1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

611 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Schools Amendment Act (Bill 46). Hon. Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 611

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 44).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 611

Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 43).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 611

Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 45).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 611

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 60).

Ms. Sanford

Introduction and first reading — 611

Oral questions

Government policy re Mincome for immigrants.

Mr. Bennett .611

Instructions to public re uninsured vehicles.

Mr. McGeer — 612

Possible reassignment for Mr. Bremer.

Mr. McGeer — 613

Per capita grants to municipalities.

Mr. Chabot — 613

Federal benefits to pensioners.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 614

Funds for reduction of pupil-teacher ratio.

Mr. Gibson — 614

Proposed University of Victoria law school.

Mr. Wallace — 614

Equalization of Kamloops water rates.

Mr. Fraser — 614

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Lockstead — 615

Mr. Lewis — 615

Mr. L.A. Williams — 618

Mr. Chabot — 619

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 621

Mr. Gibson — 621

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 623

Mr. McClelland — 624

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 624

Mr. Gibson — 624

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 624

Mr. McGeer — 624

Mr. Phillips — 625

Mr. L.A. Williams — 626

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 627

Mr. Gardom — 628

Mr. McClelland — 631

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 632

Mr. Gibson — 632

Mr. Nunweiler — 633

Mr. Curtis — 635

Mr. Bennett — 637

Mr. Wallace — 637

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 638

Mr. Phillips — 639

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 641

Mr. Phillips — 641

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 642

Mrs. Jordan — 642

Hon. Mr. Stupich 64S

Mrs. Jordan — 645

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 646

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): In the gallery

this afternoon we have a group of students from the Windsor Senior

Secondary School in North Vancouver–Seymour. They are accompanied today

by two teachers, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Jonsson. I'd like the House to

bid them welcome.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): In the Speaker's gallery

today we have a group of 20 students from Vancouver City College with

their sponsor, Mrs. Betsy MacDonald. They are students in a special

employment orientation programme for mature women who are desirous to

return back to the vocational field. I would like you to give them a

warm welcome today.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome some guests that are here today from Japan. Mr. Takada, from

Tokyo, is a representative of fish and wildlife clubs in Japan. Miss

Wada, from the city of Wakayama, is here representing the city of

Wakayama, which is the sister city of my municipality of Richmond. To

them, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say "Yoku erushi mashta" — welcome

to beautiful British Columbia.

MRS. WEBSTER: I would also like a warm welcome extended to 35

students from Churchill Secondary School who are going to be in the

gallery at 3 p.m. with their teachers, Mr. Goddard and Mr. and Mrs.

Sayer.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it

isn't often that I have an opportunity to introduce to you and the

House members of my family, but a cousin, Brian Curtis from Kamloops,

is visiting the Legislature today. I am not sure that he has many

constituency complaints to take up with the Member for Kamloops (Mr.

G.H. Anderson) but he'll see him later.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House

to notice and welcome: Betty Jean Dube, the new mayor of Maple Ridge;

Alderman Franklin; the administrator; and also our engineer.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill

intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 46 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.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 44 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.

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Coroners Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 43 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.

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Professional Corporations Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill 60,

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

RE MINCOME FOR IMMIGRANTS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Human

Resources. Would the Minister enlighten us as to what the present

policy of the government is on eligibility for Mincome with respect to

landed immigrants? And do they qualify

[ Page 612 ]

for Mincome on arrival?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): As of the middle

of December, I instructed the staff that all applications from people

who have immigrated to Canada who were applying for the Mincome

programme were to be sent to Victoria. Since that time, no applications

have been approved. I expect to be making a statement in the House

sometime in the future on the total question.

MR. BENNETT: What number have qualified so far?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll have to take that as notice. I can't give you that.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental again. What instructions, if any,

are in field offices now on how to deal with these inquiries? When we

have people in B.C. who are citizens of B.C. requesting whether to

advise relatives and parents to immigrate to this country, what

response do the field offices give?

HON. MR. LEVI: The field offices have not been advised to

give any responses to the questions of people whose relatives want to

immigrate to this country. That's an immigration question, and there

are certain things that have to be adhered to through those rules.

MR. BENNETT: I meant with respect to Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: All I said at the moment is that we have held

up all of the applications in Victoria, so that we can look at them.

Those are the only instructions that have been issued to the field.

MR. BENNETT: I have one more supplemental. I'd just like the

Minister's rationale, because the Premier did say on radio some time

ago that there had been 54 such people so qualified. What is his

rationale or the government's rationale, when we give immigrants to the

country a pension such that if they'd bought an annuity, like the rest

of the taxpayers of B.C. had, it would be worth $24,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think that's argumentative.

INSTRUCTIONS TO PUBLIC

RE UNINSURED VEHICLES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Attorney-General. In view of the 300,000-plus

unregistered motor vehicles as of today, what instructions has the

Attorney-General given to the police of British Columbia with regard to

automobiles that do not have their decals and their insurance tomorrow

morning?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that question was asked yesterday and answered yesterday; it's just a repeat.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, is there some new answer or something? New question? New answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: New Minister?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I think

I took that question as notice. I said in answer to the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that I did not think there'd been any special

discussions. I can now say after investigation that there have been no

discussions in my department at all that I know of in respect to that

question. I presume this year would be like any other year. February

28, new licence plates — there's been nothing special.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A supplemental

question to the Attorney-General. Never before have the RCMP issued

notice that they would not prosecute cars left on the street. It's

illegal to have a car on the street....

MR. SPEAKER: Are you asking a question?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking a question, but I'm trying to supplement it with some information. Just a moment now.

Prior to this year, if you had a car on the street after a licence

year, it was illegal to do so because any car on the public highway had

to have a current licence.

Now, this year the RCMP have issued a statement that there will be a

15-day grace before they will prosecute a car on the street without a

licence. This was issued — I heard it over the radio yesterday.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member would have to get legal advice on that. Ask the question of a lawyer. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What if he did? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a serious matter because....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think if you consult the rules....

MR. PHILLIPS: Let him ask the Minister of

[ Page 613 ]

Health about it. Of course you have a specialty in this — you and your whole family.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A supplemental to the

question asked by my colleague to the Attorney-General: Perhaps you can

correct me if I am wrong, but I have had a number of inquiries and I

understand that there is a period between 12:01 midnight tonight and

12:05 when no one in British Columbia is insured. I'd ask the

Attorney-General to confirm whether this is in fact true. And if it is

true, what instructions has he given the RCMP if there is an accident

in that four-minute period? Are they to falsify their records?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, nobody should falsify records.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, is there a four-minute period when people aren't insured?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know. I really don't know. I don't think so, but I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check with a lawyer — that's what they are there for.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member is right, that's a legal

question. You are asking me to give legal advice and I can't do that.

I'm not qualified. (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: It's the first thing the Attorney-General's said in years that I'd vote for.

Mr. Speaker, I'm quite serious in pursuing this matter, and perhaps

I might transfer the question to the Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications, because I understand this is a matter of serious legal

concern. As I say, if I am wrong, please correct me. But I also

understand that there is a four-minute period in the transitional area

when no one in British Columbia will be insured. I would like to know

whether or not anything has been done to take care of this matter, or

whether people are to falsify the actual time of the accident if they

have it. It's all very well to talk about and laugh about the qualities

of the Attorney-General, but I think this is a matter of serious

concern and should be answered.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't see how you can ask a question that asks for the solution of a legal proposition. According to Beauchesne you can't do that, but you are doing it anyway.

MRS. JORDAN: But is there a four-minute period, Mr. Speaker, when no one in British Columbia is insured?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's a legal problem. If the Minister wants to answer it, okay.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

I take the question as notice and I'll check and see whether or not

there is a four-minute period. If there is a four-minute period, I'm

sure there is some legal answer to it somewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly reply by 12:05 tonight? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: It's 12:01 to 12:05 a.m.

POSSIBLE REASSIGNMENT FOR MR. BREMER

MR. McGEER: A question for the Minister of Education. Today

is the last day of official employment of Mr. Bremer. I wonder if the

Minister of Education has a new assignment for him that she would like

to announce today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I have no announcement to make.

PER CAPITA GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question for the Minister

of Municipal Affairs who's relaxing over there. Regarding the per

capita grants to municipalities: there's been an allocation of a $2

increase this year. I am informed that the additional costs of the

preparation of the voters lists of the community of Golden, the Town of

Golden, is $1.06 which leaves them only 94 cents...

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, they are seceding.

MR. CHABOT: ...from your generosity. I was wondering whether

there is going to be some kind of consideration, some kind of an

additional grant to offset this additional cost which has been imposed

on this municipality.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There is

provincial participation in the preparation of the lists. Roughly, in

the neighbourhood of 50 per cent of the cost will be borne by the

province for the enumeration. Forms for the enumeration will be

supplied by the government.

MR. CHABOT: Just a short supplementary. In other words, out

of this $1.06 the Department of Municipal Affairs will pick up 53

cents. It is still quite a burden. I think in a small town there should

[ Page 614 ]

some consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: That doesn't sound like a question. It sounded like a statement.

MR. CHABOT: No. Is there going to be additional

consideration, Mr. Minister, beyond the present guidelines that are

established for sharing in the cost of the preparation of the voters

list?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Continual consideration is given.

FEDERAL BENEFITS TO PENSIONERS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A question to

the Minister of Human Resources. Would the Minister indicate whether or

not the pensioners of this province will be receiving the full benefit

of the forthcoming increase from the federal government, or is the

provincial government going to gobble it up as in the past?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, it will be passed on.

FUNDS FOR REDUCTION

OF PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question

for the Minister of Education, in view of the welcome news that she

gave to the House a week ago on February 20, page 351 of Hansard :

"...where it is evident that provision has been made for the reduction

of pupil-teacher ratios, supplementary grants will be made if this

provision raises the level of local taxation beyond a reasonable level

in the district."

Mr. Speaker, my question for the assistance of local school boards

in their planning: would the Minister specify what would be an

unreasonable level of taxation, and what percentage increase, and what

would be the timing of the availability of these new funds?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm not able to answer either of those two

questions for you at this time until we meet with the school boards and

the survey is completed.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary: then has the Minister no figure in mind as to what level of taxation, what increase would be unreasonable?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Not at this time. As I say, we will be meeting with each individual school board.

PROPOSED UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

LAW SCHOOL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's rather an

important question to the Minister of Education with regard to the new

law school to be established at the University of Victoria, for which

there are already 500 applications. Has the Minister had recent

discussions with U. Vic authorities regarding the financing of the

school? Is she aware that unless an immediate allocation of funds is

made, the school cannot possibly open this fall?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Members grasp not their microphones, but the rod each time. It is very difficult on the transmission.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I have had numerous discussions with

U. Vic over the law school. They did place an item in their budget for

the start, the phasing in of the law school. I understand that they did

have difficulty finding a dean which has put back the timing several

months. So really it basically is not a matter of finance. It depends

on when they are ready to start in on the first phase.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest

respect, my information differs considerably from that. The fact is

that the matter of the issue of appointing the dean has, in fact, been

settled or is on the point of being settled — information I was given

yesterday. The information I was asked to convey to the Minister

related intimately and totally to the fact that they can't afford to

open the law school as the budget exists at this point in time unless

there are additional allocations of money. It is not the question of

staff, but the question of money. And I am only repeating information I

received from a very....

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a question?

MR. WALLACE: I would ask the Minister if she would reconsider

her answer to the first question in the light of what I have asked her

a second time.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wonder if I could take that under consideration. I'm intending to have further discussions with U. Vic.

EQUALIZATION OF

KAMLOOPS WATER RATES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Could the Hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs give the House any assurance that government grants

will be available for the City of Kamloops to equalize the water rates

for the residents of Barnhart Vale, who will be paying

[ Page 615 ]

$15 a month when the rest of the residents of the greater City of Kamloops will be paying $6?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't give any assurances what the levels

of the water rates will be in the City of Kamloops. That will be

decided by the City of Kamloops. I can advise you that notification was

sent to the mayor of Kamloops that the cost of the purchase of the

Sunrise Water District is being refunded by the province to the City of

Kamloops. I think it was in the neighbourhood of $195,000, and with

this, presumably, the city will be in a position to bring in the same

rate in Barnhart Vale as they do in the rest of Kamloops. Whether they

do this or not, I don't know.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 3: Minister's office, $74,516.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I would like to ask the

Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) a question regarding tax assessments on

agricultural land frozen under the agricultural land reserve.

I'd like to know if the Hon. Minister is having these discussions

perhaps with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) regarding this

question — on land that is presently frozen under the agricultural land

reserve, land that cannot be subdivided and is still, in some

instances, being taxed at the full improved rate.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I think this House has gone through several days of smear by the opposition....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to use unparliamentary words, and I'd ask him to withdraw the word "smear."

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I think the tactics that have been used by the opposition have been far from credible.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the word "smear."

MR. LEWIS: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw the word "smear."

Some of the statements made by the opposition have been incredible,

Mr. Chairman, and to my amazement the press yesterday failed to touch

on the fact that I brought before this House a report from the

independent egg survey committee, and pointed out that the past

Minister of Agriculture that sits in the House at this time...

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: ...did much the same type of thing as they're

accusing us of doing. Yet the press never covered that in the paper,

and I often wonder why.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you running the press now, as well as the chickens?

MR. LEWIS: No, I'm not running the press. But I think that fair treatment is fair.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): With that I sympathize.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not one who likes to delve into

the past. I think I'm an MLA that likes to look to the future. But I

think it's time that I go back a few years and read some of the

statements made by the opposition in regard to marketing boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: This is dated Friday, February 25, 1972. It says:

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Who was the government then?

MR. LEWIS:

"B.C.'s natural products marketing system was branded

ridiculous, stupid and insane in the Legislature Thursday by Social

Credit and NDP Members."

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit said that?

MR. LEWIS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They said that!

MR. LEWIS: It's amazing.

"The MLAs accused the government of coddling the egg

marketing system which they said works against the northern B.C.

producers..."

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Hear, hear!

[ Page 616 ]

MR. LEWIS: "...discourages younger people from entering the

agricultural field, and protects the wholesaler more than the farmer

and the consumer."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEWIS: Well, we'll go on a little further. It names people:

"The attack came just before the House approved the

spending estimates totalling $11.2 million for the Minister of

Agriculture, Cyril Shelford."

It seems funny that they were in the estimates of that Minister of

Agriculture at that time and they were taking a different stand at that

time. It says:

"Dudley Little, Social Credit for Skeena.... "

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What did he say?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Oh, stop attacking the dead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: It said:

"Mr. Little...noted that a Terrace farmer is facing a

charge in court for overproduction of eggs, which could cost him

$63,000 if found guilty. 'If he loses his case he'll be out of

business, and we in the north will be dependent on the south for our

eggs,' Little said."

MR. STEVES: Did Dudley say that?

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Little said that, yes.

"'The people in the north are being hurt by this

ridiculous and stupid legislation and by the stupid members in that

department which allow this situation to continue,' he charged."

It sounds to me like he was an outspoken Member. "The Skeena Member

called for a division of the province into northern and southern

districts, each with its own egg production quotas, to remove the

necessity of northern producers buying production quotas from the lower

mainland if they want to sell their eggs." Now we have another Social

Credit Member — they seem to have quite a few outspoken ones — George

Mussallem, from Dewdney.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yea, old George.

MR. LEWIS: He said that just because the Legislature was stupid in passing the Act, it needn't stay stupid. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: He said that marketing boards are given too much power by the government and are run by small cliques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: To me, it is astounding to have Members of the

past government standing up and saying that; and now they're turning

around and talking out of the other side of their mouths.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: We've got one more Social Credit Member here that spoke out too — Herb Bruch. You know, I'm almost starting to like Socreds.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Herb Bruch from Esquimalt. He's no longer with us. I don't know why.

MR. CHABOT: I wish he was.

MR. LEWIS: He said it is wrong to leave control of production

up to the farmer alone because that doesn't take into account the

housewife or the consumer...

MR. STEVES: Good for her.

MR. LEWIS: ...because the farmers have got a cosy little

package of production. They are hurting the opportunity of young people

who want to go into the agricultural field.

Now I'd like to also quote a Member sitting on the government side

of the House. You know, from the way he spoke yesterday, I don't think

he waffled. I think he said what he meant in opposition; when he

becomes part of the government, he also says the same thing. It says:

"Bob Williams, NDP for Vancouver East, said the

Agriculture department is just one of a number of departments under the

Social Credit administration bungling around in trading in quotas. 'The

same thing is happening in the forest industry, ' he said. Williams

said quotas should somehow revert to the Crown..."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEWIS:

"...so that prospective farmers wouldn't

[ Page 617 ]

have to raise a large amount of capital needed to buy out another farmer."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Yes. I'd like to go back to February 24, the day

before that, when Mr. Little spoke in the House. I'd like to point out

again that Mr. Little was a Social Credit Member at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did big Dudley say?

MR. LEWIS: He said:

"Mr. Little repeated the charge that northern farmers

are being discriminated against because the Egg Marketing Board is

controlled by the farmers in the Fraser Valley. Little said that

northern farmers are being told to buy quota in the Fraser Valley."

Mr. Chairman, this is what I was referring to yesterday. If the

farmer in the Interior of the province wished to supply the increased

demand by the consumers in that area, he was put in the position where

he was told, "To do this you must buy the rights from a farmer in the

Fraser Valley" — at $350 a case at that time.

"Little said, 'Northern farmers are being told to buy quotas in the Fraser Valley. Nothing could be more damn stupid.'"

That's awful language, but that's what he said.

"He said that farmers are getting fed up. 'What

happens,' Little said, 'is that the stores in the north put Fraser

Valley eggs on sale rather than eggs produced in the area. And when the

farmer complains, they are told to buy southern quotas. The Ministry of

Agriculture,' the Social Credit Member charged, 'is bogged down in a

mire of manure and bureaucracy.'" I'll have to take my hat off to that

Member because I think he knew what he was talking about.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): We're about to have chicken feathers right now.

MR. LEWIS: We also have a little quotation from a Liberal Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Negative, negative!

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Are they in the House?

MR. LEWIS: He was very outspoken about the Minister of

Agriculture interfering. "This should never happen, " he said. "Keep

your nose out of marketing board business."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. LEWIS: It was Mr. Williams. He spoke yesterday.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. LEWIS: It says, "L.A. Williams, Vancouver–Howe Sound, also lambasted the marketing boards."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: I'm starting to like you too, Allan. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: He said there was a conflict between the broiler board and the B.C. egg board. He said they are working at cross purposes.

"'The broiler board,' Williams said, 'controls not

only the producer price for broilers, but also the price to the broiler

producers of the day-old chicks.'"

Now that was a cosy arrangement, too. The broiler producers with the

Broiler Marketing Board were able to say to the buyer of their product

what they were going to pay, and they were in a position to tell the

hatchery what they would pay for their chicks. That's real democracy

within a marketing board.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Do you have any suggestion?

MR. LEWIS: Then Mr. Williams says, "When are you going to do something for the farmer?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sure, sure.

MR. LEWIS:

"Williams also took Shelford to task for the fact that

the provinces annually import up to 1.5 million turkey eggs rather than

encourage the development of the provincial turkey industry. The

Liberal MLA said the marketing boards are to blame for the failure, and

urged the Minister to take actions to correct the situation."

[ Page 618 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, terrible.

MR. LEWIS: That wasn't good, Allan. That was two years ago.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh! That's different.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS:

"Williams said he agreed that national policies were

needed to improve the plight of the farmers, but he said this did not

relieve the province of its responsibility to take independent action."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, interference.

MR. LEWIS: Yes, interference. It really amazes me that

anybody could stand up in this House and ask a Minister of the Crown to

interfere with one of those marketing boards. He said, "All the

Minister does is complain about what Ottawa doesn't do."

You know, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the opposition at the

present time is like a flock of chickens that have gone into a moult.

(Laughter.) They're still eating, that's quite apparent. They've lost

quite a few of their tail feathers, and the most productive thing they

can do is scratch around in the dirt.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I am very

pleased to follow the Hon. Member for Shuswap and I'm delighted that he

went through the history of the debates that have gone on in this

House, and outside this House, concerning the performance of product

marketing boards in British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, if you listen very carefully to what the Hon.

Member said, I think it was probably the clearest criticism of the

present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) that could be voiced

anyplace — and from one of his own Members.

Yes, it's true that in the days of the former administration Members

on both sides of the House, Social Credit, NDP and Liberal, raised

serious questions about the performance of marketing boards and the way

in which they administered their responsibilities on behalf of the

producer segment; that's the farmers.

Well, here we are, 18 months after the election of a new government

which was going to do all kinds of wonderful things, and we've still

got exactly the same complaints. What's the Minister been doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Trying to change it but you won't give him a chance.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's what we've been arguing about, Mr.

Chairman, over the past two days; that the Minister of Agriculture,

while he may be attempting to do something positive in this respect, is

being interfered with by the political actions of the Premier of the

province.

I hope that eventually the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) will

recognize exactly what has taken place by reason of the political

interference of the Premier, of the Member for Shuswap, the Member for

Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) and other northern and Interior Members of

the government party.

The Member for Shuswap would seem to suggest that somehow or other

it's a criticism of me and other Members who in the past have asked the

government to do something about the marketing schemes. Yet that very

Member was a member of the Egg Marketing Board and the Broiler

Marketing Board. He knows perfectly well how these schemes are

established, and he knows perfectly well the authority that the

government has to change those schemes.

He knows that the schemes are established by an order-in-council. He

knows that the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act gives

the cabinet of this province — the cabinet, Mr. Chairman — the right to

change the schemes.

That is not political interference. Is it political interference

every time the cabinet exercises its lawful authority? It is political

interference, Mr. Chairman, when one Member of the cabinet in a private

meeting tells people what they are going to do. That's political

interference. But it is not political interference when this executive

council meets and decides to amend orders-in-council in order to

improve the laws of this province. And that's where the problem is.

Even the Minister of Agriculture is guilty in this respect. He met

with the Broiler Marketing Board — and this is not something that

occurred when he was a neophyte Minister and perhaps could be excused

by inexperience or lack of knowledge. These are matters which have

occurred inside the last month.

He met with members of the Broiler Marketing Board and they were

directed by him, requested by him, or suggested.... I'm not going to

play with semantics with the Hon. Minister. I say he directed them to

place on their board a member from Vancouver Island and a member from

the Interior. Mr. Chairman, such an action would be unlawful because

the order-in-council clearly establishes the size of the board and the

way in which they shall be elected.

The board doesn't have any power to control this; but, Mr. Chairman, the executive council of this

[ Page 619 ]

province has the authority to control it. If they want to amend that

scheme, let them amend the order-in-council. Let's do things lawfully,

not as the result of political pressure emanating from the office of

the Premier and responded to by the Minister of Agriculture.

The same thing applies, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the three-man

committee which the Minister suggested should be established by the

Broiler Marketing Board in order to determine which of the producers in

the Kamloops area — which of the two producers in the Kamloops area —

were to enjoy the benefits of a significant permit for the production

of broiler fowl. And the Members know what the figures were that were

suggested by the members.

Two producers were to be given the right to produce at the

11,000-unit figure. Others were to go down to 5,000. In order to select

the lucky producers the Minister suggested that there should be a

three-man committee. He expected that the Broiler Marketing Board would

respond to that demand.

Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister

should well know this — and if he doesn't, his senior staff should well

know and have advised him — that this is one of the powers that the

Broiler Marketing Board has under the order-in-council which

specifically provides that that authority cannot be delegated to any

other person or group of persons. So to have established a committee

for this purpose was also contrary to the law.

Yes, we want changes in the marketing board operations, just the

same as the Member for Shuswap wants changes — in the same manner as

the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) wants changes. But we want changes that are done lawfully by

the proper exercise of the authority of government, not by backroom

political interference by individual Members of the government party,

whether they be in the cabinet or not.

We are entitled to hear in this committee, Mr. Chairman, from the

Minister of Agriculture, why at this stage, when the law and the

opportunity for him is clear, he has insisted upon this backdoor method

of attempting to resolve the problems of marketing boards on an ad hoc

basis.

Ad hockery can only produce further chaos so far as marketing boards

are concerned, and further chaos is not going to assist the producers

in this province, or the consumers, and it's certainly not going to

resolve the problems which the Member for Shuswap and other northern

Interior Members have suggested exist in this province today.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hon. Minister is not going to have this

vote until he satisfies us that he is running his department in

accordance with the law and is prepared to take, in proper time, those

steps which need to be taken to make the natural products marketing

scheme in this province work.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I've heard frequently from the

Member for Sorrento regarding the egg and broiler situation in the

province. He talks differently here than he does on the outside. He

appears to have a split personality relative to this problem and its

solution, from statements made by the Minister. He happens to write a

little newspaper column called the "Victoria Commentary." He says:

"While on the subject of marketing, I'm certainly not

pleased with the recent snow-job handed the Interior regarding the

establishment of a broiler industry here. All those I talked to from

the Interior who attended the meeting in Vernon on the 23rd were

utterly shocked to think that anything like this could happen in a

democratic society.

"For those who are not familiar with the situation,

suffice to say the broiler board and the Department of Agriculture saw

fit to put together a programme that would not only give the Interior

agriculture no control over its own industry, but would not even

establish viable units within the Interior.

"Somewhere between the Minister and representatives from government attending that meeting, there are lies and contradictions."

That's what the Member for Shuswap is saying on the outside. Why

isn't he standing on his feet in this assembly asking the Minister

where those lies are? Is he trying to project a different image on the

outside for political reasons? Is that what he's trying to do?

It's quite obvious that that man has a split personality when he's

outside this chamber. He's certainly shown a great deal of concern for

the egg producers in this province. For the egg producers of Sorrento

he's concerned; there's no doubt about that. He's concerned about the

fact that the egg producer in Sorrento must truck his fowl to the lower

mainland, and that transportation costs absorb the value of the bird.

So I don't blame that Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) standing up in

this assembly and fighting for that egg producer from Sorrento. But

he's fighting for himself when he's doing that. These are the type of

self-interest arguments I've never seen in this assembly before.

Now he's talking about the establishment of a poultry processing

plant. Why should it necessarily be in your constituency or in your

backyard, Mr. Member? I think that it should be carefully researched as

to the location of this plant, and it shouldn't be established on

parochial, political boundary lines. That's what you intend doing;

that's exactly what you intend doing. It will be right in the backyard

of the Member for Shuswap.

[ Page 620 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right in his yard.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. It could be in my riding, it could be in the

Cariboo, it could be in the Prince George area. Why should it be in an

NDP riding?

Then they talk about the establishment of broiler quotas. There's

going to be 11 broiler quotas established in the Interior of British

Columbia. Are these going to be put into narrow, political, parochial

boundaries such as in the Kamloops-Shuswap area? These are new quotas

being established.

What is wrong with establishing broiler quotas in the east or the

west Kootenays? What is wrong with establishing quotas in the Cariboo?

What is wrong with establishing quotas in the Peace River or in

Terrace? Are we going to establish quotas on the basis of political

whim? Is that what we're going to do? It appears that way when one

examines the memo which the Minister of Agriculture wrote to the

Premier.

Talking about the great Minister of twist over there, that Minister

has a great ability of twisting and that Minister has no respect for

the truth at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that last statement that the Minister has no respect for the truth.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when I said that I was just

thinking of the judgment brought down by Justice Anderson, who did

state in his judgment that that particular Minister simply did not tell

the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to withdraw his statement.

MR. CHABOT: ...the Minister simply does not tell the truth,

but if you object, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the statement that the

Minister does not tell the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River

to withdraw the implication that the Minister was not telling the

truth, and also the word "twist" at this time on the floor of this

House. I'm making the ruling on the grounds that there is an imputation

of a bad motive on the part of the Minister. I would ask the Hon.

Member to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about broilers and

the establishing of broiler quotas in the Interior of British Columbia.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: Oh, sorry, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Member — I'm making this as a

request from the Chair — to withdraw the implication that the Minister

was not telling the truth.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've asked the Member to unqualifiedly withdraw the remarks before he makes any further remarks.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you weren't listening when I did. Mr. Chairman, you weren't listening.

AN HON. MEMBER: What more do you want?

MR. CHABOT: I'd have to make the statement again before I could withdraw it again, Mr. Chairman. You know that!

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Member has made his withdrawal then we will accept it from the Chair. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: Now, that Minister over there, as I was saying

just a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, is attempting to leave the

impression that this group over here is not in favour of the broadening

of the quota allocation on broilers and eggs in the Interior and

northern part of this province.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

You have a new policy, have you?

MR. CHABOT: He's a master when it comes to twisting the facts, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: No Member on this side of the House at any time has ever suggested that they're opposed to the broadening....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no question in my mind

that the Hon. Member was stating that the Minister was twisting the

facts and not telling the truth. I would ask him to withdraw the

phrase, "twisting the facts." Would the Hon. Member please withdraw

that phrase?

MR. CHABOT: Withdraw what remark, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Twisting the facts."

[ Page 621 ]

MR. CHABOT: It was quite obvious he was attempting to leave....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I just asked the Hon. Member to withdraw the phrase.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you know, he was distorting the facts. You know that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw the phrase?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you have me all twisted up. I don't know what you want me to do now. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll make it simple. Just say: "I withdraw the phrase, 'twisting the facts.' "

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw the phrase, "twisting the facts."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, he attempted no doubt in my mind to

misreflect (Laughter) statements made on this side of the House. Time

and again, not only during this session but on many occasions in the

past, Members on this side of the House, or Members of this particular

political party, have stated that they are in favour of the broadening

of the egg and broiler quotas to assist increased production in the

Interior of British Columbia.

My question to the Minister is: in the broadening of the base, and

we're talking primarily about broilers at this time, will consideration

be given to other regions in British Columbia for the production of

these broilers, or will it be restricted exclusively on political whim

and on political boundaries?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, this

afternoon we're being treated to a similar kind of thing that's been

going on. I'd like to use an analogy to do with this "gloom and doom"

bunch with all of their forecasts. The Social Credit opposition over

there are talking about the boards that they set up, promulgated,

centred in Chilliwack, and all of that kind of situation. Now it

becomes a great point of criticism when something has actually happened.

Mr. Chairman, let's look at what's happening outside today. Has

anybody been near a motor-vehicle branch today? Where are the line-ups?

Where are the line-ups that were there in 1910 to 1972? — That's an

analogy, Mr. Chairman, for the gloom and doom forecasting that's been

going on across there. You see, there were line-ups before, but there

are no line-ups now, because it's working, Mr. Chairman — just like

this Minister's department will be working.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister be seated?

HON. MR. COCKE: Love to. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask the Hon. Minister to confine his remarks to vote 3.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, do you not use analogies from time to time in your work?

Anyway, I will carry on. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the

opposition has been given far too much latitude to discuss questions

that are well outside of this vote. I was just trying to suggest to you

that, analogous of what's going on in the Agriculture department, this

gloom and doom prophecy has been shown elsewhere and it has shown to be

false. If it's good, it's bad. That's their situation.

Having said that, I think that we're in good hands with the Minister

of Agriculture. We're going in the direction where the farmers are

going to have a future in this province, because prior to this the

farmers were going right down the tube.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

last night I had occasion to pose two questions to the Minister of

Agriculture. He started to answer only one of them, which was the

question of what would be proper and what would be improper influence

by the government on a marketing board. He assured us that there will

be occasion later on in this session to debate that question more

completely, which I welcome.

He didn't deal with what I consider the major question, the more

important question in the history of this matter of the meetings

relating to the Egg Marketing Board and to the Broiler Marketing Board;

and that is a question of a government cover-up of what happened and a

question of being a good deal less than frank with the House about what

happened.

To me it's a simple question of the integrity of the government. I

want to reiterate to the Minister what the facets of this question are.

The first point is that the Premier has said certain things to this

House, which I quoted last night and will again today, about what

actually transpired at those meetings.

The second fact, which is public knowledge and has been read into

the record of this House, is that sworn affidavits have been made

giving directly opposite stories about the Premier's role in those

meetings. Here we have conflicting evidence on a question of great

importance, basically on a question of the Premier's word.

[ Page 622 ]

How can we solve it? The solution seems to me to lie in the fact

that there were other witnesses there — witnesses who haven't yet given

testimony. Public servants were at both of these meetings.

The route suggested by the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

yesterday, the route of a public inquiry, would allow these public

servants to give their testimony on this important question.

But perhaps no public inquiry would be needed if the Minister could

recall more clearly what happened at these meetings, because the

Minister was there and he can help settle this. I hope he will do so.

And I'd like to recount once again the conflicting facts:

We have, first of all, the Premier's statement to this House on

February 25 saying, speaking of eggs and the meeting of October 26,

1972: "Mr. Speaker, they were not asked or ordered or suggested to be

ordered to do anything."

The same day, in speaking of the same meeting he said: "I told no one to draft an agreement."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw the attention of

the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano to standing order 43 which

states as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a

Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of

his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate,

may direct him to discontinue his speech...."

Now, I am just drawing this to his attention for his guidance.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to once

again remind the Minister, since it seems to have escaped his attention

last night since he made no comment on this particular question that I

asked him in his summing up remarks, I am trying to recall to his

attention the facts of the case on which I would like him to comment.

If I may continue to make these rather brief quotations from the

record of the House: "That I told no one to draft an agreement, " on

February 25, the words of the Premier. And on February 26: "But I do

distinctly recall in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I

made no order or did not order any solution."

Mr. Chairman, those are very precise, direct, apparently

crystal-clear recollections. The Minister has told us that his

recollections of those meetings are not crystal clear, but they seem to

have been improving during the course of this debate, and perhaps he

has had opportunity to consult with some of his officials who were at

the meeting.

I will once again ask him, in hopes that more details have come to

his mind, how this might be reconciled — the very clear words of the

Premier — with the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon saying that at the meeting

of October 26, 1972, he was informed by Mr. Barrett, in the following

words: "'There will be no court case against Sy Kovachich,' or similar

words to the same effect," which was a direct contradiction.

"That I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that: 'The

charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced, and if those

charges are not reduced you will break him,' or similar words to the

same effect.

"That I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that the

said marketing board was to forthwith draft an agreement for reduced

charges against Mr. Kovachich.... 'It has to be done today. Is there an

office they can use?' — or similar words to the same effect."

Direction contradiction, Mr. Chairman. I ask the Minister if he

would please comment on that contradiction, as a man who was at that

meeting.

The testimony of the Minister is obviously needed if another point

of the affidavit is correct where the man who swore the affidavit, Mr.

Brunsdon, swore at point 15 that the Premier said, "'If anything is

said outside of this office I will deny every word I said,' or similar

words to the same effect." The testimony of the Minister on this point

is clearly very important. That's eggs; that's October, 1972.

Then we have a much more recent case. If the Minister has difficulty

with 1972, perhaps the recent events of 1973 and early 1974 will be

simpler.

Again, the words of the Premier are very specific with reference to

broilers, with reference to the meeting with certain personnel of the

Broiler Marketing Board and the Minister and some public servants.

The Premier says: "I told no one to draft an agreement. They were

not ordered. They were not asked or ordered or suggested or ordered to

do anything."

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, that was with respect to the eggs. I will have to move on to the broilers.

The Premier said on February 26: "Mr. Speaker, I didn't order anyone

to be given any quotas related to broilers." Later on, the same day: "

I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to allocate

broiler quotas."

And then again, we have in the affidavit of Mr. McAninch a clear

statement that he was told by the deputy Minister of Agriculture that:

"The Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of the province of

British Columbia, had ordered that instead of the broiler permit policy

contained in

schedule 'A', that two of the 11 Kamloops-Okanagan broiler

producers be allotted 20,000 birds per cycle, and that the remaining

nine broiler producers be allocated

[ Page 623 ]

5,000 birds per cycle."

I would remind the Minister again.... And I am not certain whether

the Premier was at this particular meeting relating to broilers, but

certainly the Minister was.

I would ask the Minister: does he recall that having been said? And

if he does not recall it being said, would he consult with his Deputy

who is quoted in the affidavit, and report to the House the

recollection of his Deputy as to whether or not he said those words to

Mr. McAninch? If that is the case, how are they to be squared with the

statement on February 26 of the Premier that he did not order anyone to

be given any quotas related to broilers?

Mr. McAninch adds: "I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that

Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three be appointed to determine

allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett."

As the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

pointed out earlier on today, where is the legal authority for this?

Clearly, if the executive council had passed an order-in-council, this

could have been done under the authority of the Natural Products

Marketing Act.

Apparently the Premier and the Hon. Minister preferred to proceed in

a way which did not require the government to take responsibility for

this particular action. They wished to have the power without the

responsibility.

Again there is the contradiction. The words of the Premier: "Mr.

Speaker, I did not direct that a committee of three be struck to

allocate broiler quotas." A direct contradiction on which I most

earnestly ask the Minister to comment, to answer, to give his

recollection of these two incidents — one relating to the Egg Marketing

Board and one relating to the Broiler Marketing Board.

If for some reason the Minister feels unable to answer, then, Mr.

Chairman, we come back to the suggestion of the Second Member for Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) that there must be a public inquiry to hear those

public servants who were at those meetings and who might be expected to

give clearer testimony than we have had from the Minister.

I believe that this must be cleared up.

There are many other important points of discussion in relation to

marketing boards: in respect of territorial distribution of production;

with respect to government control of marketing boards. But the point

of supreme importance, it seems to me, is the question of whether the

government is being frank with the House and with the people of British

Columbia.

The direct contradictions between the sworn testimony of four

citizens of British Columbia and the statements of the Premier in this

House are ones that perhaps can be cleared up by the Minister. I hope

he can do so because the one thing the public cannot stand is a

government that is less than honest in its dealings with the

Legislature and with the public.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I am tempted, but I won't take umbrage at the suggestion that the answers have not been straight up to this point.

A question was asked earlier about tax and assessments, which is not

in my department, but it is something that my department is quite

interested in — the effect of assessments on farms, on farming, on the

agricultural industry. It is something about which I have asked a

couple of members of my staff to do a little research and give me some

indication as to what effect they feel the assessment procedures and

the taxing procedures have on the farming industry and to give me some

recommendations.

The questions asked by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) — three of them, really — made some good points,

except that they've all been made before.

First, he asked if I directed that there be a board member from the

Interior of the province. No such direction was given to the board.

There was discussion of it in my office, and agreement between myself

and the two members of the board who were there that we not proceed

along those lines.

Secondly, the instruction that two producers get 20,000 and that

nine get 5,000 — there was discussion of this at different times, but

agreement was reached again that 11 producers would have 8,000 each. So

at no time did I instruct that these figures be the ones.

Thirdly, he asked if I instructed the board that a selection

committee be named rather than have the board do it. Again, there was

discussion on this point as well, and on this point we did agree. As I

reported yesterday, in my office there were two members of a three-man

board. We did reach agreement on that point rather than instruction.

In no case were there instructions. As you say, I didn't have the

authority to instruct. But I certainly had the responsibility, I felt,

to discuss these matters with them and to arrive at an agreement. And

we did.

The question was raised by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) — he's out now but I might as well deal with it — as to

location of the plant. As I answered yesterday, it will not be on the

basis of politics.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) raised the question

about some land in her community. We haven't heard from the mayor yet —

we may have by now, but not by this morning. The selection of producers

will not be on political grounds.

Will consideration be given to other regions? Yes. Consideration will be given to other regions by this

[ Page 624 ]

particular administration and by the board in co-operation with the

administration. Will it be on the basis of political considerations? It

hasn't been up until now. I told the House yesterday we would go by the

chronological list that the broiler board has in their hands — a list

of some 87 that they've had for quite some time — and that it would be

on the basis of that chronological list as the records are available

from the broiler board.

The questions from the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson). The affidavits are a recollection of a conversation by certain

people. In the record for the last two days I've given my recollections

of those conversations, as near as I can recall them. I'm not going to

repeat all that. I suggest to the Member that is interested in this —

I'm not trying to evade his questions — simply that he read Hansard rather than have me repeat the whole thing again.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I have just one question of

the Minister. If there will be no political considerations in the

selection of the growers in the Okanagan-Kamloops area, why doesn't the

Minister allow the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board to make the

selections from those 87 names? Why the committee? What's wrong with

the Broiler Marketing Board, which has no political concern? Why can't

they make those selections from those 87 names instead of your

committee, chosen by you?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Rightly or wrongly, there is some feeling

in the minds of the people in the Interior that the Broiler Marketing

Board has not been trying to encourage production in the Interior of

the province. Rightly or wrongly, I say, it has been the case.

I suggested to the board, to take the heat off them so that they

wouldn't be carrying the can for any of this selection, that I name a

special committee and that the board be invited to partake fully in the

discussions and in the interviews, but that when it comes to actually

naming the people, the heat is off them and on my committee and

subsequently on myself. You asked for the reason; that's the reason.

MR. McCLELLAND: Will the board ever be given back its

responsibility which it deserves and which it should have by law to

make those kind of selections again, once the programme is established

in that area?

HON. MR. STUPICH: This particular selection is for a very

special situation to get it started. Again, I reported yesterday that

once this has been accomplished — and it's one of the points we

discussed with the board — we would then have three separate lists at

their suggestion — one list for each of the producing areas — and that

the new entrance into the broiler production programme would be on the

basis of the broiler board policy, or rather the association policy as

administered by the board.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, concerning the Minister's reply to me, I say to him, through you, that I have carefully studied the Hansard blues for the last couple of days, and I am unable to find the answers to those questions that I just posed.

It's very simple. Having studied all these documents, would the

Minister simply say whether the affidavits are wrong or whether the

Premier was wrong? Or is there some other explanation? Or will he

support a public inquiry to find out what did happen?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I can do no more than recall the

conversation as I recall it. I can't recall it for the people who have

sworn out affidavits; nor can I recall it for the Premier. You've asked

me to recall it as I recall it. That's what I did and that's what's in Hansard .

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, you

gave a little advice to the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) about being tedious and repetitious, not challenging the fact

that he was, but suggesting he should be familiar with that rule.

Our difficulty is that we're discussing the estimates of a Minister

who has a self-admitted problem of memory. Our questions really are

designed to assist his recall.

We have an issue here that in the final analysis transcends any

issue of policy that will appear before this or any other government in

British Columbia or any other jurisdiction. That simple issue is one of

honesty.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House — not just this year but in

previous years — have been quick to acknowledge the faults of the

marketing boards. Members from all sides of the House have agreed that

more justice is required for Interior and northern Members of the

agricultural community. That's not what we're disputing.

We're disputing, first of all, what methods are appropriate for a government to pursue to correct these injustices.

Secondly, we are questioning the integrity of a government which

offers one account of how these measures were corrected, when citizens

of this province provide sworn testimony of a completely different kind.

Mr. Chairman, we ask the Minister to concentrate for just a short

time not on the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson). He's had his

opportunity for political input. But we're dealing with some of the

consequences of political muscle

[ Page 625 ]

applied outside the laws of this province, as the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) ably demonstrated to the House

this afternoon. We need the undistracted concentration of the Minister

on the events surrounding those affidavits.

Mr. Chairman, as the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) pointed out, sworn testimony gave an account of the kind of

political muscle used.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Did the board give in to it?

MR. McGEER: Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we had a denial by the

Premier of this province that such tactics were used. The Minister who

was responsible, who perhaps was paying no better attention than he is

right now, was the Minister responsible for implementing what the

affidavit alleges were dictates of the Premier.

Somebody, and it may be somebody in high office, is not telling the

truth, or there were some mistaken impressions or recollections of the

event. We have checked with people who were present at that meeting,

people who absolutely corroborate the substance of those affidavits.

That's why the Minister's ability to recall becomes so vital if he is

to have us accept his judgment that no public inquiry is necessary.

If the Minister can recall and settle a question, then there is no

need to hear from these other witnesses about the issue of truth in

government. Two Ministers of the Crown, correctly recalling events,

might indeed settle the question. Instead, of course, the Minister has

left the Premier relatively defenceless because of his poor memory.

He has acknowledged that the people who laid the affidavits were

recalling as best they could and he didn't dispute that they were

telling the truth as they understood it. That leaves the Premier pretty

far out on a limb. Of course, we will be asking these same questions of

the Premier.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You don't accept the Premier's word in the House?

MR. McGEER: The Premier's word? I merely say that there is an

absolute discrepancy. If that is there, we are asking the Minister

whose word he takes because he was at the meeting. We weren't there.

But, Mr. Chairman, even the Attorney-General cannot question that there

was a dispute of facts between the Premier and the man who laid the

affidavit.

Therefore, the question must come forward: is someone not telling

the truth? Surely the Attorney-General would be the last one to dispute

that truth in government is the most important issue that ever could

come before parliament. Would he dispute that? No, the Attorney-General

won't dispute that — no Attorney-General would.

It is a fair question, Mr. Chairman. Who does resolve these

questions when truth in government is legitimately brought into

question?

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) had a very great deal to do with

initiating the events we are discussing now: an Interior producer, one

of those no doubt legitimately aggrieved by the division of production

in British Columbia; a former member of the Egg Marketing Board, who,

no doubt, had difficulty getting his point of view accepted by the

board; a man who chose the political route and understood well that it

was a way of accomplishing what could not be accomplished easily

through these more regularized channels.

Now, that Member, as well as the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture, understands the larger issue of integrity in government.

Just as he brought forward to the House and to the Premier and to the

Minister his grievances on behalf of those people who could not get

what they believe to be justice, so must we bring forward the issue of

integrity when those who served on the boards were muscled in the

Premier's office. He brought forward his issue as a producer against

the Egg Marketing Board, but we must bring forward the larger issue not

just of political interference with that board but of the government

exerting that political interference and then trying to pass it off as

just a little bit of problem-solving as gentlemen between gentlemen —

an agreement helping them out of a problem,

How often, Mr. Chairman, have you or the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) been helped to solve a problem by somebody threatening to

kick the "censored" out of you. It's the way gentlemen solve disputes,

you know. A gentlemen's agreement.

Well, we ask once more for recall on the part of the Minister of

Agriculture. Does he remember the Premier saying he would kick the

"censored" out of this group if they didn't reach a settlement that

day? Does he remember the Premier saying that if these people said

anything outside the Premier's office, the Premier would deny every

word of it? We ask the Minister to think and tell us whether or not

those things really happened.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not really interested in entering into this

chicken-and-egg warfare, but there is one thing I would like the

Minister of Agriculture to answer if he possibly can. The Premier of

this province said in no way was there political interference with

either the egg board or the broiler processing board, in no way was

there political interference. Yet yesterday afternoon — and correct me

if I am wrong — the Minister of Agriculture alluded to the fact that

there had indeed been

[ Page 626 ]

political interference on this board. And he was proud of the fact; he said that is what politics are for.

I'd like to ask the Minister: if the demands or the suggestions made

of the Broiler Marketing Board are not met, if they don't do what he

has demanded that they do, what action does the Minister of Agriculture

plan to take? Can he assure the House that there will be no action

taken against this board, that there will be no reprimands made against

this board? This is the overriding question. What action will the

Minister then take?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for his responses to

my questions, although I'm afraid that perhaps I didn't make it clear

to him the precise matters that I was concerned with.

He has told us that he didn't direct the Broiler Marketing Board in

various ways — which were the words I had used — but that he had

discussed with them ways of resolving the problems as he saw them, and

believed that he had an agreement with the Broiler Marketing Board.

Now this falls into two categories. I can only assume that the

memorandum of February 12, 1974, which was sent by the Minister of

Agriculture to the Premier, expresses the Minister's understanding of

what agreement he had reached with two members of this board. He deals

with allocation of production in the Interior, and this is what deals

with the three-man selection supervisory committee. He says: "...will

be named by myself as Minister of Agriculture to oversee the selection

of the 11 growers in the Interior."

With regard to membership on the board, the memorandum says:

"There are three members of the Broiler Board, all

three of whom are elected at the annual meeting of the Broiler Growers'

Association. The board meets weekly"...and so on. "Directors may also

attend broiler board meetings on giving notice."

Then the Minister goes on to say to the Premier:

"In that the directorate will be expanded almost

immediately to include two directors from the Interior, and in that any

changes in the board's constitution itself should be considered at the

May annual meeting of the association members, I would recommend that

we do not interfere with the board itself at this time, other than to

recommend to the Interior directors that they ask for an invitation to

attend broiler board meetings."

Mr. Chairman, my point to the Minister is: how could he have even

entered into negotiations or discussions with these two members of the

board about increasing the membership of the board to five, and how

could he have discussed with them and reached apparent agreement with

regard to the establishment of this selection committee when he knew —

must have known — that the board was powerless to implement that

agreement? It was powerless because the order-in-council which

establishes the marketing board specifically dictates that the number

of directors shall be three, and that the power of the board, with

regard to the issuance of licences or permits, could not be delegated

to any other person or group of persons.

Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Attorney-General said to me across the floor

that it could be changed. I agree that it could be changed — by a

change in the order-in-council. This doesn't involve the board in the

agreement. Are we to understand from what the Hon. Attorney-General

says that the cabinet is now acting...that orders-in-council are made

as a result of privately-reached agreements with groups in the

community? Is this what happens?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consultation, consultation!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Consultation. The Minister calls it

agreement. He says he left that meeting believing that he had an

agreement. Is this the way orders-in-council are now being drafted in

this government — by private agreement secretly reached at non-public

meetings and then translated to orders-in-council?

Well, I'm very grateful for the Hon. Attorney-General to have opened

the cabinet door a little bit and let in that little ray of sunshine.

If that's the way orders-in-council are being developed by this

administration, then in opening the door to let a little sunshine in,

you're letting an awful lot of stink out, I'll tell you. That's the

kind of behind-the-door dealing with orders-in-council government that

we had learned to expect from the other government, but which we hoped

would not be repeated by yours.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You people are really bankrupt, aren't you? It's your opposition; go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General

certainly cannot help when he suggests that the questions raised by the

Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) as to the basic

importance of truth in government, being raised on the floor of this

House, is a suggestion that the opposition is somehow or other

bankrupt. The argument that we are having today will develop in future

days, not only in connection with this Minister, but with other

Ministers of the Crown. I trust that we never get to the situation

where the first law officer of the Crown will suggest that raising

truth in this House is somehow or other an indication

[ Page 627 ]

of bankruptcy of ideas.

Now having posed those two matters to the Minister, could he please

indicate to me for what purpose these agreements were reached, when he

knew that what was required was an order-in-council action by the

cabinet before these steps could be taken? If these matters should be

taken and were worthwhile to be taken, why did he not take that

authority which the government of this province has, rather than

sending these directors away expecting that somehow or other they were

going to take some action which would be unlawful?

But I do want to go back to the matter raised by the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey on the question of truth in government.

What we have here, Mr. Chairman, is as the Member has said and I don't

wish to repeat all of the words — a direct conflict between the Premier

of this province and two citizens of this province as to what

transpired at a private meeting in the Premier's office. The Premier

made a statement in this House and we, as Hon. Members, are obliged to

accept the truth of that statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got a funny way of doing it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But, Mr. Chairman, we are also obliged to

take cognizance of the sworn statements of two citizens, and that's

what has created the conflict. It seems strange to me that the Hon.

Minister of Agriculture, who was present at those meetings and is

therefore in a position — or should be in a position — to stand in this

House and say whether the Premier's recollection coincides with his, or

whether his recollection coincides with the sworn statements of two

citizens — or, indeed, if his recollection is somehow or other

different from both....

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture is the only person available to

this House present at that meeting who can cast any light on this

serious conflict. Yet he won't do it. He said yesterday with regard to

the sworn statements, and I'm reading from the Hansard blues:

"I'm not denying that this is their best recollection."

He's talking about the two citizens.

"I'm not denying that they're likely to recall

something that happened a year and a half ago, word for word, better

than I would be. I suggest to you, for example, that for the chairman

of the egg board, a relatively small producer in the Duncan area, the

most important day in that man's whole life likely was the few hours

that he spent in the Premier's office. It's something that would stick

in his mind."

This is the Minister of Agriculture talking.

"He'd think about it, and no doubt in thinking about

it, what had happened, it might grow and grow and grow and could very

well have been quite different.

"I didn't say it was different. I said that possibly

exists. I think it's possible that even the Premier would remember more

of that conversation than I did since, as far as he was concerned, it

was one day he became involved in a particular controversy. But from my

point of view, it was only a matter of hours out of many days and weeks

that I spent trying to resolve this problem. That particular point in

time was a relatively insignificant time in the scheme of the whole

thing for me personally."

It almost sounds like President Nixon talking. I go on, Mr. Chairman:

"For the chairman of the egg board, it was an

extremely important few hours. For the Premier, it was one occasion

when he become personally involved in a problem. For me it was a matter

of hours out of many, many hours, and was not terribly significant in

my mind. I just don't remember it..."

and I ask you to pay attention to these words:

"...and I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it."

The Minister of Agriculture said: "I just don't remember it, and I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it."

Mr. Chairman, here we have a conflict between sworn testimony of two

citizens. I've made inquiries and I'm told that they are law-abiding,

trustworthy people. The Minister, the Premier of this province, as an

Hon. Member must make no statements in this House which are untrue. We

have in this House as well another Minister of the Crown present at

that meeting who could somehow or other cast some light upon this

extreme conflict and he says, "I'm not terribly concerned to remember."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it's time that the Hon. Minister

searched better his recollection than he ever has before and tell us in

this House what occurred at that meeting so that we don't any longer

have hanging over this chamber the suggestion either that the Premier

of this province lied to this House, or alternatively that two citizens

have sworn false testimony and cast the integrity of the Premier in

doubt.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, I had a few

matters I wanted to bring up under this vote. I was patiently waiting

for the present subject to be exhausted, but it seems as though it's

only beginning, so I would like to bring these matters up that I'm

concerned about under this vote. It concerns the Department of

Agriculture.

As most of the Members know, as there was a question on the order

book with reference to it, there has been government support for an

alfalfa cubing and dehydration plant at Dawson Creek in the Peace

[ Page 628 ]

River. This is very good; it's going to be well supported I

understand. I don't think many Members will disagree with the idea of

assisting agriculture in this area, it certainly needs it.

But also in the plan was a second

plant for the Clayhurst area in north Peace River. It's absolutely

impractical for any of the growers in the Clayhurst area to truck

alfalfa into Dawson Creek when there's a ferry involved one way and a

bridge the other. There seems to be a problem developing — I won't say

buck passing — but it seems that the Department of Agriculture cannot

take the responsibility for backing this plant until they know its

location.

The group of farmers in that area can't decide on the location of

the plant until the Department of Highways makes up its mind whether

it's going to put in six miles of road or not. Although six miles of

dirt road may not seem very important to people of the lower mainland

area, to the farmers of the Clayhurst area this is a tremendously

important thing to them.

If you were going to truck truckloads of wet, heavy alfalfa an extra

50 or 60 miles that the other producers don't have to do, it's going to

turn it into an uneconomic operation for that farmer.

It's my hope, Mr. Minister, that you have some information on this

that I don't. Perhaps there is a little more co-operation between the

departments than I know of. But in any case, at the present time it

seems to be stymied by the fact that they don't know where to put the

plant because they don't know if the road will be built or not. Perhaps

the two Ministers could settle this between themselves.

The other matter I'd like to bring up under this vote is: When the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture finished their studies on the

multi-use of rangeland last year, we made a report to the House. One of

the recommendations in our report was that the 10- and 20-year leases

for cattle grazing on Crown land be phased out and be replaced by a

one-year permit system with a built-in guarantee of tenure so that the

ranchers could plan their operation over a lengthy period of time. We

felt that this guarantee of tenure would be based on the performance of

the permittee on the rangeland.

It seems as though the Cattlemen's Association is embarking at the

present time on a programme to expand herds. With the need for protein

in the province, they supply a very small amount of the needs of the

province. To do this they must have more grazing land. And there is at

present a very strong lobby going on out there to convince people that

the cattlemen are being badly treated in the report of the agriculture

committee, because all they are telling the cattlemen and the public,

through their association, is that the committee recommended the leases

be phased out and the one-year permits be phased in. That's very

significant because they leave off entirely that the committee also

recommended a guarantee of tenure that would depend on the use the

permittee made of the land — the proper use — so that we would not have

the situation that we see from Ashcroft to Cache Creek and north of

Kamloops, and many other areas of the province that we observed where

the range was mined instead of being properly used as a renewable

resource.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I suppose it's natural when people want something that they use the

words they think are best used to push their case. But I think the

cattlemen are doing themselves, certainly, not any good; they're doing

themselves harm by quoting only part of the recommendations of the

agriculture committee, which was unanimously endorsed by all Members of

all parties on that committee.

That was, once more for the record and to make it very clear: we did

recommend that the leasing system be phased out and be replaced by the

permit system, but with a guarantee of tenure built into the permit

system that would assure the rancher a long-term use of the land,

providing that he treated it properly.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, there

was an extremely strong editorial in the paper this morning, and I'd

like to ask the Hon. Minister some questions pertaining to some of the

summations that were apparently raised by the editor, or whoever is

responsible for the editorial. It is a very strong editorial and I'd

like to read it to the Minister and appreciate his comments.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's irresponsible.

MR. GARDOM: "It's irresponsible, " says the Minister of

Transport. Well, I disagree with the Minister of Transport's version of

the editorial. It says this:

"Behind all the charges and denials and semantic

arguments in B.C.'s current egg-broiler war, one fact stands out with

stark clarity. The marketing board levies against one egg producer for

overstepping his quota were reduced from $21,000 to $7,500 and against

another from $60,000 to $1,500."

Was that reduction, Mr. Minister, according to the law of the land, yes or no?

"And those reductions were made after discussions in Premier Dave Barrett's office."

" So 'what's wrong with political interference, what's wrong with politics?' asks Agriculture Minister Dave Stupich. Plenty."

"The inference is very clear that Premier Barrett used

the influence of his office in what was supposed to be an independent

marketing board to make the decisions that in fact ensued.

[ Page 629 ]

Whatever the faults of the marketing board system in B.C. — and

there are many — the system is designed by the legislation under which

it operates to be independent of any influence, particularly government

influence." Does the Minister subscribe to this kind of government

influence, yes or no?

"Egg producer affidavits have charged that at a

meeting in his office Mr. Barrett directed the egg board to reduce the

levies or he would 'kick the crap' out of the board. Mr. Barrett says

the board was not 'asked or ordered, or suggested to be ordered to do

anything.' He says he suggested that they were acting like children and

it would be far better if they got together with their lawyer. They did

get together with their lawyer and settled the matter in a room in the

Department of Agriculture, according to an affidavit."

I'd ask the Hon, Minister if he recalls those words of the Premier;

if he recalls those words of the Premier stating that he would

kick...or the next noun in that phrase or any other similar noun.

"Mr. Stupich admits there was 'persuasion.' " What does the Hon. Minister mean by persuasion?

MR. GARDOM: Well and good. Are you going to explain it for the Minister?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Everybody knows what persuasion means in this instance.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Hon. Attorney-General says, "Everybody

knows what the word persuasion means in this instance." It's not that

easy, Mr. Attorney-General, because we find the word "persuasion" being

used with the Premier. It is used, in my view, the inference that I'm

receiving out of the statements that the Minister of Agriculture has

made in the House, that the Premier persuaded. Did he persuade by

threatening to kick these people in the rear end, or what have you? To

what extent is this persuasion and for what purpose? Is it coincidence

that Mr. Kovachich is a member of the NDP party?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all.

MR. GARDOM: That's all. I certainly hope that's all, but let's find that out as well.

"Mr. Stupich admits there was 'persuasion.' The board

might call it pressure but 'they could have thumbed their noses at us

and gone their own way.'"

"After the persuasion the egg levies...."

"They're an independent board, " says the Premier. Well, if they

were an independent board.... I have elevated you to Premier, Mr.

Attorney-General. I don't know whether I am being prophetic or not. I

may be being prophetic in that remark.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No way.

MR. GARDOM: No way. I see. You're staying with being

Attorney-General. Okay. But it says: "After the persuasion the egg

levies were reduced."

What was the persuasion on the part of the Premier? What was that

persuasion; and to what extent? It's pretty strange to me that the Hon.

Minister is unable to inform this House as to what extent the Premier

entered into persuasion, call it what he will. Let's hear what the Hon.

Minister's words are.

Carrying on with the editorial:

"The Premier has also been accused of ordering the

Broiler Marketing Board to increase production quotas in the

Kamloops-Okanagan area and of directing that 2 of 11 producers there

should have quotas of 20,000 birds while the others were to get 5,000.

He has also denied those charges."

Is it correct, Mr. Minister, that the Premier did order the Broiler

Marketing Board to increase these production quotas, as the editorial

states? Yes or no. Or did he politically persuade them? If he did

politically persuade them, in what manner was that political persuasion

exercised? Also, is it correct and is it in accordance with accepted

democratic principles?

"But the smell of political influence of 'persuasion'

hangs heavy over the whole affair. The meetings in the Premier's office

are not denied. The fact that he told the Egg Marketing Board to stop

being 'childish' is not denied. The fact that decisions favourable to

two egg producers in dispute with the board were taken after meetings

in the Premier's office is undeniable. The broiler quota charges fall

into the contest of the whole situation.

"Political pressure from the Premier's office is clearly the worst kind of solution to a problem of this kind."

Does the Minister agree with that? Yes or no.

"If Mr. Barrett was unhappy with the board's operation he had the option of correcting it by legislation..."

Is not that correct, Mr. Minister? Yes or no.

"...legislation that could be tested in public debate.

Instead he chose to use secretly a big stick in a way that leaves only

the impression of a man deluded by a sense of power who believes he can

push people around

[ Page 630 ]

simply because he is Premier."

Did he use a big stick?

HON. MR. LEA (Minister of Highways): Friendly persuasion.

MR. GARDOM: Friendly persuasion. Would someone define this

friendly persuasion? Would the person who was there, namely the

Minister of Agriculture, define that friendly persuasion, which the

Minister of Highways calls it?

I am carrying on with a quotation:

"And a man, furthermore, for whom the direct conflicts

between the egg producers' affidavits and his own statements seem

unimportant."

Mr. Minister, did the Premier in your presence make statements to

the effect that he would forget about the whole affair if he were asked

to, or similar words to that effect? Can you recall any part of the

discussion dealing with that?

"If this is the kind of man he is or is becoming, we

may have much fear in this province. He is a man becoming corrupted by

power."

That's a pretty strong editorial. I would very much like to hear the Minister's comments to it.

Now, in this British Columbia Egg Marketing Board memorandum, dated

January 31, 1974, which the Minister was alluding to, the statement

appears:

"The members of the British Columbia Egg Marketing

Board have striven to implement the main guidelines set for the board

by the Hon. Dave Stupich."

It also states, on page 2:

"Mr. Kovachich is assured of increasing to the maximum

6,000 dozen through the agreements between him and the board, drawn on

the instructions of the Hon. Premier Dave Barrett."

Was, Mr. Minister, the agreement drawn on the instructions of the

Hon. Dave Barrett, as the Egg Marketing Board says? Was this agreement,

that was entered into between the board and Mr. Kovachich drawn on the

instructions of the Hon. Dave Barrett? Do you agree with the summation

of the Egg Marketing Board or do you disagree with it?

It says on page 3, again talking about Mr. Kovachich's agreement:

"That latter agreement was drawn to comply with the instructions to

the board by the Hon. Premier Dave Barrett. The board has fulfilled the

terms insisted upon by the Hon. Premier." Were the terms that were

entered into between the board and Mr. Kovachich for this production,

which was a one-third reduction on the levy that was filed against him,

the terms that were insisted upon by the Premier? Mr. Minister of

Agriculture — yes or no. That is what the Egg Marketing Board says.

What do you say?

Carrying on with the quotation:

"Comparison of the increases of quota or permits

issued to those six registered producers with the quantities issued to

other registered producers in all areas of the province show that they

have been highly favoured."

I ask the Hon. Minister: have these six producers been highly

favoured? If so, what is the reason for this degree of highly

favouring? Why only them?

Secondly, is it within the competence of the board to grant this

high degree of favouring just because the terms are insisted upon by

the Premier? Is it within the legal competence of the board to do that,

Mr. Minister? Do they have that discretion? Is that within the law of

the Province of British Columbia, within the provisions of the Act and

within the provisions of the regulations issued under order-in-council

from the Act and that emanate from the Act? Is there a lawful agreement

here, or is this an agreement which today could be attacked through the

courts? Those questions have not been answered.

There appears to be only one thing that is crystal clear,

unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture, and that is that, in the cases which we have been

discussing today and yesterday, decisions have been entered into as the

result of the insistence of the Premier, without regard to the law of

the land and without regard to the fact that he is not supposed to use

his office for political pressure. He apparently has used his office to

that extent.

That appears from the summation — the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) is groaning. That appears from what the Egg Marketing Board has

said, Mr. Minister of Health. Are you suggesting that their arguments

are fallacious?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister of Health says the statements

of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board are fallacious. Well, if they are

fallacious, perhaps we should get to the bottom of it, and if they are

not telling the truth, that should be found out. That's a very serious

charge in itself, and I do hope the Hon. Minister of Health, or some

Member of his caucus, is going to back that one up — on affidavit,

maybe, or similar words to that effect, even in here.

The Hon. Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, is permitted to speak

with complete impunity in this Legislature. Maybe he would even back up

that statement and inform the Members of the House how he considers

these statements of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board are fallacious. That

would be interesting to find out.

Interjection.

[ Page 631 ]

MR. GARDOM: Yes, as my Hon. colleague has mentioned, is the

Hon. Minister suggesting that these affidavits are false; and that the

people who swore these affidavits did not tell the truth?

HON. MR. COCKE: The affidavits mean nothing. They say "or words to that effect."

MR. GARDOM: Do you consider that false testimony?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: One says "not-testimony"; no one is prepared to

say it is false testimony. So at least good credit to that — the

government is not prepared to say that these people who swore those

affidavits told lies, and no one thinks they did.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are just too many

questions left unanswered by this Minister in this whole question, and

I don't see how we can leave until we get some of those questions

answered.

Certainly, if no one has come out and said it, there is certainly an

impression being left with the people of British Columbia that the four

very responsible and reputable citizens who signed those affidavits are

telling less than the truth. Their motives have been impugned, and all

they have asked for is for those questions to be answered in this House

or outside of it. One way or another we need some answers. We need

answers to these kind of questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Agriculture told us in the House yesterday that a

policy with regard to a broiler quota in the Kamloops-Okanagan area had

been approved by the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. It is now clear that

that policy has not been approved by the British Columbia Broiler

Marketing Board.

The Minister has insisted that there has been no political interference on the one hand, yet looking through the Hansard

blues on the other hand we find the Minister says: "Sure, there was

political interference. What's wrong with political interference?" The

Minister says there was a successful solution negotiated at the

instigation of the Premier with regard to the lowering of levies

against the two egg producers.

The question I ask is how could there have been a successful

solution when one of the parties to that solution is extremely unhappy,

unhappy to the point where they've gone and signed sworn affidavits

indicating the kind of political pressure brought to bear.

The Minister has told us in this House yesterday and again today

that there has been and there will be no political interference in the

selection of a site for a new processing plant in the Kamloops-Okanagan

region. Yet, conveniently we find the only suitable site in the whole

Okanagan-Kamloops area just happens to be in Enderby.

HON. MR. COCKE: Who said that?

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister said that.

HON. MR. COCKE: He did not.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister said they couldn't find another

site in the whole area. It just happens to be that the only site is in

Enderby, in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis) riding.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask that Member to withdraw that statement he made, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What statement?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, let's treat both sides equally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What did he say?

MR. CHABOT: He said the Member was a disgrace. Would you have

him withdraw that, please? Or do you think that's acceptable because it

comes from that side of the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member withdraw that statement?

HON. MR. COCKE: I said the Member is acting in a disgraceful

way. If that's not acceptable I'll withdraw the statement. But I'll say

the Member is acting in a disgraceful way; he's completely

misinterpreting everything that Minister said yesterday and he knows it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you continue your speech?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the only disgraceful thing

happening in this House is that we are continuing to get no answers

from the Minister. The motives of the people who have signed these

sworn affidavits continue to be impugned by this government.

The Minister says and has continued to say in this House, first of

all, that he thought he had an agreement with the British Columbia

Broiler Marketing Board after the meeting of February 11. I ask how he

could have thought he had an agreement and still have written the kind

of memorandum which he wrote to the Premier of British Columbia with

[ Page 632 ]

regard to the allocation of that quota. It makes it pretty clear

there was some doubt in his mind that any quota had been agreed to

prior to that memorandum which was written on February 12.

The Minister continues to say the Premier had no direct interference

in any of the solutions or suggestions made. Yet, on that same

memorandum of February 12, the Minister sees fit to go to the Premier,

asking for his approval of the allocation of production in the

Interior. In his words: "In that you have taken a personal interest in

these questions, I would appreciate your consideration of the following

points."

The Minister has insisted over and over again in this House that he

has no legal authority to order the board to do anything. Yet he has

taken that authority upon himself and has, in fact, made those kind of

orders to the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board and, earlier, to

the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board.

If you don't think yet that those orders were given, I want just

once again to read the words in this telegram, in which he will not

accede to the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board. The members of

that board said simply, "We seem to have some area of disagreement. Can

we meet with you and discuss it so that we can come up with some

solution?" The answer they got from that request was:

SEE NO ADVANTAGE MEETING TODAY. ORDER IM-76 TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE...AND

MUST BE WITHHELD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS INTERIOR PRODUCTION PROGRAMME SATISFACTORILY

ESTABLISHED...

Then from the Minister who says he has no authority to make any orders, these are the words in that telegram:

FAILURE TO WITHHOLD WILL BRING PROMPT GOVERNMENT ORDER SUSPENDING

IM-76 PENDING SUITABLE SETTLEMENT THIS ISSUE. GOVERNMENT CONTEMPLATING SUCH

ACTION WITH SOME RELUCTANCE BUT CANNOT ACCEPT ALTERNATIVES.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister is certainly not

giving us all of the answers we deserve to these questions in the

House. I really think it's about time he did and I really think it's

about time that those people who have taken the time and trouble and

who have really put their necks on the block because their livelihoods

depend on the actions of this government are given some answers on

behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we don't seem to be getting any answers on the chicken-and-egg war, so I'd like to go back....

HON. MR. STUPICH: (Mike not on.) The Hon. First Member for

Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) spoke before you. Same questions exactly. The

same answers are in Hansard .

With respect to you, I did note one question: what will I do if the

board does not follow the plans I thought they had agreed to follow? Am

I contemplating any action against the board members? No, no action is

being contemplated at all. The board members are elected by the

producers. That's their responsibility.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

made some reference to the directorate being expanded by two. In all of

the other areas of agreement, or at least where I thought we had

reached agreement in the discussions in my office...I don't know the

intimate details of the order-in-council establishing the broiler

marketing scheme and I didn't have these in front of me when we met in

my office. Two members of the three-man broiler board who were there

raised objections to only one of the points on the basis that this was

beyond their authority to discuss at that time. That was the question

of changing the actual formation of the board itself. When they raised

no objections to any of the other points on the basis of this form of

the scheme established by order-in-council, it never occurred to me

that they didn't have the authority to agree to the things we were

discussing.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) raised a question

of a second alfalfa-cubing mill in the Peace River area. This is being

studied by staff right now. There is some question about the

feasibility of the proposal which will be of interest to the Member for

Peace River at least. One of the problems is that the farmers who would

be involved in the second plant are away working on the oil drilling

rigs right now and it's just not that easy to make contact with them

this season.

Three possible sites in the area he was talking about are being

looked at by staff. We're not satisfied with having moved on one only;

we want to have more, many more, alfalfa-cubing mills in the province.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) raised

nothing new. Instead of an affidavit he had an editorial on which to

base his speech, but he raised nothing new.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) again raises this

question of a political choice of a site. The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) heard me quite differently from the way the Hon.

Member for Langley did; differently to the extent that she suggested

alternative sites might will be available. One might be available in

her riding. She undertook on behalf of her riding to make inquiries

locally and to have information conveyed to my office.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says the

[ Page 633 ]

answers to many of the questions raised, for example, by the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) are to be found in Hansard . All I can say is that I find a great deal of difficulty in finding them as I look through Hansard

(Blues). But perhaps I might ask him at this point about a question

which is much more recent in time and much more specific. Indeed,

perhaps it doesn't involve his memory at all but the memory of his

officials.

I'm referring now to a meeting detailed in the affidavit of Mr.

McAninch, supported by the affidavit of Mr. Stafford, a meeting on the

5th day of February, 1974, which is 23 days ago. A certain

section of

the affidavit reads as follows:

"THAT on the 5th day of February 1974, at or about the

hour of 9 o'clock in the forenoon I attended at the office of Maurice

King, Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture, at Victoria, B.C.

"10. THAT present then and there in the office of Mr.

King were Maurice King; S.B. Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture;

William Wood, B.C. Department of Agriculture poultry commissioner;

Richard Arthur Stafford, manager, B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, and

Harry Liedtke, and Les Harbridge, both members of the B.C. Broiler

Marketing Board.

"11. THAT I was then and there informed by the said

Mr. Peterson that the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of the Province of

British Columbia, had ordered that instead of the broiler permit policy

contained in

schedule "A, " that 2 of the 11 Kamloops-Okanagan broiler

producers be allotted 20,000 birds per cycle and that the remaining

nine broiler producers be allocated 5,000 birds per cycle.

" 12. THAT I was further informed by the said Mr.

Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three be

appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis

ordered by Mr. Barrett."

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is sworn testimony that...

MR. CUMMINGS: Affidavit.

MR. GIBSON: Sworn affidavit, sworn statement...that the

Deputy Minister of Agriculture said to two people, who have sworn out

statements in that regard that the Premier had ordered certain things

and directed certain things, a statement in direct conflict with the

words of the Premier in this House. Those statements are said to have

been made by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

I would ask the Minister if he would consult, either with any of his

officials who are here today or with his Deputy, Mr. Peterson, and ask

him if the

Deputy agrees with the statements in the affidavits of Mr. McAninch

and Mr. Stafford; if he would contact his Deputy just as soon as

possible as to whether the House just as soon as possible as to whether

the Deputy agrees with that particular statement.

Here we are not relying on the memory of the Minister, we are

relying on the memory of the Deputy, but I hope it will be better. Here

we are not talking about 1972, we are talking about February 5, 1974. I

wonder if the Minister would undertake to make those inquiries of his

Deputy and report to this House.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Chairman. I would like

to express some very serious concerns about some of the comments that

came from our city-slicker friends of the Liberal Party. They have

continuously attacked our little egg producers, our small farmers, our

consumers, and also our government who is apparently being accused of

trying to be fair and do something about the problem. Now, just for the

record I would like you to show some of the concerns from the biggest

and most influential part of the consumers in our city, and that is

some of our restaurants. Talking about the quality and supply: I will

just read out a portion of their submission to the Garrish commission.

This is from the Cowbell Restaurant:

"Our customer count for the period of the past four

months showed over 6,500 guests served at our restaurant per month. Our

demand for farm-fresh eggs are based on the following standards:

Smitty's franchise agreement states the use only of farm-fresh eggs in

its kitchens throughout the country. Smitty's menus offer farm-fresh

egg dishes to its citizens.

"Cowbell Restaurant supports local industry the same

way local industry supports us. Delivery time is essential in our

business due to varying customer demands. Freshness and grill-stable

are the main features in our egg dishes.

"Cowbell Restaurants have a volume per purchaser of

eggs averaging 800 dozen per month...demands from its supplier locally,

Chillako Farms Ltd., a fresh and uniform product for its operation. In

the past our supplier has not been able to supply our demands to the

fullest and had, at instances, to supply us with imported eggs and on

some occasions had to provide us with two and more deliveries instead

of one on account of shortage of production. He advised us of the

quotas issued by the Egg Marketing Board, and we must admit Chillako

Farms, until today, tried their utmost to satisfy our demands of supply.

"Imported eggs, transported over a distance of several hundreds of miles are, in effect,

[ Page 634 ]

affected by the hauling no matter how carefully they

are packed, not to mention the matter of freshness or aging by this

means of supply. Regular freight carriers have scheduled runs for

delivery of merchandise, but refrigerated service comes only twice a

week to Prince George, and customers are not on a regular scheduled

arrangement. Some days we sell more, some days we sell less. So far we

need a flexible delivery service. Only local producers can assure us

this.

"The grill test however is the biggest visible

argument. A farm-fresh egg cooks firm and settles, while an older egg

will run all over the grill. Our customers have noted the difference in

the past, in particular when our supplier was not able to supply us

with his own product and had to import eggs from elsewhere.

"Therefore, eggs from the lower mainland, for example,

do not meet our buying specifications, and we strongly recommend to the

committee to consider an increase of production quotas for the local

industry so they may be able to supply the local market with their

local product."

Another part of the submission from the central British Columbia branch of

the Canadian Restaurant Association. This also went to the same commission:

"Members of the Prince George branch find it difficult

to purchase locally produced eggs on a year-round basis and have to

cope with some of the following problems:

a) Interrupted delivery due to insufficient supply.

b) Substituted grades due to low quota production.

c) Lower mainland eggs due to shortage of local production.

"The consumer in the Prince George area is mainly

supplied by lower mainland eggs, and believes that the same quality and

freshness is only available in local restaurants, while local

restaurants are trying to offer to their customers the best in quality

and freshness. Restaurants that specialize in egg dishes find, to their

surprise, customers commenting on the freshness of the eggs, and ask

why these eggs cannot be bought at local stores."

They go on to specify a long list of facts and figures in the economics and quota ratios. It winds up by summarizing:

"We would like to draw to your attention the increase

in population in the last three years, an increase of nearly 70 per

cent, while the quota of production has barely risen. We agree that the

local egg industry missed a chance in 1967 to plan for the future. We

also strongly feel that the time for adjustment has come."

I would also like to refer to one

article in the Vancouver Province , page 5, dated Wednesday, February 27. The headline: "a Smoke Screen, Says Egg Man." And here is where the real issue is:

"'Charges of government interference with the B.C. Egg

and Broiler Marketing Boards are merely a smokescreen to cover up the

real issue,' a spokesman for the Northern B.C. Egg Producing

Association said today. Arnold Link, owner of Chillako Farms, said the

real issue in the egg dispute is whether local producers should have

the right to expand production to fill the growing northern egg market.

Link said lower mainland producers currently supply 80 per cent of this

area's market and want to force local producers out of business."

I also want to touch on one other point: the word "interference."

What is the definition of the word "interference"? There has been a

great deal of problem in the region to get supplies. It is a widespread

problem throughout the region, whether it is in the Cariboo, or

Terrace, or Prince George or elsewhere because of the continuous

complaining and the continuous frustrations from the people — not only

the producers, but the consumers and the restaurant operators, the

stores and what have you. Continuous frustration.

Week to week they just don't know how they are going to meet the

needs of their customers at their stores or restaurants, or consumers

when they are shopping. Because of these frustrations there was a

request made just recently that we expedite some action to get an

expanded market in the area, or expanded production to meet the

expanded market. This is quoted in the Vancouver Province

of Thursday, February 21 — reports that there had been at this time....

The Minister had asked one of his people to go out there and have a

look around to see what is going on. It is reported here, and I'll read

it. When he came back he gave a report, and this is a

summary of it.

This statement comes from Mr. Janzen, who I believe is the member or

maybe even the chairman of the board:

"Others involved with the B.C. egg industry say the

latest government interference" — interference, it says — "has been the

study and recommendations made by poultry commissioner Bill Wood. They

say Wood has recommended that Interior producers be allowed to bring

their production up to 75 to 80 per cent of the local weekly market

demand, and to do this that all present lower mainland egg quotas be

reduced to 90 per cent or less." It goes on to say...Janzen says:

"It is really hard to fathom. Again they have forgotten we can't

direct the retail trade where to buy." While the local people are just

screaming for

[ Page 635 ]

the opportunity to buy — you don't have to force anybody to buy the

local product. They are just being forced not to produce; they are

being forced to buy from the lower mainland, and this is the real

problem.

Good heavens, this province has got 2.5 million people. If we

haven't got the real determination among all of us to get together and

solve the production and marketing problems to serve the local needs of

the consumers, then we're just not doing our job.

Mr. Chairman, if this is interference to send somebody to Prince

George to see what the problems are and to come back here and make

suggestions as to how to solve them, then the definition of

interference must be much different in my dictionary than it is in

everybody else's.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): And the Islands; don't forget the Islands. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change the subject to deal with some other measures.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: I hope the Minister will answer. Some of the

questions which have been posed are very valid. In saying I wish to

change the subject, that is not to in any way gloss over the very

serious discussions which have taken place. But I think it might be

helpful if we could look at one or two other aspects of agriculture.

I'm still not satisfied, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister,

by that Minister's reassurances on the subject of grazing land for

cattle and the degree of co-operation which will exist between three

cabinet Ministers, namely, Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), and Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). Even assuming the three Ministers can

resolve their differences, I think a lot of us have grave doubts about

the measure of co-operation that will be found among various civil

servants in the three departments.

I mentioned earlier this week — it seems a long time ago — about the

warnings we've all heard concerning food shortages and the fact that

British Columbians consume far more than they produce. Our conservation

programmes are important; I acknowledge that. We need parks and we need

wilderness areas, and the forest industry, admittedly, is obviously

vital to our economic well-being. But I submit that agriculture must be

given a priority rating in the last years of the 20th century.

It was interesting from this side of the House the other day to

notice that the Minister, facing across, could not have seen the facial

expression of his colleague, the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) during the earlier part of the week.

But it was clear evidence to me and to many of us in this

section of

the House that our agricultural land and our recreational needs are on

a collision course. The same is probably true with regard to

agriculture and the Forest Service. So we have a two-way battle.

This didn't develop just at the time of the last general election;

it has obviously been going on for quite some time, But I'm not

satisfied that the problem is being properly resolved.

This is one point of view, Mr. Chairman: The Vancouver Sun

for September 12, 1973. I emphasize that it is one point of view but

it's a fairly popular one. The headline is "B.C. Grassland 'Criminally

Mismanaged.'"

"The Grazing Division of the B.C. Forest Service was accused Tuesday of criminal mismanagement of the provincial grasslands.

"The charge was made by B.C. Wildlife Federation

executive director, Bill Otway, who recently returned from a six-day

horseback ride through the Chilcotin country."

I admit in advance that I don't know nearly as much about the

Chilcotin country as the sometimes vocal Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser). He may have words to say about it as well. Continuing the

quote:

"'Ninety per cent of the country we saw was badly overgrazed and the remaining 10 per cent was in fair to poor condition.'

"'The alpine areas, around the 7,500- to 8,000-ft.

level, are a complete desert and the cattle have just got to come out

of there. Hillsides by the creeks are, for the most part, bare, I

consider this criminal mismanagement by the Forest Service of a public

resource. These sort of conditions carry right through the province to

a great degree except in the extreme north'...

"Otway said the federation directors met Sunday and

decided to make a public statement about the condition of the

grasslands. He said that they will shortly be making a series of

recommendations to resources Minister Bob Williams, whose department

includes the Forest Service."

The

article goes on at some length but it certainly paints a very

bleak and grim picture with respect to grazing land in the Chilcotin

area.

Then, when he was appearing before the legislative committee on

agriculture in Kamloops in June 22 of last year, a man whom I believe

is very highly regarded in this province, Dr. Alastair McLean of

Agriculture Canada, had these observations. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to

have to quote at length because I think it's important to get this into

the

[ Page 636 ]

discussion in dealing with this Minister's salary.

"In some regions — perhaps in the north — there may be