a total government guarantee. The Cargill offer on Panco was $3.3 million plus accounts receivable of $2.7 up to $6 million at that time. This is just a response to the member for Nanaimo.

In regard to giving some support to the poultry industry — I think the member for New Westminster commented on this just a few minutes ago — I don't know what he calls the support that we gave to the industry in regard to filing our objection to the purchase of Maplewood by Cargill at the insistence of the turkey board, the broiler board and Pan Ready Poultry. That is support that we gave at that time only to find that when the chips were down we didn't have that indication from them to buy. I don't know whether or not support means giving $780,000 to Pan Ready Poultry for the acquisition of the Sooke plant of Maplewood. I guess he doesn't consider that support. That was done in a short period of time to facilitate the sale of the Maplewood plant at Sooke and to assist in resolving the financial situation that the Maplewood company was in. I guess it wasn't support when we contributed to a sales program to move the surplus turkey and cooperated with the processors and the producers in providing a promotional program that cost us $75,000. We responded very quickly to that.

What that member would like — if the truth were known — would be to see a state-owned turkey processing plant stamped that this is the product of a socialist government. They bought Panco Poultry under the guise of saving jobs, a number of years ago. And when they acquired it not only did they own the processing plant but they owned land and farms. They were in contravention of their own Natural Products Marketing Act, as the member knows full well. They acquired those assets for one basic reason: the socialist approach of state involvement in industry, commerce and finance. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) nods his head. Very strong feelings about that. That is the approach that is taken by that party as to how you resolve the problems. Let the government get involved; let the government run it; let the government control it. I ask you all: where is the opportunity for the individual when the government finally gets into state ownership in regards to turkey processing, to manufacturing and the financial field? Where is the personal feeling? Where is the opportunity? There are members over there who are in business for themselves. I think the member for New Westminster was an independent insurance agent. Is that correct?

MR. COCKE: No.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry. What were you at that time, before you got involved?

MR. COCKE: Manager of B.C. for Dominion Life.

[ Page 2539 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's a free enterprise operation, I guess. He's out there and he's his own man in the field, but he enjoys the socialist approach because they seem to think that this is the way to convince the people. You convince the people that you can solve all their problems for them if the government gets involved. I just suggest to them that it's awfully short-sighted when you get the state involved to the extent that you'd like to get it involved.

All we've talked about is whether or not this government got involved. Did we give assistance? Did we give support to the industry? I've indicated on a number of occasions how much support and effort we put into it. In regard to the Cargill purchase of the Maplewood plant and what commitments they've made to FIRA, I can tell the members again — and I'm repeating myself because I've said this story before, but I'll continue to say it — that they've sent to the Foreign Investment Review Agency their commitment. Let me just comment from the telegram.

I TRUST THAT OTTAWA HAS INFORMED YOU OF SUBSTANTIAL UNDERTAKINGS WE HAVE GIVEN TO FIRA TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON OUR ACQUISITION OF CLEARBROOK. THESE UNDERTAKINGS INCLUDE OFFERING EMPLOYMENT TO ALL EXISTING EMPLOYEES AT CLEARBROOK AND WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF ACQUISITION INCREASING EMPLOYMENT AT CLEARBROOK BY HIRING AT LEAST 80 NEW EMPLOYEES, BY MODERNIZING THE CLEARBROOK AND PANCO POULTRY PLANTS BY MAKING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF ACQUISITION OF AT LEAST $1.25 MILLION; A POSITIVE RATIONALIZATION OF THE POULTRY PROCESSING INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA INCREASED EMPLOYMENT IN THE ABBOTSFORD AREA AND GREATER JOB STABILITY AT BOTH CLEARBROOK AND PANCO POULTRY PLANTS: A MODERN SPECIALIZED BROILER PROCESSING PLANT USING THE LATEST TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES: A MODERN SPECIALIZED TURKEY, SPENT FOWL AND FURTHER PROCESSING PLANT USING THE LATEST TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES.

Those are commitments not made to me, not in conversation, but in commitments made to the Foreign Investment Review Agency in Ottawa. I'd suggest to the members over there — and they know full well — that those commitments aren't made lightly by any corporation, whether it be multinational, private or public. Those are commitments made to a government agency in Ottawa, and I'm sure they are well thought out before a commitment like that is made to that agency.

So, Mr. Chairman, in response to the member: yes, we've given considerable support to the poultry industry of this province, and we'll continue to do so. We have attempted to resolve the problem. As I have said before and will continue to say, I'm concerned about turkey production in this province, and without a processing plant the primary producer is at risk. I've taken some heat in regard to changing our position with FIRA. In changing that position I'm looking first to the primary producer to ensure that we have a growing and a prosperous poultry industry in this province.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate hearing the minister explain to the House the philosophy of our party when it comes to incursions into the agricultural industry, manufacturing and the resource sector. I want to tell you, it would be a lie to suggest in this House or anywhere else that the New Democratic Party has ever taken over by nationalization or by expropriation any private firm in the province of British Columbia. It is a lie to say that, Mr. Chairman, because that has never happened. We indeed purchased on the open market a number of enterprises when we felt the public interest would be served by having a public presence in that particular area, and of course the one agricultural plant was such an occasion.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Listen to them, Mr. Chairman! Listen to them pipe and snipe away over there — all those little people who pay lip-service to free enterprise. But guess who expropriated private enterprise in the province of British Columbia? Not the New Democratic Party; W.A.C. Bennett's Social Credit government arbitrarily expropriated B.C. Electric and Black Ball Ferries. Those great free enterprisers in their party intruded into the market and denied those private sector employers access to the courts to gain compensation, as you well know. They are the bogus free enterprisers, Mr. Chairman, who did all of those things and now suggest that our only approach to government administration is to take over some company — a thing we've never done, Mr. Chairman. That is a Social Credit characteristic.

If they find public ownership so repugnant, if that offends their tender free enterprise sensitivities, I want to ask: when are they going to divest themselves of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, a public agency created by Social Credit? When are they going to give away the 90 percent of the forest land in the province of British Columbia that is owned by the public, Mr. Chairman? If they can't stand the people of this province owning any resources, then when are they going to give away the rest of the province like they're giving away the agricultural industry? It's crass nonsense, and they know it — a phony argument altogether. It's not even an accurate argument, and as I say, it's kind of shocking to hear the minister get up and offer that as a defence today.

What did the government do when a very large Canadian company — my employer, as a matter of fact — that little corporate entity, CP Rail, journeyed out to British Columbia indicating an interest in acquiring majority shares in MacMillan Bloedel? The Premier, the leader of the government, ran around screaming: "British Columbia is not for sale." The great defender of the public interest in the province of British Columbia wouldn't allow one of our forest industries to be sold to an eastern Canadian firm — not a multinational, but a Canadian firm. But now here they all blithely apply the rubber stamp to the sale of Panco Poultry to Cargill, one of the largest multinationals in the agricultural industry, with a chequered past record in terms of their corporate citizenship. Now they all fidget around in their discomfiture on the other side and try to manufacture red herrings to justify this abuse of the public trust that they hold as government of the province, Mr. Chairman — sorry performance!

We recognized, and we warned the government when they sold Panco Poultry to Cargill, that that was the thin edge of the wedge, and that increasing problems would flow from that decision. The Vancouver Province, in its editorial, takes a similar point of view, that the minister — and he made that decision — was the architect of his own problems. They're not socialists at the Vancouver Province; they just recognize that the public interest in the province of British Columbia was not being well served by letting a monopoly and a cartel take root in this province with ministerial and government blessing. What are you going to do, Mr. Minister — call them socialists too, and shrug off the validity of their argu-

[ Page 2540 ]

ment on the basis that they're wild-eyed socialists? Or, as he suggested a while ago: "The people across the House want to torpedo the turkeys." That was a very rational response coming from the Minister of Agriculture, wasn't it? A very profound statement. No wonder his assistant deputy minister left the chamber, Mr. Chairman, because that kind of response must be embarrassing to his staff, if not to his government.

The minister finally gave figures on the difference between the offer made by Cargill for Panco and the offer made by Pan Ready. He indicates that Pan Ready offered $3 million and asked for government guarantees. He indicates that Cargill offered $3.3 million plus their accumulated receipts; I think it amounted to about $6 million. Well, I want to suggest to the minister that perhaps a $3 million investment by the government in the province of British Columbia would have been a very small investment to make to ensure that dominance in the agricultural industry stayed in Canadian hands, preferably British Columbia hands.

When he reversed his position and decided to give full support to Cargill's bid for Panco, that was the very root and the very foundation of his problems today. We in the opposition are concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to see complete domination of the market. As my colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has pointed out, it will probably grow from turkey processing to feeds and other areas of the agricultural industry. It certainly doesn't serve the interests of the consumer or the producer in the province of British Columbia to operate at the sufferance of a large, multinational corporation, which has no basic roots or allegiance to this nation.

We don't mind some foreign investment, but it should be kept to a minimum, and it should be in all cases controlled — the majority shares should be controlled in Canada. That's a reasonable objective, and an objective, I would suggest, that is espoused by every major democratic state in the world today. It's got nothing to do with socialism or free enterprise; it's got to do with good common sense and a commonsense approach to business in the province. These are the things we are questioning the minister for.

I would certainly appreciate it, as my colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has indicated, if the minister would be a bit more forthcoming with the House, and would table the documents that he transmitted to FIRA when the review of Cargill's application to purchase Panco was made. If the minister feels that he has done the right thing, then he should not be reluctant to table in this House any correspondence which he had on the matter. I think it would assist the opposition greatly in understanding why the minister came to the conclusion that he did. But he shouldn't try and throw red herrings in the way of the valid questions which the opposition has put before the House today.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm amazed at the remarks of the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. He went back so far as to drag up the sale of B.C. Electric, when it was expropriated by this government, using it as a situation where we stand for private enterprise yet we expropriate a private company. What he did not say — which is consistent with all the projects of this government, when such was the case — was that when B.C. Electric were faced with the requirement of developing a new power policy taking in all of British Columbia — taking in the northern part of British Columbia, the Peace and the Columbia, the two-river policy — they were given the opportunity to do that. British Columbia had to expand, and the government said to them: "Would you go and do that?" Yes, they would, but they asked first of all to have certain government guarantees. There were no guarantees from our government. They would not move into this area. Also, they suggested that the government.... Let me tell that hon. member, the strong suggestion by the B.C. Legislature at that time was: "You go ahead and develop the Peace and the Columbia and we'll keep the Vancouver market." These are the things that cause government to move. Because today in British Columbia he must recognize the fact of the properness of this move, when we have a postage stamp rate for power — the same price in Prince George as it is in Vancouver. How anybody can knock this process is beyond me.

It's not in this debate, but I think it should be made known that these fallacious arguments are not true. Then again, to add a little more insult, we hear from him: "What about the B.C. Ferries? Are you going to sell them to private enterprise?" Well, of course, we'd sell them to private enterprise if anybody would buy them. But nobody will buy the ferries, because they are a losing proposition. So the people must run them to serve Vancouver Island and the other places the boats must s!o, How can this be used in argument'? This is truly a fallacious argument, extremely outside the sense and justice of this debate. I'm surprised a member with the intelligence of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) would drag those two out, because it's not correct; it's wrong.

Furthermore, he insults the multinationals. Why? Because they do not have an allegiance to the country? That's exactly correct. Multinationals have no allegiance to any country, and that's a well-known fact. Because of that, they are not a danger to British Columbia. Because of that, they're workable here. I'll give you an example.

I hear a lot of laughter to my right, but there's no sense to it. Let me tell you a story which I hope has been resolved. Some years ago, when I was privileged to be on the General Motors council, I was sitting in a council meeting in Detroit. At that time the premier of the day, Mr. Bourassa, brought out Bill 101, which dictated that all business will be done in French. This corporation was building a large operation at Three Rivers, and I said to the president: "What are you going to do if, in time" — and it was talked about then — "Quebec secedes from Canada?" I'm glad at this time.... What a great joy it is that this is maybe behind us, that we are progressing and that Quebec is now part of Canada. And I hope that we will progress and the great French-speaking Canadians will become a solid part of us. I hope we're on the road to this point. But at that time this was in doubt. What did the president reply? He said: "That's no problem. We're used to dealing with foreign governments."

Mr. Chairman, what I'm pointing out is multinationals are safe to deal with. But when he brings out the point.... That same member who has left now; he couldn't take it. You could see that. He left, because the argument is so fallacious — it's untrue. He says: "My little company...." What's his little company? The Canadian Pacific Railway is no little company. It's a huge corporation, and an excellent corporation — let's not mistake that. But we could not allow.... The Premier was correct in saying that British Columbia is not for sale. But the two words he didn't add, which I'll add — this may not have been in his mind, but it's in my mind: British Columbia is not for sale to the eastern corporations.

[ Page 2541 ]

MR. BARBER: But it is for sale to Cargill.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It's not for sale. We want our problems based here. We don't mind multinationals. Now let's come to Cargill. He speaks of Cargill. I want to commend the minister on the statements that he clearly and properly made in this Legislature, and it should be sufficient to remove all doubt from the sale. I know very little about it, but I spoke to him of it. One of my constituents is very much involved, and on this day is very concerned with her future. And he's concerned and he's worked hard, day and night. He told me. I know the problems in resolving this very difficult matter, but it cannot be resolved by the government pouring in money. It cannot be resolved by government guarantees. But when we have a purchaser such as Cargill — a multinational, yes, but they have no allegiance to any country; they're only interested in business procedure, and as a business procedure in British Columbia — they'll become as much a British Columbian as any other British Columbia corporation. That's what they're interested in: the business available here. If there was no business here, they'd leave. That's the way it is.

I want you to know that these multinationals are not the strength of our economy; they're merely a part of our economy. The strength of our economy is the little businessman, the little guy, the little producer of turkeys, the little garage man, the little manufacturer, the cottage industries. All these things together produce the business of British Columbia. Certainly there is no danger in Cargill. I approve what the minister has done and I'm concerned, because some of my constituents are involved in the raising and production of turkeys. It's very important that we nourish the agriculture industry in British Columbia. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that the industry in British Columbia is not a strong industry. We're not the most favoured part of the world for agriculture processing. It's a tough job to encourage and foster production of agricultural products here, especially with the wages we have to pay. It's all very well to say "produce turkeys and sell them," but are the people of British Columbia prepared to pay the price that must be demanded? That's the problem. We must produce economically. But a corporation like Cargill has some answers to our problem, because they'll be doing their business here and, as such, are British Columbian within our walls. I say to you that I admire the minister's stand on that subject. There's no other way to go at this time. You cannot go any other way. The last thing we need is for the government to meddle in this situation. I'm proud of the minister's attitude and I'm proud of what he's doing. We must nurture the agricultural industry. We must keep a strength in the poultry business. The only way we can do it is by using the tools we have and by taking advantage of the opportunities before us.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to change the course of the debate for a few moments and make a proposal for the creation of an office of urban agriculture. I will be debating the Cargill matter at some time in the future, but at the moment I would like to put forward a number of ideas which I hope the minister will accept and be prepared to respond to at some time in the near future.

This proposal for an office of urban agriculture would take into account a number of new ideas, a number of new technologies and a number of new strategies which have become, I think, more and more self evidently worthwhile, especially in the great urban communities of North America. I think it's new territory. It's certainly a new idea in this province. I'd like to put forward a couple of new ideas on my own part, which I do not purport represent the official policy of the New Democratic Party on this matter I speak for myself and not for anyone else.

I would observe that one of the reasons why the minister might want to consider the creation of an office of urban agriculture is because it is reported that Canada produces now less than 45 percent of its total food requirements. The nation of Canada produces less than 45 percent of everything it needs in terms of food. I'd like to point out as well that by the mid-1980s Mexico and California will themselves be net importers of food. The particular dependence which British Columbia has always had on them as sources of supply will be made more difficult to maintain because of growth problems and growth patterns in Mexico and California. World population growth continues unchecked. The demands on Californian and Mexican foodstuffs from other than British Columbia sources will also increase by the turn of the century. It's been calculated by the World Health Organization that Mexico City will have a population in excess of 55 million by the turn of the century. Within 20 years Mexico City will be the largest city on the planet.

For people who look toward the future of the agricultural industry and to the food needs of the people of British Columbia. It's clearly foolishness to continue to pretend that we can rely on Mexican imports. Twenty years from now those imports will simply not be available at the price or on the scale that they currently are. Why is that? Because of Mexican needs. Mexican demand and Mexican population will have increased so dramatically by the turn of the century that we will not have proper call on that food; the Mexican people will have first call, and that's how it should be.

Because of that, I think it's necessary that the ministry be prepared to examine new strategies for food production in this province. It's necessary for the minister to exercise personal leadership. It's necessary for this government to use some wit and some imagination in order to involve urban citizens as well as rural citizens in the production of food in British Columbia. I'm persuaded that city dwellers are capable of solving some of their own food problems. I know there is evidence that this is the case, increasingly so in some of the great cities of the United States. Later on in this debate I propose to discuss and would be happy to table documentation to that fact.

I think an office of urban agriculture could serve four great purposes. The first of these is to create and make available for the purpose of public debate and public information alternative food production strategies that involve the city dweller as well as the rural citizen in this province. An office of urban agriculture could describe and promote alternative and appropriate technologies for food production in the urban centres of British Columbia — I'll be illustrating those in a few moments. An office of urban agriculture could begin to change attitudes among the people of British Columbia, in order that especially city dwellers accept co-responsibility for food production in this province. There are a number of publications which relate to this matter. For the benefit of those who read Hansard. I'll refer quickly to them. These are among the documents that the minister might want to consult if he decides to take a look this proposal for an office of urban agriculture. These include books, publications and journals: The Guide to Community Garden Orga-

[ Page 2542 ]

nizing, published by Gardens For All, Inc., Box 371, Shelburne, Vt.; "Information Sheets for Organizers," published by the Council of Environmental Quality of New York City, which has been heavily involved in promoting urban agriculture, Box 673, Canal Street Station, New York City; An Organizing Guide for Neighbourhood Gardens in Your Community, published by the Cooperative Extension Services of the University of New Hampshire. There are others, but those are the ones I'll refer to for the moment.

It's important that public awareness be established of the possibilities of urban agriculture in this country. It's important that the people of British Columbia understand that our reliance on Mexican and California sources cannot be maintained much longer. It's important that people in the cities as well as in the rural areas become more responsible for providing good and cheap food for themselves. To continually rely on the rural communities of British Columbia is a continuing mistake, in my own opinion. There are new strategies and new technologies available. There are new opportunities which could be coordinated by an office of urban agriculture.

That's the first responsibility of such an office; the second is in the field of housing and public design. I would propose that an office of urban agriculture be empowered to help negotiate agreements with and among the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the provincial Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and those responsible for the national building code. Why is this? Particularly because two of the relatively new technologies for food production in urban communities involve the necessary redesign of public and private buildings. I refer specifically to roof gardens, and I'll be talking in a moment about what's happened in Washington D.C. with tremendous success in the last seven years in converting roofs to urban gardens that produce hundreds of tons of food for the residents of those communities. I'll be talking about design problems. But some authority has to accept responsibility to coordinate CMHC, the Ministry of Housing and those responsible for the national building code — some new thinking into the process. The reason it's important from the viewpoint of design, of course, is because if you're proposing to use rooftops in urban communities for agricultural purposes, those rooftops must be able to bear the weight and the stress. This is no technological problem; if we can put swimming pools on rooftops, as Holiday Inns do all over the world, you can certainly bear the burden of the extra weight involved in putting on roof gardens. Nonetheless, it has to be done in a coordinated way. An office of urban agriculture could help do that.

I think there would be an especial interest in this kind of urban agriculture among those persons who are themselves involved in the planning of, and in living within, co-op housing, seniors' housing, certain condominiums and other forms of public housing. I think CMHC would be interested in these new technologies. I think seniors especially would be interested because they would see this as an opportunity to provide for themselves more and more cheaply available food — food, by the way, of better quality than that trucked in from California or Mexico.

New design requirements can also include opportunities not just for roof gardens and solar greenhouses but also, of course, for the whole new field of hydroponics. This too is a matter of building code and building regulation; this too has to be coordinated in a thoughtful, imaginative and farsighted way if we are to take advantage of these new affordable and appropriate technologies. These new technologies offer opportunities for urban dwellers to become more responsible and more self-reliant as consumers. This is an important social goal as well as a practical one.

I'd like to point out that there are, of course, problems involved in significant urban roof gardening. We have a Canadian precedent; it's been going now for some years in Montreal. I'll be talking about it in a moment. But briefly, an office of urban agriculture could help people, who want to get into these new forms of food production, understand that the problems in cities include the problems of wind, which are considerable on rooftop gardens...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's a lot of wind coming from over there.

MR. BARBER: Oh, shut up. Just shut up.

...problems of water; the problems of heat in the summer; the obvious problems of public design; the ability of the roof to maintain the stress and the weight of urban agriculture; and the other related problems of coordinating.

I want to talk about an experience that McGill University, in the St. Urbain district of downtown Montreal, has had since May 1975. The University Settlement Community Centre, which is affiliated with the Department of Agriculture at the University of Montreal, began an extremely important experiment to find out whether or not, in Canadian urban settings, urban agriculture could succeed. On the roof of this rather large building in the St. Urbain district they built balustrades, entrance ways, and staircases and finally established some 250 gardening plots on the entire roof area at the university. They built three greenhouses, established a compost bin and built three cold frames. Since that time some 80 people have worked, part-time and full-time, to find out whether or not, in the heart of Montreal, people, in this case in the university community, might become co-responsible as urban dwellers for their own food. They discovered, strangely, that the principal problems in Montreal are not wind, cold, rain or all those things that you might expect in that climate. To their amazement they discovered it was an easy matter, with any foresight, to overcome those problems. The chief problem they had in Montreal — the Chairman may be amused to discover — was damage done by squirrels. Anyone who knows the city of Montreal knows that squirrels are everywhere, and it's a charming aspect of life in that community. Nonetheless, the squirrels also like to eat the products of the garden. So they had several problems and several remedies in order to keep the squirrels off the roof garden. But the University of McGill reports that such a project could in fact succeed, and did succeed. The University of McGill has documentation to support the claim that this Canadian experiment in urban agriculture was affordable, was practical, and was apparently successful. The squirrels are no longer a factor; I don't know what they did with them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This surely is one of the new strategies for urban food production that's worth some study. An office of urban agriculture could be held responsible for that second major function.

A third major function for such an office involves the promotion of new technologies. In my own city, in the neighbourhood of Fernwood, people are now building a community solar greenhouse. It will finally be located on the

[ Page 2543 ]

roof of the new neighbourhood centre on Gladstone Avenue. Solar greenhouses differ from conventional greenhouses in a number of ways. They tend to be much better insulated. They tend not to rely on outside fuel sources for heat. They tend to be tremendously more efficient than our ordinary hog-fuel or diesel-powered greenhouses. Solar greenhouses tend to be low-cost and low-energy-demanding units. Solar greenhouses differ from conventional greenhouses in many ways, and the new technologies cheaply and widely available today make solar greenhouses affordable by many individuals and certainly on the part of many community groups.

The University of Montreal, for instance, in the same experiment, was able to use waste heat from its building, pipe it up through the roof and use that to compensate on those days when solar greenhouses were not able to provide enough of their own heat through direction of the sun's rays.

Solar greenhouses are astonishingly productive facilities. Per acre, they are reported to be anywhere from 5 to 14 times more efficient than ordinary greenhouses, and certainly than ordinary plots of land simply out in a rural community. Solar greenhouses, properly maintained and managed, and properly built in the first place, are significant sources of good food for the people who care to use them.

The major work on this subject is published. of course, by the Rodale Press. A guy called McCullough has published a number of books on the subject; he's well respected in the field.

Another of the tasks of an office of urban agriculture would be to examine the technology, the affordability. the placement and the precedent of solar greenhouses as they have been employed casually, and with not much planning, across Canada and the United States in the last ten years, since this kind of technology became popular and available.

Another form of new technology that could and should be widely promoted by an office of urban agriculture is, of course, hydroponics. For the benefit of members who might not be familiar with the term, it describes raising food without soil. It works. Tomatoes are especially able to flourish hydroponically. They can be grown on roofs: they can be grown on vacant lots; they can be grown in backyards. Hydroponic sources of food are nutritious, are safe, are cheap, and are one of the waves of the future in food production in North America. The major work in this area, of course, has been published by a fellow by the name of James Sholto Douglas.

This new technology — hydroponics — can be incorporated into new building design. If it's understood properly, if it's planned for properly, it can be made far more widely available as a matter of ordinary course than it currently is today. Hydroponics, like solar greenhouses, is not at the moment a widely understood technology. But I predict it will be within 20 years. This won't occur simply because it should occur, as the matter of a good idea taking root: it will occur out of desperation. When Canada produces less than 45 percent of its own food, and when British Columbia relies heavily on Mexican and Californian imports, and when we know that 20 years from now we will not be able to rely on those imports, what are we going to do? Well, among the things we have to do is look to that problem now, anticipate its presence 20 years hence, and provide for the proper promotion of the new technologies that create cheap and quality food for the people of British Columbia. Hydroponics and solar greenhouses are among those technologies.

There's another aspect of this new technology that should be of special interest to the government: the opportunity to create a new industry. The B.C. Research Council, the Science Council and the British Columbia Development Corporation should be involved by an office of urban agriculture in determining whether or not we have manufacturing opportunities here for the hydroponic and solar greenhouse field. Those agencies coordinated by an office of urban agriculture could help assess the demand, could help assess the materiel requirements, could help provide the financing, and could help thereby to create an important native British Columbia industry. This too is an important task for the proposed office of urban agriculture. Why should we rely on American imports of food technology, for that matter? Why can't we build them here in this province? Why can't we use our workers in our factories, owned by our people, making our products here in this province?

An office of urban agriculture, with the assistance of the Science Council, the B.C. Research Council and the B.C. Development Corporation, could help create a British Columbia industry that would provide jobs that would pool capital and that would make it possible for people to obtain all of the benefits of these new technologies.

Let me talk about what happens in Berkeley, where they do this now. In Berkeley the evidently legendary Helga and William Olkowsky operate something called Integral Urban House.

MR. SKELLY: I've heard of it.

MR. BARBER: Have you been there? Apparently it's a marvellous place. I haven't been. but I've been reading about it lately. It's described by the University of California as "an environmentally sound centre of strategic food production and waste management." Some 500 people a week evidently go through this house. They raise rabbits. chickens, bees, trout and have a garden on the roof — in a house.

AN HON. MEMBER: And flies.

MR. BARBER: And flies. When the flies die they feed them to the fish. It is an energy self-sufficient operation in the heart of one of the great urban communities of North America, which is the Bay area of San Francisco.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: No. I'm not. I don't have the technology. I don't have the time, But I do have the interest to see that it be done if people want it done. That's why I think an office of urban agriculture is appropriate.

The fourth major function which I believe an office of urban agriculture could help us with is the widespread establishment of urban gardens in British Columbia. In my opinion the finest Minister of Agriculture this province ever had was David Stupich. the member for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're just biased.

MR. BARBER: Of course I'm biased. It's freely and wilfully admitted that I'm biased.

One of the finest things that excellent Minister of Agriculture did was establish an allotment gardening program in this province. Unfortunately, succeeding Socred ministers have allowed that program — by disinterest or by careless-

[ Page 2544 ]

ness or even perhaps by design — to go nowhere. There are, I'm told this afternoon by the coordinator of that program, in all of British Columbia only 850 plots available in the urban allotment gardening program. These are located at five different sites. Four of them are in my city and one is in Vancouver. This information is all of an hour and a half old. It was obtained from the office of a gentleman whose name I will communicate privately to the minister. He is the director of food production services for the Ministry of Agriculture. That is what his office told me. If the information is not correct, I will certainly find out why it's not, but that is what his office in that ministry told me this afternoon. Eight hundred and fifty plots at five sites, four of which are in Victoria, is a hopelessly inadequate statement of commitment by this government to urban agriculture.

I want to discuss very briefly the history of urban agriculture in other communities. I would like to inform the minister that, for instance, in England some 52,000 urban acres are currently under active cultivation by urban gardeners. This land is made available by the Crown of England — the Crown nationally or the Crown in boroughs. In fact, in 1908 the Parliament of England passed a statute which requires each borough district or parish council to provide allotment gardens. Every year, from 1908 to this year, that's what they've been doing in the United Kingdom. That statute is still in the books and, I'm informed, is still enforced. That is what they do in England: 52,000 acres are currently available for urban gardening in that tight little island. It is a wonderful achievement on their part. We congratulate them for it. We want something comparable here.

In Cleveland a school garden program dates back to 1904. In 1978 it involved some 20,000 students at the Benjamin Franklin School and 13 other schools in the Cleveland Unified School District. One school alone in that district has been using the same five-and-a-half-acre urban garden for more than half a century. The urban gardens of Cleveland produce not only food for the people of Cleveland — in their case through the school district — but also tremendous training for the individual schoolchildren who go through and thereby learn personally what it means to be responsible for your own food supply, who learn what it means to deal with the seasons and the problems of environmental management and the problems of ecological interconnectedness in the food chain. Kids learn what it means to grow food. They grow it for themselves, they provide it for their own families. The people of Cleveland since 1904 have been doing that every year, up until and including this year, highly successfully. In Cleveland urban gardening succeeds on a mass scale and it involves schoolchildren. That is a very good thing.

In Bloomington, Indiana, hilltop youth gardens have been established, again through the school system, since 1948. Once again these kids have an opportunity to learn what being personally responsible for your own food supply actually means. They go on as adults to become heavily involved in it. These are important achievements.

In the United States of America they have a federal equivalent of an office of urban agriculture. I would like to tell the minister about it because, once again, when people promote these ideas, usually they are viewed as somewhat curious. When people are able to make the case that there is successful precedent, sometimes the idea is taken more seriously. Well, this idea has precedent.

In 1977 the federal government of the United States of America, through the Urban Gardening Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, established a pilot program to create urban gardening opportunities in six American cities. They spent $1.5 million in the first year. In 1978 they expanded it to 16 cities and spent $3 million. These cities include the urban blighted communities of Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Memphis, Milwaukee, Newark, New Orleans, St. Louis, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit and Houston. In the United States of America they have recognized the necessary co-responsibility of urban dwellers to help provide their own food. They have also recognized the social and the human values of so doing, and that's an important breakthrough as well. In 1977 the United States of America, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, calculated some 32 million family food gardens were underway and being successfully used. Of the 32 million some two million were operated on a community or cooperative basis. They were operated by churches, schools, school districts, neighbourhood associations, seniors groups, the veterans of foreign wars or by any number of other community facilities.

An office of urban agriculture in British Columbia could provide strategic leadership and support in every urban community in this province so that we as urban dwellers become co-responsible for our own food production. The technology exists, the land is available, the precedent is clear, the necessity is increasing day by day. During desperate times everyone agrees that urban agriculture is necessary. In World War II, for instance, victory gardens across Canada were tremendously successful. One year during the Second World War in the city of Vancouver 31,000 tons of food were produced from victory gardens. We know it works during times of national emergency. During the war urban agriculture succeeded. What I'm trying to argue is that we are rapidly approaching a time of such desperation. World population pressures will put increasing demand on food supply. Mexico and California cannot provide. Less than 4 percent of the total land mass of British Columbia is arable for food production. Developers and speculators continue to prey at the agricultural land reserve system. The necessity is here and the necessity is growing that we find new ways, new technologies and new strategies for making food available to the people of British Columbia.

The Urban Reader, a journal published in 1978, volume 6, no. 4 reports that with urban gardening the average North American gardener can save more than $375 a year on food. This is based on the experiments at McGill University and on the apparent success of the urban gardens program in those 16 American cities since 1977.

But to make this happen, provincial and community leadership is required. I want to refer to precedent again briefly. In the United States of America, where people treat these problems seriously and where other social goals can be realized at the same time, vacant lot after vacant lot, which ordinarily has been part of the character of urban blight and ruin in the formerly great cities of America, have been converted to urban gardening purposes.

Let me illustrate. In Brooklyn urban gardenings are managed by the Boerum Hill Community Association. On the lower east side of New York City, the Trinity Lutheran Church manages urban gardens. In New York City, Operation Green Thumb, managed by the Council for Environmental Quality of New York City, has taken over some 10,000 vacant lots in the five boroughs of New York, and currently has 21 different agencies and organizations involved in the

[ Page 2545 ]

promotion and the use of that formerly unused land for urban gardening purposes. The obvious impact it has on the lives of the human beings who are able to involve themselves in that program is tremendously beneficial. The social value of such a program in these decaying cities in tremendously worthwhile.

In British Columbia we have the same opportunity although, fortunately, God bless, we don't have the same current need. The downtown east side of Vancouver, dreadful as it is, still doesn't look like the South Bronx. In the South Bronx they are now recovering vacant and unused land and using it for urban agricultural purposes.

I have a few more examples. I want to refer briefly to them. If I run out of time I'll get back up in a moment. because I want the minister to know that there is a factual basis and an experiential basis for this proposal. It is not far-fetched, Buck Rogers stuff. These new technologies of hydroponics and solar greenhouses work. They actually succeed. They are affordable and appropriate technologies. Urban gardening succeeds in sonic of the worst urban areas of North America. And if it can succeed in those places, it can surely succeed here.

Community support at a local level is also required. Let me illustrate again from American examples — that's the only literature currently available to me — what local communities have been able to do for themselves. In Boston an organization called Boston Urban Gardeners has an arrangement with the national guard. In that city the national guard hauls topsoil for free to new urban settings in order that urban gardening can take place, and people be made co-responsible for their own food. In Saratoga, California, the IndependentOrder of Oddfellows provided land and services to make it available for local gardeners in the city. In San Francisco, eight city agencies are involved in coordinating urban gardening, these include the departments of street tree planting, of city planning, of water, of real estate, of public health, the unified school district, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, and the Golden Gate Recreational Area. In San Francisco they have a fine system of urban agriculture it occurs in some 30 urban agricultural sites within the heart of the city. The city of San Francisco also provides greenhouse and composting facilities; it uses spoiled produce, sewage sludge, sawdust, brush chips, grass clippings, weeds and stable manure. The city of San Francisco provides that basis for successful urban agriculture in the heart of a Community, which in the Bay area is some three million strong and in the city consists of 800,000 people.

In the small community of Hobe Sound in Florida, the Veterans of Foreign Wars — equivalent to our own Canadian Legion — has donated cleared and prepared organic gardening plots for community use. In Denver, Colorado — my last example — the mayor's neighbourhood garden project currently uses and operates more than 100 urban gardens in that polluted, blighted, really not very pleasant community where I was in November — and plans are now being made to establish through the office of the mayor a cooperative canning centre and food distribution system.

I've run out of time, but I have more to say, and after an intervening speaker I'll return to the proposal.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt the very positive speech being made by the previous speaker, but I note that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) has been reading the sports page: now he's getting into the classified ads in the newspaper. I believe it's the practice, as set out in Erskine May, that members do not read newspapers in the House. If that is to be the practice, I would brimg in a newspaper myself and perhaps read it during some of the Minister of Health's speeches. But seriously, I'd like some ruling on that — as to whether or not the practice in this House is to observe what is the practice in the House of Commons in Westminster.

HON. MR. MAIR: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. I certainly acknowledge that I'm reading a newspaper. I'm doing extensive research for a speech that I intend to give some time in the future, concerning a great many weighty matters. I can think of no better source of material for that speech than the Vancouver Sun.

MR. LEGGATT: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm not used to the idea that it's not appropriate to read newspapers in a legislative assembly; this is a brand-new rule I've been exposed to here. Quite frankly, I've never understood why that particular rule should prevail in a legislative assembly. There are things in a newspaper which are worth reading. [Laughter.] Our colleagues in the gallery must wonder where we get our information. Well, if we get it from the newspaper, we might as well be open about it and get it in the assembly rather than back in our offices. I can't quite see any reason for this particular rule myself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. While the Chair, to some degree, shares the opinion of the last speaker, nevertheless I will cite chapter 19 of the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, page 460:

"Reading of Books, Etc. Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places. This rule, however must now be understood with some limitations; for although it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books and letters may be referred to by members preparing to speak, but are not to be read for amusement or for business unconnected with the debate."

If it is the wish of the House to change the traditions that we have, there are proper methods at the members' disposal. Until the, the Chair is bound to uphold the regulations which do prevail, and I would call that to the minister's attention.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, is there anything in Erskine May or any of the rules about the speeches being full of some content?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm just wondering whether that ruling goes for looking at the pictures too. I mean, are you allowed to look at the pictures?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If preparing for a speech, I suppose so, hon. member. Again, as I say, while the Chair does possibly share the feelings of the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), nevertheless we are bound by what we have traditionally, accepted in this House. Again, if any members feel that that is not appropriate, the proper course of action is known to the members concerned.

[ Page 2546 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understood the rules provided that when a member sat down after his time had expired, an intervening speaker was required in the debate. We have had several members speak to the point of order, and nobody spoke to the debate, so it's not in order to recognize that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, a point of order is satisfactory for intervening speeches. No other member was speaking, and the vote did not pass.

MR. BARBER: Have you noticed, Mr. Chairman, how often the opposition is criticized for being negative because we disagree with their policies? Have you noticed their behaviour on the day when we make a positive proposal? They're just as disagreeable.

However, to continue with this positive proposal for the creation of an office of urban agriculture....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It's not pie in the sky; if you were listening you'd understand that it's not. It works. It has worked elsewhere. It will inevitably have to work here, because we cannot rely on other people to provide food for us. We have to do it for ourselves. That's why it's necessary. That's why this proposal, I think, makes a lot of sense.

Let me talk about what they've been doing in Philadelphia. In that city they began a block garden program in 1953. They currently offer some 1,500 gardens at 130 sites. This program is run by a corporation called The Philadelphia Urban Gardeners Inc., which like many community trusts in the United States of America is a formal incorporation. In 1977 they set up eight new demonstration gardens — that's how satisfied they have apparently become with the success of that program — and they are currently negotiating with the Delaware Valley Community Land Trust, which wants to set up across the state a land trust in urban communities to perpetuate city agriculture. The Delaware Valley Community Land Trust is a major public foundation in that state. It's had a lot of respect. It has a lot of money, and it's using that capital to make available urban land for urban gardening. They've decided to negotiate with the Philadelphia Urban Gardeners Inc. because of their success since 1953 in managing such programs.

There is other precedent. I have a good friend who is one of the organizers for something called the Institute for Local Self-reliance. This is an organization that flourishes in the Adams-Morgan district of Washington, D.C. It's composed of 70 of some of the slummiest and most disgusting blocks of human habitation in North America. The Adams-Morgan district is primarily a black district. The people who live there are more than 60 percent unemployed. The rate of crime, violence and self-inflicted violence, by any social measure, is absolutely horrendous. The Institute for Local Self-reliance in Washington, D.C., has four major projects, one of which is consistent with this proposal today. The institute works on energy conservation, on waste recycling, on neighbourhood development and on urban food production. They publish something called The Self-reliance Journal, which — again for readers of Hansard — is available through the institute at 171718th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. This journal reports the beginning success of urban agriculture in one of the most devastated, unhappy, tortured communities of North America.

If through gifted community leadership, which the Institute For Local Self-reliance provides, the people of the Adams-Morgan district are able to become more responsible for their own well-being and less responsible on welfare and all the other handouts that don't work, all the other giveaways that don't succeed because they take away self-respect, then surely this is a darned good thing. I would once again argue that if in a neighbourhood like this such a project can at least begin to succeed in the last 18 months, I believe it's been operating, then surely there is all the more cause to believe it could succeed in British Columbia.

There's one other publication I want to read into the record. It's called Agriculture in the City, published by the Community Environmental Council of California, 109 East de la Guerra Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101.

Again, I want to argue with the government that volume after volume and document after document demonstrates, I think conclusively, that urban agriculture can work even in the toughest environments. When it can succeed in a neighbourhood like downtown Philadelphia or downtown Washington or the Lower East Side of New York City, then it sure the beck can succeed in Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Prince George and in other places where urban dwellers wish to become co-responsible for their own food production.

Earlier I omitted a precedent in Denmark, where there's been a successful national movement for more than 40 years. They have a federation of colony garden associations. The federation provides gas, water and electricity to urban gardening sites in Denmark, where of course the land mass is very small, and where their reliance on high-intensity, high-cultivation food production is of course far greater than our own, at least at the moment. If they can do it in Denmark we can certainly do it here.

I want to point out, in fairness to the argument that there are arguments against urban gardening, that the problems that people involved in urban gardening have encountered are as follows. On rooftops there are those I have mentioned before: wind, blight, heat and, in Montreal, squirrels.

The problems of urban gardening are also related to locale. I want to talk about a special problem that I hope the ministry is alerted to. It's the problem of lead poisoning. It's an extremely important problem when you locate urban gardens, as we do in Victoria, along the Pat Bay Highway. I want to talk about a study published in Ithaca, New York, by Cornell University which has discovered dangerously high levels of lead content in certain leafy vegetables, which are especially prone to receiving that kind of material from the atmosphere.

The problems of urban gardening are the problems of pollution, by and large. They are the problems of lead, cadmium and other heavy metals in suspension in the atmosphere which fall on the vegetables and which sometimes even penetrate the soil and into the roots. The lead, of course, comes from gasoline, paints and deteriorating lead pipes. According to Cornell University, washing reduces lead levels on leafy vegetables by 40 percent, but the remaining 60 percent simply remains. Cornell University, I understand, has recently made a number of important recommendations as to the locale of urban gardens. They particularly argue that they should not be located near any major urban throughway, highway or expressway, at the boundaries of overpasses, or

[ Page 2547 ]

where major transportation networks are close nearby. They're extremely concerned about problems of lead poisoning. Of course, as the Chairman will know, lead poisoning is by no means ordinarily an overnight phenomenon; it's something that builds gradually, slowly and accumulatively in the fatty tissues of the body and finally, of course, makes people desperately ill. It's one of the problems of urban agriculture, but it can be resolved by being aware of the medical consequences of lead poisoning and putting urban gardens as far as possible away from expressways and throughways.

Another problem of urban gardening, of course, is the problem of poor soil on vacant lots. Many of the people in the great cities of North America think that a vacant urban lot which is simply at the moment unused is automatically good for food production. That, of course, is not correct. The experience in America has been that when you're putting a garden on land that was formerly occupied by a brick structure, the soil is highly acidic, and you have to introduce alkalinic elements and major fertilizers to the soil, So it's simply not good enough to think: "Here's a vacant lot. I can use it. Let's take it over and call it an urban garden." It's not true. If you're located near an urban highway, you have to worry about poisoning by lead, cadmium and other heavy metals. If you're located on a site where a brick building once existed, you have to worry about acidity, and if you don't deal with that problem you are tremendously limited in what you can grow.

There's another problem, and that's the urban administration of herbicides or pesticides. At the best of times, the correct administration of these substances is a very difficult matter. In urban communities, it's, all the more difficult. because, of course, you have to worry about children who might trespass, animals that might get into it, and about its application in a lot of practical ways.

Additional problems with urban agriculture include, of course, a lack of water in certain sites and the unfortunate general problem of vandalism, if you have created such an enterprise in an area where the neighbourhood does not fundamentally want it, safeguard and protect it. But as they have discovered in those 16 American cities now financed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, when the neighbourhood wants it, it works; when the neighbourhood protects it, it's safe; and when the neighbourhood manages it, it's efficient. When the neighbourhood is fundamentally responsible for its administration, it succeeds year after year after year. When it's simply imposed and no one requests it, of course it will fail. It will fall victim to vandals, thieves and poor management. But that's the case with any public enterprise. There's nothing special there, and I don't think any of them individually, nor all of them in total, are persuasive arguments against urban gardening. They are not persuasive arguments against widescale urban agriculture. Nonetheless, I think people who approach it in an intellectually honest way have to concede that there are problems with the administration of such a program. There are problems. these problems are also a matter of public record, and they also have to be entertained by the government.

The Cornell University studies, I think, should be particularly examined, if they've not already been, by the Ministry of Agriculture in regard to its current allotment program. The additional publications and journals in the field which record popular experience could and should be examined, promoted and made widely available by an office of urban agriculture.

I think leadership is required here in an important way by the ministry, and specifically, of course, by the minister himself, I want to say it for the concluding time. These technologies are appropriate and affordable and are here now. They work and they succeed. With any wit and imagination we can create new enterprise in British Columbia. We can build those instruments and we can apply that technology here with our own labour, capital and machinery. We can do this for ourselves if we're bright. If we're stupid or slow about it, it will be done for us as usual, by our more aggressive American cousins. who will import their technology into our country and we will pay twice the price we should and have none of the jobs we should either. The technology is available here and now. An office of urban agriculture could help bring that technology more widely and more affordably to the people of British Columbia.

Those four important tasks which could be performed by an office of urban agriculture are, in conclusion: to coordinate public information. to promote new technologies, to make unused land available and to make good food more widely available.

If urban gardens can prosper in the ruins of urban America they can flourish in the urban communities of British Columbia. Let me restate that Canada produces now less than 45 percent of its own food supply. We import all the rest. World population growth continues at a devastating rate. We cannot rely in the future on other states and other jurisdictions giving their food to us. They will need it for themselves. When Mexico City has a population of 55 million at the turn of the century — at the moment Mexico has the highest population growth rate in the western world — there's no reason to believe that the Mexicans are going to give us the food and deny it to their own people. It is foolishness to believe that. We have to produce it for ourselves. When California is a net importer of food, increasingly that food will be denied to us and we'll have to produce it for ourselves in some new way.

Most people realize that the agricultural land reserve is still under attack by developers and speculators. We cannot count permanently on the ALR system to produce the food we need. Even at its height, farmland in British Columbia has never been able to do that because of seasonal and geographical problems. However, the new technologies provide opportunities for year-round food production. The new technologies provide opportunities for urban dwellers to become co-responsible for some of their own food needs. The rural community has always been exploited as the supplier of food for the cities. In the future the cities will have to be made responsible for some of their own food production because the rural communities, I suspect, want not to be so exploited in the future. We've used and abused and ignored them over and over again. Rural communities have always been presumed to be the place that city communities go to when we want food because we're too dumb to find any way to help produce some of it for ourselves. Rural communities have been exploited by city communities in an unforgivable way. Urban communities must become more responsible for how they eat. It can be done. Let me say again. for the umpteenth time, the technology is currently available, currently affordable and currently successful.

A strategy for this sort of urban agriculture is an important part of a strategy to create a conserver society in British Columbia. A conserver society in our province must recognize the necessity that consumers be made responsible to a

[ Page 2548 ]

greater and greater extent for the quality and availability of everything they need for themselves. That's why the renewed interest in co-op housing, That's why the renewed success of neighbourhood associations. That's why the renewed interest in this affordable and appropriate technology. That's why these things are coming and that's why the sooner they come the better. An office of urban agriculture could be one of the major instruments of policy for a conserver society in our province. I, for one, and I think my party generally, welcome and recognize the entry of a conserver society attitude in British Columbia, where we stop throwing away money on the private automobile, which we can't afford any more, and invest it in public transit instead. We must stop throwing money away on obsolete technologies and invest instead in more affordable and more appropriate technologies that will serve us 20 and 30 years from now.

For all these reasons I think an office of urban agriculture makes eminent good sense. I would predict, though, that even if it doesn't make current sense to this government, within 10 and 20 years we'll have something very like it. The force and the fact of history alone will require that the people of British Columbia become more generally responsible for their own food. The fact and the force of world population growth and diminishing land supply make it inevitable that we will become more responsible for how we eat. If we are not prepared now to take advantage of the new ideas and the old experience in urban agriculture, then we're going to be the poorer for it when the day finally dawns on us that we have to do it anyway, whether or not we like it. I commend this proposal to the minister. I do it in all seriousness. It is something that some of us have had a chance to think about for some time and to do some homework on. It is not by any means absolutely researched. There are many documents yet to be read and many studies yet to be examined, but I think the basic argument is present and sound. An office of urban agriculture could help promote that argument and pursue that objective. I think that would be a very happy result, and I hope the minister agrees.

MR. HANSON: I think there are some members of the House that probably haven't yet recognized that agriculture is probably one of the most pressing issues and important debates that we're going to have in this House. As has been pointed out, we have very little agricultural land. The developmental pressures on that finite amount of land are so great that it is all the Land Commission can do to hold it together in its food producing capability for our future.

It's amazing when the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) — who happens to represent an area which has the last option for the northern half of British Columbia to produce some of its own food — stands up and makes silly, frivolous comments, when he should be genuinely interested in the food-producing capacity of our province.

What I want to talk about is the additional $400,000 that's been put into the Agricultural Land Commission vote.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Okay, $342,000. You've been starving it for some period of time. But it's good to see that you've put it in. Now that commission, as I understand it, composed of staff within the ministry, is going to be there to do some of the fine tuning to take the piles of rocks out, to redraw the lines, to perhaps take some of the class 5, 6, 7 land out — that kind of thing?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Put some in? Okay. I have a proposal too. I think the precedent was set when the Land Commission was established. The very first chairman of the Land Commission was a man by the name of Bill Lane. He went all over this province and held public hearings and town hall meetings to explain to people why the land had been frozen, what the objective was going to be to try to preserve farmland for the future. But what I'm concerned about now is how they're going to do the fine tuning — because they used the Canada Land Inventory maps in the past and some of the refinements that may have to be made should be done in public.

What I am concerned about is the process by which the fine tuning is done. I don't seem to have the minister's attention. I am interested in the public participation — the bottom-up, rather than top-down, realignment of any changes that have to be made in the ALR.

The press release that came out some time ago said that the work was going to commence on Vancouver Island. I'm suggesting that the commission staff get off on the right foot, starting here on Vancouver Island, by holding public hearings on the realignments and the fine tuning, so that people can come — small-scale hobby farmers, agrologists, community groups, environmental groups — people interested in the future food supply of our province. I think that fine tuning should be done in public, and I would be very interested in the minister's response to that question.

You see, it's not just a matter of soil science. The preservation of our food capability is a public, political issue. It can't be done in the back room of a ministry office, particularly in a province without a freedom of information act. It should be done in public all the way along. That process, once established, will stand us in good stead around the province.

One of the reasons I want to see it entirely public is my interest in and concern about Vancouver Island. Living on an island, you are acutely aware of the shortage of good high productivity lands.

I have an article here in front of me. It was an agrologist's paper, and it addresses itself to the class 4 and 5 level soils. Many people are of the understanding that it is only class 1, 2, 3 and so on that are the good soils. The Canada Land Inventory classification system refers to the range of crops that can be grown on the land. In other words, class 1 is the full range of crops; class 2, the range is less; class 3, the range is still less. It doesn't address itself to productivity. In other words, a class 5 soil handling forage crops could be much more productive than a class 1 soil in a different geographic orientation. That is a very important thing for the public to understand, because one of the arguments used to remove soils — agricultural land — from the reserve is that it is poor quality; it's class 5, 6, 7 and so on. These higher level classification soils are very important for specialty crops. We don't have a Sacramento Valley in British Columbia. We're not going to grow hothouse products right from the land in the same way that California or Mexico is going to do. However, we do have the ability, for example, on the Saanich peninsula, with classification 4, 5 and 6 soils, to grow many berry crops: loganberries, blueberries — we have a number of them....

[ Page 2549 ]

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Yes, I'll quote you the reference here. It's all in the agrologist's report. Being a farmer yourself, I thought perhaps you might we aware of that, but maybe not.

MR. RITCHIE: Ask them how they would vote if there were an election called.

MR. HANSON: Oh, that's very interesting. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) doesn't agree that we should be saving the higher level classification....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Well, it just so happens that the upland glacial tills.... Look at the range of berry crops — loganberry, holly and apple production. They are good soils for those, according to the agrologists.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Yes, that has to be taken into account too, the climate and the orientation for sun.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think we have to be extremely vigilant in our protection of these higher level classification soils, because the argument is going to be made by developers and by people who want to make a quick dollar to take a class 5, 6, or 7 soil out of the agricultural reserve. The public must be aware that speciality crops that can be of great economic benefit in production of food and also the generation of revenue for British Columbia can be produced on those crops.

I just want to point out a couple of very interesting points that are made by the agrologists here in this publication, which is November 1978. This article is entitled "Why Keep 4 and 5 Soils in the ALR?" I'd recommend it to the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who keeps interjecting grunts and groans from the gravel pit.

"Regional agricultural land reserve policies should be adopted based on the characteristic of a given areas natural-resources and land-use mosaic. This process involves a detailed analysis of the agricultural possibilities for a given region of the province and local priorities and policies developed accordingly. Many say areas subdivided to small property sizes and severely encroached upon by urban uses should be removed from the ALR. This blanket approach of removing all class four and five lands or of removing all encroached-upon lands is narrow and will not serve the best needs of agriculture as a society as a whole."

The point made here is that this extremely detailed fine-tuning of the agricultural land which will put tremendous pressure on the 4 and 5 classification soils must be done in public. The public must have access. Public hearings must be held on the fine-tuning process to safeguard the preservation and the capability of these producing soils.

A special case for specialty crops. I cited the example of the well-drained upland glacial tills of Saanich that are ideal for loganberry, holly and apple production on the Saanich Peninsula. Many of the specialty crops that require these high-level classification soils weren't really fully developed. and that relationship wasn't understood until the last 20 years. What about the next 20 years? There are going to be specialty crops that could be raised here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BRUMMET: Grow them on the rooftops.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could bring that member from the gravel pit to order.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: You know, you are the minister and I probably know as much about agriculture as you do.

MRS. WALLACE: That's not hard.

MR. HANSON: I want to talk about the developmental pressures on interior rangelands in the class 5 area. One of the arguments made by developers is that class 5 land should be taken out. They've got to be protected for forage production.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cows can't eat rocks.

MR. HANSON: Cows can't eat rocks, oh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Stay out of my constituency. We'll eat you for breakfast out there. We eat people like you before breakfast.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons there are so many interjections is that those members on that side of the House know that many of their friends in the development industry are very, very interested in these high-level classification agriculture lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely preposterous! You don't know what you are talking about. Go back and crawl under a rock.

MR. HANSON: I must be making a good point, because I have really agitated them.

My point is that the high-level classification lands must be protected by public hearings. I would like to take my place and have the minister assure the House that all of the fine-tuning is going to be done by public hearings, so that the realignment, if it is to take place, is done in public.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I understand that His Honour the Administrator is in the precincts, so I therefore move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are advised that His Honour the Administrator is in the precincts and should be arriving shortly. We will have a short recess.

[ Page 2550 ]

The House took recess at 5:35 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:38 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'm advised that His Honour the Administrator is about to enter the chamber. Could we all rise?

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1980

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1980

Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980

Forest and Range Resource Fund Act

Trade and Convention Centre Act

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.