1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, MAY 6, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1439 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Glendale hospital budget cut. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers — 1439

Appointment of N. Sharpe to Department of Public Works. Mr. Lea — 1439

Lighthouse Communications. Mr. Gibson — 1440

Administering of secrecy oaths. Mr. King — 1440

Problems with student summer-employment programme. Mr. Wallace — 1440

Increase in Executive Council administration vote. Mr. Lockstead — 1441

Food price increases. Hon. Mr. Mair answers — 1441

Department of Education special grants. Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 1441

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 3

Mr. Davidson — 1442

Mr. Lauk — 1443

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1444

Mr. Wallace — 1445

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1447

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1448

Mr. Wallace — 1449

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1450

Mr. King — 1450

Mr. Nicolson — 1451

Mr. Gibson — 1452

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1452

Mr. Wallace — 1453

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1454

Mr. Nicolson — 1455

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1455

Mr. Lauk — 1455

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1457

Mr. Nicolson — 1459

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1460

Mr. Lauk — 1461

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1461

Mr. Lauk — 1463

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm — 1463

Mr. Wallace — 1464

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1466

Mr. Macdonald — 1468

Mr. Stupich — 1469

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1473

Mr. Gibson — 1474

Mr. Wallace — 1474

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1475

Mr. Lea — 1476

Appendix — 1477

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

welcome to the galleries...Is it a man? Is it a bird? Is it a plane?

It's the rentalsman, Barrie Clark!

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, in the House with us today are Mrs. Douglas and Mrs. Everett

and eight young ladies visiting us from Surrey. I would ask the House

to welcome them.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): In the galleries today we

have a group of students from Sir Winston Churchill High School in the

constituency of Vancouver South, and I would ask this House to welcome

them.

Oral questions.

GLENDALE HOSPITAL BUDGET CUT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an

answer to a question which was placed on the floor yesterday by the

hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Contrary to the statements

made by this member, the budgetary estimates for the Glendale Hospital

have not been decreased below the 1975-76 estimates but have in fact

been increased in our efforts to provide services where they are needed.

Unfortunately, the fact that the question was placed without the

information then being available has undoubtedly caused some anguish to

the parents involved. But the majority of independent operative

facilities using government funds to cover their programmes submit

their budgets in amounts which they feel are necessary for their

operation.

The responsibility of government,

of course, is to assess these estimates and then, on the basis of what

is equitable and what funds are available, to allocate the moneys. In

1975-76 the budgetary estimate for Glendale was $6,041,000 and our

estimates for the 1976-77 fiscal year project an increase to

$6,091,000. I would like to point out, however, that the 1976-77

estimate does not reflect substantial amounts of services rendered by

other government departments.

I was certainly shocked when I was advised — I read about this in the media,

because I understand that the remarks were made by the member outside of the

House — that notices had been sent out to people suggesting that there would

not be any beds available to them. There has been no attempt by the department

to cut back on the services, and if such notices have gone out, they have gone

out without our knowledge, and this is certainly regrettable.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I made some

substantial inquiries on this issue. Could the minister confirm that

the budget presented by the board of trustees for Glendale Hospital was

in fact $8.6 million for 1976-77 and that, in fact, their budget has

been approved at $6.91 million? How is the hospital to cope with this

shortfall of $2 million?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not consider it a shortfall when

we do not approve an amount requested. Certainly, as I mentioned, there

are other costs which will be paid or picked up through other areas, so

the whole amount of $6.91 million doesn't necessarily cover all the

costs. But they are getting more this year than they did last year.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since this

indeed has caused concern and phone calls from parents and so on — and

I agree that they would be concerned — can the minister confirm that

he's received a letter from the board of trustees expressing their deep

concern that the figures appear, at least without today's explanation

by the minister, to suggest that the board feels it needs $8.6 million

to sustain the increased overhead costs compared to last year and that

the budget does, in fact, represent a committed amount much less than

$8 million? Could he reassure the parents that the service will be

maintained from funding from other departments?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the service will be

maintained. Yes, I can confirm there was a letter. Yes, I can

appreciate where there may have been some confusion and, unfortunately,

certain conclusions were drawn from what might have appeared confusing,

but the confusion certainly wasn't our fault.

APPOINTMENT OF N. SHARPE TO

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Highways: order-in-council 633, dated February 19, 1976,

appointed Norman Sharpe as an administrative assistant in the

Department of Public Works, effective February 3, 1976. The

order-in-council orders that "the position of administrative assistant

in the Department of Public Works be designated as one requiring

special professional, technical or administrative qualifications." I

wonder if the minister could tell me what the duties of Mr. Sharpe are.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways): Mr.

[ Page 1440 ]

Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MR. LEA: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The question has been taken

as notice by the minister, and that would end the pursuit of that

particular question and that matter for this moment until the minister

answers on the floor of the House, unless you have a suggestion to make

to the minister about something else you would like him to look into at

the same time.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just like some

clarification from you, then. If it's obvious that the minister does

know the answer but is only taking it as a stalling device, then I

would....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR' LEA: Obviously he knows what the duties of his administrative

assistant are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That remark is out of order in the question period.

LIGHTHOUSE COMMUNICATIONS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Provincial Secretary. I would ask the

Provincial Secretary if her meeting this morning with the Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and Mr. Ian Fothergill had occasion to

discuss government work for Lighthouse Communications, past, present or

future, and if so, which?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this

morning I was asked to meet with the Minister of Mines, and I had a

meeting with him. In answer as to what was discussed with Mr.

Fothergill, who was in my office at the same time, it was the question

that was brought up in this House, the publicity emanating from that

and surrounding Mr. Fothergill's firm.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

Provincial Secretary in her capacity as acting Premier whether she

reached any conclusion as to whether there is any potential conflict of

interest in the government contract being given without tender to a

ministerial staff relative.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member is suggesting

that I had reached a conclusion about something that was discussed in

this House and an answer given by another minister. This morning I did

receive the information by Mr. Fothergill telling his side of the

story. He was upset at the press surrounding the question, and was

giving his side of the story.

I did not ask for his side of the story. He did not have an

appointment with me, and I made time for him this morning because he

expressed his concern. I would make time for any citizen of British

Columbia who has a concern, a public concern.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary to the Provincial Secretary

and acting Premier: I would ask if Lighthouse Communications, or any

member of that group, did any work for the Social Credit Party during

the last election?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes,

and I only have knowledge of that because, as you know, I was

associated at that time as their president.

ADMINISTERING OF SECRECY OATHS

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On April 14, which

is over 20 days ago, I asked the Provincial Secretary which minister

was responsible for ensuring that public service oaths are taken and

administered in compliance with order-in-council 103, passed in 1976.

I've received no answer. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would

answer now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Secretary took the question

as notice, I believe, and now that it's been brought back to your

attention, hon. member, I presume you'll look after it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, and I will today.

PROBLEMS WITH STUDENT

SUMMER-EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. WALLACE: I'd also like to ask the Provincial Secretary a

question with regard to government proposals for summer employment of

students. I know I haven't had much success with my questions to date.

The dispute exists over a rate of pay between the government and the

union. The minister's reported statement was that the union position

means that young people in this province will face one of the worst

summers they have ever faced. Did the minister receive a telegram on

the weekend from the B.C. Government Employees' Union requesting a

meeting with the minister responsible for government employees to

discuss the dispute over rates of pay and attempt to find a solution?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you just repeat the last part of your question. The Provincial Secretary did not get it.

[ Page 1441 ]

MR. WALLACE: Did the minister receive a telegram at the

weekend from the B.C. Government Employees' Union requesting a meeting

with the minister responsible for government employees — namely, the

lady minister — to discuss the dispute over the rates of pay for summer

students and attempt to find a solution?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have received a telegram

from the executive director and there is going to be a reply going out

to the executive director today. I will give the contents of that reply

to the House as soon as I can, in answer to your question.

MR. WALLACE: May I ask a supplementary? In an attempt to

prevent problems before they arise, could I ask the minister whether

she is aware that some students are about to commence employment as

summer relief workers at standard rates of pay, particularly at the

motor-vehicle testing station in Vancouver, and that the union has made

clear its intention to take the matter to the Labour Relations Board

immediately these students report for work?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. WALLACE: A final, quick supplementary: might I suggest to

the minister that this apparently is about to happen and if it could be

prevented it might make her meeting with the executive more successful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

INCREASE IN EXECUTIVE

COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION VOTE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): This is a question to the

Deputy Premier. Approximately one month ago I asked the minister

regarding order-in-council 1175, 1976, about increases in the

establishment for the executive council administration vote by one

position. The question was: has anyone been appointed to this position

and if so, what are their duties and salaries? This was about one month

ago and you took the question as notice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll have to bring the information back to the House on that question, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I was asked a

question by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) yesterday concerning

food prices in the last month. I might say for clarification that these

run generally about a month behind because it takes some time to get

the information and to compile it. The most recent information is for

the week beginning April 21, which indicates the Vancouver food basket

had inched upwards again to $46.79. This is a 0.43 per cent increase

from the previous month when the food basket stood at $46.59 for the

week beginning March 24.

The April 21 basket price is still 1 per cent below that of October

24, 1975. Vancouver residents have therefore six months now where the

price of food — at least insofar as this basket of 80 items is

concerned — has been 1 per cent or more below the price of the same

food basket at the beginning of the price freeze. The increase over the

past month has been due principally to the general increases on beef

prices in some stores and increases on canned fish — that's salmon and

tuna — and also fresh produce.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I thank the minister for the

information today. The increase in the price of food, though, is one of

the major concerns of the people in this province and I see again it's

up 0.4, which is a significant increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

MS. SANFORD: The federal government is able to provide

figures through their monitoring system at a much faster rate, and I'm

wondering if there's any way the minister can improve the efficiency

with respect to monitoring within his department so that we'll have

information that is more up to date.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I think

perhaps my mathematics were not quite correct when I said about a

month. It appears to take two to three weeks. I suppose if we spent a

great deal more money on this we might get a little bit faster.

However, I have watched the operation, and I invite the member to come

up with me and watch how the operation works. I think she will see that

there is an enormous amount of work which does take a great deal of

time to compile, and it is done very efficiently and very quickly under

all those circumstances.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SPECIAL GRANTS

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, last

week I took as notice a question with regard to the criteria that were

used by the Department of Education in awarding special grants, and

said that the increase in school population was the main criterion. I

find there are two others, and for the benefit of the member for North

Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson), I would like to say what these are.

The second is if there is a change in the assessment value of a particular school district.

[ Page 1442 ]

The third criterion, which I think would be of most interest to the

member for North Vancouver – Capilano, is the unfavourable impact on the

mill rate in an average school district of those school districts that

have a highly enriched programme, as in North Vancouver – Capilano.

Mr. Speaker, the basic education programme is equal in the following

year to the total operating costs of all the school districts in the

previous year. While a district like North Vancouver – Capilano should be

very proud of its enriched programme, that enrichment should not have

an undue impact on other school districts in the ensuing year. That's

why these special grants, some of them have been given to compensate

for this unfavourable impact, but in no instance is this over half a

mill.

MR. WALLACE: What about the severance pay of $41,000? Have you got that answer yet?

HON. MR. McGEER: I took that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

I did have a letter, the week of April 21, saying that it would be

arriving almost immediately. It still hasn't arrived and I'm continuing

to nag them. I'm as anxious as the member for Oak Bay to get the

answers to that particular question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take

the opportunity now, in view of the question which was answered

earlier, to impress upon the House the importance of taking questions

that might, through the very nature of them being place in the House,

have an effect on those that are concerned by what the answer to the

question might be — that we be given notice of these questions in

advance so we can come prepared with the necessary material and answers

when the question comes on the floor of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Minister.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the members of the

opposition, when a question appears which it will take a good deal of

research for answering, quite frequently do give notice.

I would just like to make a request to the government, too, while

I'm on my feet, that perhaps they could take the question period a bit

more seriously than it is. I appreciate that certain ministers have to

be away at different times, but it becomes very difficult, when there

are six ministers out of the House, to engage in a well-organized

question period.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. Leader

of the Opposition, I think that the government side of the House has

been particularly good at attending question period since this new

parliament. May I say that the only time they are out of the House

during question period is on essential service elsewhere. At this point

in time we have four ministers of the Crown who are out of the

province, and it is difficult for them to be here at the same time as

they're doing business for the government outside of the province.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

MR. KING: If I may make the point, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate

that the ministers have to be out of the province, and it would be

helpful to have some notice so we will know who is absent and can

organize our questions accordingly — in the same type of cooperation

the Minister of Human Resources asks from the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, may I suggest

that the matter which has just been discussed is something that is

generally dealt with between the Whips of the parties, and that is

where the matter should lie; that is where the action should originate,

between the Whips of the parties to advise back and forth of absences

or anything of this nature.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

( continued )

On vote 3: minister's office, $50,728 — continued.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Chairman, as you may recall,

yesterday I spent some time speaking on the critical situation facing

the agricultural industry, not only in my own riding but throughout

this province. Of particular concern to the potato farmers in my own

riding is the construction of a processing plant which will allow for

an additional 3,000 acres of that crop — and will generate an

additional $2.5 million into that industry.

Serious questions were raised by the member for Vancouver Centre

regarding alleged improprieties in the application, allegations which

were totally groundless, were without any foundation whatsoever, and

cast a shadow on the reputation of a respected member of the

agricultural community, namely Mr. George Spetifore.

As a result of political opposition to the entire

[ Page 1443 ]

processing proposal, many members of the farming community were

beginning to doubt that the processing plant would come into being this

year, if at all. Mr. Chairman, the existing location has been scrapped,

but the facility itself will be relocated in an industrial site. The

exact location will be made known within the next few days. Farmers may

rest assured that the increased production will come about, and that a

market will be provided for their product.

I would further add, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Spetifore, who is

totally financing this venture, had reached his decision prior to

misleading suggestions by the member opposite. His decision was based

solely on the opposition to the location of this plant within his own

community. Not only had he and his family been subjected to harassing

phone calls, but they have also received threatening calls as well.

Mr. Spetifore's determination to comply with the wishes of the

community once again illustrates his total corporate and personal

responsibility to his community.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, the member

for Delta has indicated to the committee that I made misleading

statements. I ask that gentleman to withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the hon. member for Delta: were you impugning any motive to the member for Vancouver Centre?

MR. DAVIDSON: My comment was, as I have it right here:

"allegations which were totally groundless, and were without any

foundation whatsoever."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, Hon. Member, if the word misleading was used, it's a borderline suggestion. Would you withdraw the word misleading?

MR. DAVIDSON: I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Order, please. The member for Delta has the floor.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Spetifore's determination to comply with

the wishes of the community once again illustrates his total corporate

and personal responsibility to his community, and, I trust, will

totally dispel any implication of impropriety implied from the member

for Vancouver Centre.

While it is regrettable that the Delta municipality will lose 80

jobs and a substantial tax base, I am sure that the area accepting him

will welcome him warmly. It is encouraging also, Mr. Chairman, to note

that this facility, which is being totally financed by an individual,

will be an asset to our entire agricultural industry. I am pleased also

that this turn of events so clearly demonstrates the total

irresponsibility of the remarks inferred by the member for Vancouver

Centre yesterday.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw none of the remarks I made

with respect to the fact that this individual, whose democratic right

it was to contribute to the hon. member for Delta's election campaign,

did so. Those allegations, as they're called, are not allegations.

Those are facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you keep your remarks close to the vote, please?

MR. LAUK: Now dealing with the Minister of Agriculture's vote, the member for Delta....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: The member for Delta got up yesterday without

comment from the opposition side and gave a statement that sounded very

much like he was more than just the MLA for Delta, but an advocate for

Mr. Spetifore.

MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.

MR. LAUK: The member says yes. Has the member for Delta received any monetary recompense for this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: He said he was an advocate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Did you hear what that minister said? It's a deceitful remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we can only have

one member on the floor. We have recognized the first member for

Vancouver Centre. Will you please take your chair for just a moment

until we try to bring order to the House?

The vote before us is the minister's salary vote, the Minister of

Agriculture. The Chair has allowed some wide-ranging debate under this

vote, which perhaps could more readily be debated under the "Minister of

[ Page 1444 ]

Delta," if there were such a position. However, I must insist that

we now contain the scope to vote 3, which is the minister's salary vote.

The member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. DAVIDSON: On a point of order, I would ask that the

member for Vancouver Centre withdraw the remark alleging that I had

received any kind of compensation whatsoever in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre

impugning any improper motive to the member for Delta? Not so? The

member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I suggested that if he admits being an advocate....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Order, please! I hear some noises in the corner.

If he admits being an advocate for Mr. Spetifore, he should indicate if there is any contractual arrangement between them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, with that statement we will have to conclude that subject, because it is not applicable under vote 3.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll direct some questions

to the Minister of Agriculture, who has not, regretfully, answered any

of the questions as Minister of Agriculture during the current

committee study of his estimates. He has merely stood in his place and

given us the old routine — the old double-shuffle.

Do you know that that government is full of double talk? They are

full of double talk, Mr. Chairman: they double the taxes, double the

medicare premiums, double ferry rates. Boy, if there was ever a

minister that was good at double talk it is the Minister of Agriculture

and Economic Development!

But I will ask him this question. We're discussing farmland here

that was described by the Land Commission as class 2 and class 3

farmland.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the fact that

Mr. Spetifore has put some sand covering and fill on his land which may

be very damaging to the land, whether he would investigate the

situation and see if that land can't be reclaimed. Maybe Mr. Spetifore

could use some assistance from the Department of Agriculture. Would the

minister be willing to assist Mr. Spetifore in reclaiming this valuable

farmland? Will the sand itself — I'm sure the deputy could advise the

minister — destroy that farmland? If so, for how long?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 3 pass?

MR. LAUK: I can see that the hon. minister is not rising to

answer any of my questions, so I'll press on. Mr. Chairman, it's very

difficult to deal with the Minister of Agriculture's estimates if he's

not going to answer any questions. I hope that the public of British

Columbia realize that we are not delaying this minister's estimates.

What we want to know is what his answers are. It's not just the

opposition that require them, it's the public of British Columbia.

Is he going to hide behind the throne? He has recently been

described as the power behind the throne, the Cardinal Richelieu of the

coalition government, Mr. Chairman — the eminence grise. (Laughter.)

That member for Dawson Creek is now the.... Little did they know in

Dawson Creek when he was first elected that he would become the

eminence grise, the power behind the throne. We're asking him, a man

with all this power, to just answer a few simple questions with respect

to his estimates.

Perhaps he would like to answer one of these — he won't answer the

others. Has there been an offer of $3 million for Panco Poultry?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Pinko Panco.

MR. LAUK: Have there been actually two offers — one for $3

million from an individual and another for $6 million from a group of

individuals? Why the difference, Mr. Minister?

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): One of them is NDP.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to inform the second member....

MR. LAUK: First! Emery and I flipped a coin.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: First? Oh, I tell the first member for

Vancouver Centre that I have not visited the Spetifore farm and that I

am not aware that there was sand on the land. I would suggest that if

the member was as intelligent as he would like everybody to believe, he

would know that any land reclamation or item of this nature would come

under the Department of Environment and under the Land Commission. So

the minister, of course, is always going to preserve farmland in this

great British Columbia — because this government cares about the

environment, Mr. Chairman! That's why we have a separate Department of

Environment, because we care — not just idle words, but a minister to

look

[ Page 1445 ]

after the environment.

I will have to check into the matter of Panco Poultry. We are always

open to offers at any time. We will negotiate with people when the time

comes. Right now I am not aware of any hard and fast offers. I haven't

seen any cheques attached to any letters which would make an offer

binding or at least legitimate. But I'd be quite happy to inform the

member, if he wishes me to, when such an offer does come.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, that was an

interesting comment of the minister's, bragging about the government's

separate Department of Environment, with which I happen to agree. There

has been a fair amount of comment that what we need in British Columbia

is a separate Department of Agriculture.

I won't take the time of the House to quote the various reports that

have appeared from different sources saying that it is difficult for

representative groups to meet with the minister because of his multiple

responsibilities — he is also Minister of Economic Development.

I'll just take the liberty of looking at one report which appeared

as a profile of the minister, in the Times of March 2, entitled: "He's

a Political Salesman with Ambitious Plans." This is an

article by Ab

Kent of the Times staff. The

article certainly emphasizes the

minister's primary responsibility as being toward economic development

in the province.

From the budget debate, and others, it's clear that the coal

development in the Dawson Creek area, which happens by coincidence to

be the minister's riding.... Various other statements by the minister,

and this kind of appraisal of the minister's function in the government

by a neutral journalist, makes it very plain that the minister is

handling Agriculture as the secondary responsibility in his total

function as a cabinet minister.

Although we don't expect the minister to be able to respond to all

the invitations he receives to speak at various groups and so on — and

since I want to refer back to the egg-production problems in British

Columbia — I understand that the interior egg producers held their

annual convention on April 9 and the minister stated that he was unable

to attend. But he did appear very much in the same geographical region,

looking at Afton Mines and the Kamore property in conjunction.... I'm

interested to see the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) prick up his

ears, because it was with the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services that

the minister inspected that area, with particular reference to Afton

Mines and the Kamore property.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): That's not true.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister will have lots of opportunity to correct anything he considers incorrect that I've stated.

HON. MR. MAIR: I just wanted you to know that, Scott.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One member at a time. The member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's even confusing with one

member at a time. (Laughter.) The point is quite clear that the voices

of agricultural groups that are distressed that the Minister of

Agriculture has two distinct portfolios, and is also a director of B.C.

Railway, for it means that the attention of the designated Minister of

Agriculture is diluted at the present time. It is no surprise to me

that various producer groups have expressed, both privately to me, in

public and in press reports, that they find it difficult to meet with

the minister. They feel that not only can they not get the message

through, but some of the commitments made on the election platform have

not been maintained by this government.

So, in the first instance, I would like to have the minister respond

to that criticism, which is a serious one in light of the fact that

many members of the House have made it quite plain that the

agricultural industry is not vital just because it produces the food we

eat, or a lot of the food we eat, but because it provides a great deal

of employment and other secondary benefits to the province.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) interjects that it is 2,500 people in terms of secondary jobs.

The fact that our population growth continues to increase by about 3

per cent per year should surely convince any objective person that

agriculture, indeed, is a vital industry that requires a minister to

serve that function only and give agriculture his undivided attention.

Now yesterday I asked some questions which the minister chose not to

answer. I just want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that until I get these

answers we'll be here, if we have to be here till a certain hot spot

freezes over. These questions are very legitimate questions; they are

the direct responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, and they are

related very specifically to the Egg Marketing Board.

The whole question of marketing boards and the principle underlying

them — namely that the producer should receive a fair price for his

product and the cost of his labour, and that the consumer should be

afforded an adequate supply at the most

[ Page 1446 ]

reasonable price that can be achieved — is a very logical and

commendable motive. But the question is exactly that one that the

minister himself outlined in an answer to someone's question from this

side of the House yesterday, that the government was planning to take a

look at marketing boards to see if they were achieving the goals for

which they were set up.

Now that's not my question; that was a statement yesterday by the

minister which explained the government's decision to take a look at

marketing boards. That leads to one or two very simple questions: when

and in what manner is the government following that path? When will the

second look, or the new look, be taken, under what circumstances, and

by whom? Or perhaps more specifically: have these decisions been taken,

or it is just that the minister is trying to stall the opposition

through this debate with vague assurances that he recognizes certain

problems, and that the government will investigate?

But it is certainly a fair question for the opposition to ask: if

the government isn't sure that the marketing boards are achieving the

goals for which they were set up and require investigation or

inspection, when and in what manner does the government propose to

carry out that review?

With regard to the so-called "superboard" that was set up to help

co-ordinate and in some way supervise the function of marketing boards,

and to be a body to which marketing boards could appeal in relation to

various problems, I understand that although there is the legislation

which permits 10 members, that present superboard has five members.

I would recall again, Mr. Chairman, that in that debate on November 14, 1974,

the minister moved an amendment. I think it is important, for completeness sake,

just to quote that amendment — it's on the order paper as proposed amendments

to bills on November 14: "Mr. Phillips to move in Committee of the Whole

on Bill 165, intituled Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, to

amend as follows:...." I won't read all the amendment because all of it is not

relevant, but

section 3 was to be amended by inserting after subsection

(6) section 3 a further subsection, being 3(7), and reading as follows, and

I will just read the last part to save time.

The last sentence says: "At least one-third thereof shall be representatives

of recognized British Columbia consumer groups, associations or organizations."

This was the present Minister of Agriculture's proposed amendment as

to how the superboard should be constituted in terms of its membership

— that at least one-third shall be representatives of recognized

British Columbia consumer groups, associations or organizations.

I would ask the minister two simple questions: if the board was

intended to have 10 members, why does it still only have five? There

may be a good reason; I'm just asking for an explanation. Secondly, has

the minister, who obviously believes in having consumer representation

on marketing boards, taken any action, or is there any action pending

in the near future, to implement the principles included in his

amendment to the legislation?

On a more specific problem of the marketing board issue, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions about the lengthy and,

I'm sure, confusing publicity which citizens of British Columbia have

read over the last year or more on the egg-marketing situation in

British Columbia. In deference to the very sound principle that the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) outlined in this

House today, I have taken a fair amount of trouble and time to speak to

various people who are concerned in this particular problem. To the

best of my ability, the facts that I have uncovered represent at least

part of the problem that afflicts the egg-marketing situation.

The problem appears to be that the overall situation has changed

considerably since the Egg Marketing Board was first set up, which I

believe was around 1966 or 1967. At that time there is no doubt that 80

per cent or more of the egg producers carried out their production of

eggs on the lower mainland. The board was set up in such a way that

there were five main regions in the province, and as the population of

the province has grown and the distribution has shifted, particularly

in relation to areas such as Prince George, egg producers in that area

have wished to play a realistic and logical role in producing some of

the eggs for the consumer in the region where they live. That was one

of the basis, of course.

The minister's having such a good time laughing and talking to other

people in the House that I assume that he's not about to answer these

questions any more today than he did yesterday. So I would just repeat,

Mr. Chairman, that as a responsible member of the opposition I'm

prepared to stand here for the next hundred years and ask these

questions, if I have to — and I expect answers.

MR. G.S. GIBSON (North Vancouver – Capilano): Hear, hear! I've got some quotes for you, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: But the question I want answered is this: is my

information correct that when the Egg Marketing Board was set up, a

basic concept was that regional producers would produce eggs to meet

the requirements in their particular regions? And is it not correct

that we do have egg producers in the lower mainland shipping eggs all

the many hundreds of miles, let us say, to the northern and

northwestern parts of this province when there is every facility to

produce the eggs locally, not only at

[ Page 1447 ]

the same cost as in other regions but so that the consumer has the

advantage of fresh eggs compared to the less-than-fresh eggs that are

shipped from many hundreds of miles away? The answer seems

self-obvious.

Now there may be very legitimate problems because certain persons

have reacted in an irritated or less-than-calm way because they have

been subject to censures, or because they face the possibility of

financial censure. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, one thing is clear if

you pay any attention to the reflection of public opinion through the

newspapers and the kind of editorial that appears almost regularly in

different newspapers in the province. One of the editorials that was

very interesting was in The Vancouver Sun on April 21, 1976. It

is about the Egg Marketing Board. It says: "This is a marketing board

run by producers like a private club." It goes on to say: "It has no

real accountability to consumers even though its cartel is protected by

government. It is the cookie-jar unguarded." It also raises a very

interesting point that it's not a marketing board at all. The choice of

the word "marketing" is misleading for a start, but it says that "the

public quite often gets the impression that all it does is keep prices

up and production down."

Mr. Chairman, these may be completely inaccurate and unjustified

criticisms of the system, but all I'm asking the minister to do is tell

the House and tell the public and the consumer in particular that these

are false accusations. Tell us why they're false and tell us what the

facts of the issue really are. There is such a tendency by ministers

and governments — and I'm not talking just about this minister or this

government, but about elected people in government — to attempt to

tell only the minimal amount of information which they feel will keep

the public with their mouth shut.

When members of this House or members of the public continue to ask

for more and more information, I think it would often strengthen rather

than weaken a minister's position if he would just put the whole story

out on the table and tell us exactly what the situation is, and that's

what I'm asking the minister to do today in this confused and very

adversarial situation that the Egg Marketing Board has been in.

I understand that the management of the board itself in years past

has not been all that it might be in terms of administrative competency

and other matters, and that is one area that has been improved. But if

that isn't the case perhaps the minister again could confirm or correct

some of these facts.

The consumer in British Columbia is entitled to know that the Egg

Marketing Board is not run by producers like a private club. If the

consequence appears to be just to put up prices and keep down

production then I think we as opposition members in the House have a

very legitimate right to ask this kind of question. If we're all wrong

with our information or if there is not the kind of confusion and the

problem that we deduce from all the research I've done, then I want to

know where the truth lies. But regardless of the controversy and the

personalities involved, and whether or not rules have been broken,

could I not ask the minister if there is not a time for a change in the

rules and a review of the legislation or the Egg Marketing Board's

performance in relation to changing circumstances — namely the kind of

increase of population growth and the shifting distribution of

population since the board was set up? Some of these are very relevant

questions that I have asked, particularly the function of the

superboard as a superior body to ensure that these other marketing

boards are functioning according to the goals for which they were set

up, to quote the minister.

There are many other questions I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, but I

would like to ask the minister if he would be kind enough to give us

some of the basic facts in answer to my questions. If some of them

cannot be answered because it relates to the recent supreme court case,

I'll accept that as an explanation. But if we cannot be specific and

relate to specific individual producers and so on, I do hope the

minister can at least give us something in general terms as to when and

in what manner the government will be carrying out the kind of review

that he referred to at least twice in this House, during the budget

debate and again yesterday.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay made

reference to a trip which the Minister of Agriculture and Economic

Development and myself took in Kamloops about four or five weeks ago. I

think it fair that the House know, in the context of today's

discussion, what did take place. It was a Saturday. We worked from 8

a.m. to 6 p.m. Among the places we visited was, indeed, the Kaymor

property to look at a proposed stockyard and, unless I am mistaken,

stockyards fall well within agriculture. We, in fact, visited the

stockyards that do exist and we spent two hours at lunch with the B.C.

Cattlemen's Association, all of which was because of his position as

Minister of Agriculture. I think the House ought to know that the

Minister of Agriculture has gone the length and breadth of this

province doing the very same as he did in Kamloops on that day, and I

think he ought to be commended for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let me just take this minute to

explain that whenever there is a correction to be made, it is wise to

do as the minister has just done. Wait till the conclusion of the

speech. Then it is the practice of the House to allow that correction

to be made, but that correction needs to be made as briefly as possible.

[ Page 1448 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, now there seems to be again

today a lot of criticism — maybe some of it is founded and maybe some

of it isn't about the amount of time that I am spending on the

portfolio of Agriculture. I have been called "2 per cent." But that's

grandstanding in politics, and I appreciate it, coming from the

opposition. I would say that approximately 50 per cent of my time is

spent with Agriculture. I'd like to again state to the House, for those

who were either not here yesterday or who did not care to listen, that

I have met with numerous groups. I don't think I have ever closed the

door or refused to meet with any group of agricultural people. I have

stated, as I stated before, that I can't always get out to attend all

the luncheons and banquets. I know the previous Minister of Agriculture

(Mr. Stupich) will appreciate the situation there.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many have you been to, Don? Have you been to the second one yet?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I can't possibly attend all of them, but I

will endeavour to do my best. There will be times when I am attending a

certain place in the province where I have maybe made a previous

commitment and somebody else asks me to go somewhere in the same

vicinity when I can't possibly be two places at once.

I want to tell the House, Mr. Chairman, the dual portfolio will, in

the long term, have great benefits for agriculture in British Columbia

because the Minister of Economic Development may be taking a little

different view of the agricultural industry in this province. Maybe he

is looking on it as an industry and not necessarily through the eyes of

a farmer, as previous ministers have done. I have mentioned this to

many farm groups and they seem to think that there might be some

benefits. The Premier has made statements that there will be another

minister appointed within 12 months of the day of the appointment, but

the opposition wants to twist things around and ask for a separate

portfolio. They understand the situation, and statements have been

made. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that whether I remain as

Minister of Agriculture or I remain as Minister of Economic

Development, I want to say that....

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be equally disastrous.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say that it will be of great

benefit to the agricultural industry in British Columbia, because then

you may have the possibility of more ministers knowing all of the

benefits and understanding the department. I think in the long run it

will be of great benefit to the department because the Department of

Economic Development will assist the Department of Agriculture to

aggressively merchandise those farm products we have in British

Columbia and which are surplus to the needs of British Columbia, Mr.

Chairman. So there are many advantages to what is taking place in

British Columbia today. Although I don't really anticipate that the

opposition would be looking for any advantages in anything that this

government does, I did feel it necessary to take a little time in the

House and explain to them, Mr. Chairman.

Now the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) wants to drag me again into

the chicken-and-egg war. I want to tell him, if he stands and asks

questions for the next hundred years, that I have made my statements

with regard to the court case and the decisions made. I've made

statements as to the position of the government, and if he wishes to

question in this House for the next hundred years, well, I'm prepared

to sit and listen to him. But I have made my statements and I am

standing my ground. I want the member to know that, and I won't

tolerate, Mr. Chairman, any member grandstanding in a case which is

very ticklish and a case which I have stated very emphatically was

before the courts. The law is the law. The law will be obeyed. The

decisions have been made. Maybe I should just read to that member for

Oak Bay a part of a brief that was recently submitted by the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture to the Social Credit caucus. It states

emphatically....

MR. STUPICH: Were you there?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, I was down, as I explained, Mr.

Chairman — pardon the interruption, but I'll handle that right now

while it's fresh on my mind — fighting for agricultural industry as it

pertains to the agricultural industry in western Canada, with the other

Ministers of Agriculture in the great city of Medicine Hat where we

were discussing the future of agriculture not only in British Columbia

but in western Canada. I was away fighting for agriculture in British

Columbia, and that, Mr. Chairman, was why I was unable to attend that

caucus meeting. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture know that and they

understand that.

Now I just want to read this: "The complete operations of producer

boards and any activities undertaken by them are financed by the

producers themselves." Then there's a very profound statement in this

submission to the Social Credit caucus. It says that all producers must

share equitably in the burdens as well as the benefits of the system.

That is by a very large group of farmers — as a matter of fact it

represents the agricultural industry in British Columbia. They

themselves have said that in backing up the producer boards all the

government has done

[ Page 1449 ]

is provided the legislation.

As I said, decisions have been made in this case and the more

grandstanding, the more we try and tear it apart, the more harm is

going to be done to those numerous egg producers who have

conscientiously over the years, through their producer groups, paid

their levies. Dragging this into the area of politics is not going to

help those producers in the north who have recently paid their levies.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) can carry on. As I've said before, I've made my statement and it stands.

MR. WALLACE: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the minister in the

preliminary part of his recent statement a moment ago accused me of

twisting things around. I would ask the minister to withdraw that

statement.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If I accused the member for Oak Bay of twisting things around, I will withdraw, absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Unequivocally.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry that I have to try and explain what I'm asking again,

because the minister's reply, either by design or otherwise, avoided

the question I'm asking. I did not ask the minister — nor am I asking

the minister at this moment — to get into the pros and cons of the

issue that went to the court, because I can't agree more with the

minister that the law must be obeyed. But the question is: should maybe

the law be changed? You're the one that does all the shouting here, so

don't get annoyed when I do a little bit. I've taken a lot of shouting

from you, Mr. Minister, over the last several years and I think I'm

entitled to an answer to some of these legitimate questions.

I'm not disagreeing for a moment that the law has to be obeyed, and

if the egg producers have broken the law then they have to suffer a

penalty. But, Mr. Chairman, very many honourable people very often find

that in order to draw attention to something that is wrong in society,

they are often left with little option but to break the law. In

breaking the law they have the opportunity to point out that the law

needs to be changed. This is the evolution of society: that if

something needs to be changed it may well involve the breach of some

law or other in order to focus the attention of the legislators on the

need for law reform. It does seem to me as an observer on this issue,

and not a professional, that the tenacity and the persistence and much

of the argument which these egg producers have demonstrated make it

very likely that at least they have some virtue on their side, or that

they have some logic and reasoning on their side.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being repetitious, but the minister in

his speech to this House just the other day did say that the government

wanted to take a look at marketing boards so that we could find out if

they are achieving the goals they were set up to achieve. Without

saying anything about offenders or court cases or anything else, I just

say that the behaviour of certain people in the industry — not just one

and not just two, but several — suggests that all is not what it might

be in the manner in which the Egg Marketing Board is functioning.

I've taken the trouble to meet privately with individual egg

producers who do not figure in this hassle over the Prince George

group. I talked to an egg producer right here in Saanich, and I've

talked on the phone with an egg producer in Kamloops. I've not just

zeroed in on the two or three individuals who have figured in

demonstrations of one kind or another or who have been giving away

chickens because they are overproducing eggs. I am simply saying, Mr.

Chairman, both in respect to some of the incidents I have quoted and in

response to the minister's own comments in this House this session,

that there is some reason to have a review of the present system.

Again, I just ask the question: when and in what manner is the minister

planning to recommend to the cabinet that the kind of turmoil and

dissension and public disturbance of the peace, you might call it — how

is that to be investigated to find out if, in fact, the present

structure and functioning of the board is in keeping with 1976?

Again, I make the point that if the minister has this sense of

conviction about the efficiency and the worthwhile nature of the Egg

Marketing Board, it would seem to me he can only gain. If he feels so

convinced, as he obviously does, that it is a good system and it is

working well and the reason there have been troubles is that there are

troublemakers, we don't have justification for the position they have

presented. If that is the minister's argument — and I assume that it

largely is that — why not, in fact, tell us that he is going to carry

out a certain type of review at a certain time by a certain number of

people, or whatever manner he plans to do it, so that all this can come

out in the open? If the minister's argument is just and based on

accurate facts, then not only will we clarify a lot of the questions we

are asking from this side of the House but I would think that the

consumer in British Columbia, who is buying the eggs in the final

analysis, would be able to say that The Vancouver Sun is talking nonsense when it says that it is run by producers like a private club.

We have a recent addition to government in the form of a Department

of Consumer Services. The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair)

is obviously working very closely with the Minister of

[ Page 1450 ]

Agriculture, judging by his description of the weekend visit they

had to the Kamloops area on April 9. If I left any inference that the

minister wasn't in that area on business, I certainly withdraw such an

inference. I had no intention of leaving that inference. I was merely

making the point that in declining an invitation to the annual meeting

of the interior egg producers, they were not informed that the minister

was doing some other business in the Kamloops area.

These questions, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister can answer:

namely, when and in what manner will his commitment to a review of the

Egg Marketing Board be carried out? Can he give us some kind of

commitment that if, indeed, the passage of the years has made some of

the practices and the method of functioning inappropriate or archaic or

out of date, we can expect to see some legislation coming before the

House to give the Egg Marketing Board a more modern and more

appropriate administrative structure, or whatever other changes might

have go be made?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I really would like to

explain t o the member again that I have made a very definite statement

that the government will be taking a look at marketing-board

legislation. I really feel that to go on and say more than that at this

time, where we are just about to the point.... Before we do anything, I

want to tell you that all the producers are going to be on an equal

footing because if any announcement is made at this time it could upset

the whole deal. It's not going to do anything until that situation is

solved and all the producers are on an equal footing; then we will take

a look. For me to make any statement to the member today, Mr. Chairman,

any different from that could bring this whole situation back into an

area where it has been for the last four years now.

It was announced yesterday afternoon by the member for Fort George

(Mr. Lloyd) that the egg producers in that area are going to be having

a meeting on May 13 with the producer board. That's very encouraging

after four years. I think that one of the reasons that this is coming

about, Mr. Chairman, in all sincerity, is because the Minister of

Agriculture and the government have stayed out of this conflict between

producers. They have the law; they must sort out their own problems.

What we are saying, and I will state it again, is that we will take a

look at the legislation. If we find it isn't functioning, then there

may have to be amendments or changes made. We will take a look. I'm not

going to say how here today, I'm not going to say when, I'm not going

to say in what form, because anything that I say today may have a

bearing on the situation that has existed and has done nobody any good

in the province of British Columbia, particularly the egg producers.

Many of the statements that have been made during the last four

years have cast reflections on individuals, on other marketing boards

other than the marketing board that is involved. It has really been sad

that this has come about.

I realize that all those boards must be open to public scrutiny. All

legislation that exists in this province must, indeed, at all times be

open and subject to criticism by the opposition and, indeed, by the

general population of British Columbia, because that is the function of

our system.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has, as have I, sat in this

House for many, many hours and listened to the chicken-and-egg war rage

in one of the past sessions of this Legislature. Some of the things

that were said, some of the accusations on individuals — indeed on

members of this House, on producers, on the whole situation — really

did nobody any good. I don't want to see a recurrence of that.

This situation is just about the point where those involved are

going to settle their own dispute. When that is done, and everybody is

on an equal basis, an equal footing, then the government will take a

look.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

just have a couple of brief questions for the minister. Yesterday I

raised the matter regarding programmes within the Department of

Agriculture to accommodate student employment over the coming year. The

minister did answer me, but I'm not sure he understood the scope of my

question.

I appreciate that there is a student summer-employment programme

related to work on farms, but what I was interested in learning is

whether or not there is a special employment opportunity directly

within the department over the coming year and, if so, the number of

jobs that might be available, and what kind of specific programmes

might they be. Is it simply summer-relief hiring for those people in

the department who might be on holiday, or, indeed, is there a special

programme to develop work for students, both university and high

school, over the coming year? I'd appreciate it if the minister could

expand somewhat on those points for me.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would be happy to endeavour to answer.

We have at the present time approximately 130 college students on

summer employment employed within the department. I believe my figures

are correct. I'd be quite happy to check out the details. Now that

employment situation on the farms is being handled by the Department of

Labour. If you have any questions with regard to that, I suggest you

ask the question to the Minister of Labour.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I indicated at the

[ Page 1451 ]

outset that I'm aware that there is a programme of employment on

farms, and that is not my question. I am asking whether or not there is

a programme within the Department of Agriculture for students working

in government, in effect. Is there a special programme, or is there a

programme of hiring students for temporary summer relief for those

employees of the Department of Agriculture who might be on holiday and

so on? It's quite dissimilar and quite separate from the programme of

students working on farms, and that is what I am eliciting information

on.

HON. "MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there is an employment programme; there are approximately 130 students employed at the present time.

MR. KING: Within the department?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, first of all,

I hope I won't be ruled out of order if I call attention to the members

of the House that visiting with us is a member who was a former member

of the Nelson School District No. 7 School Board, and is once again a

member of School District No. 7. I'd like the members to welcome Mrs.

Rose Bradshaw.

Speaking to the estimates, I'm glad to see that some information has

been forthcoming on the last question, and maybe a new trend is going

to sweep the estimates with the Minister of Agriculture.

I've been asking the minister about other duties that he might have

in addition to being a minister with a dual portfolio, being on the

board of directors of the B.C. Development Corp. and the board of

directors of B.C. Rail. I don't know if the minister is aware that

there is sort of an industrial development branch, so to speak, within

the agricultural industry, a branch within his department, and that in

some cases it involves equity position, in other cases loan guarantees

and in other instances, direct loans.

For instance, in the case of Chef-Ready Foods Ltd., a Vancouver

firm, there is a loan guarantee and, as well, there is an equity

position held by the Crown. I would wonder if the minister might be a

director on the board of Chef-Ready. Oh, he says he's not — okay.

Another instance would be IOK Poultry Ltd. We have a loan guarantee

and also an equity position in IOK Poultry Ltd., as I understand and as

I'm informed. Does the minister hold a directorship on IOK Poultry? He

might nod his head, or shake it.

Going down alphabetically, Kootenay Dehy Ltd., an alfalfa

dehydration plant: loan guarantee plus some equity position of the

Crown. Is the minister monitoring directly the activities of those who

are perhaps participating on the board of directors?

Panco Poultry Ltd: I believe there's a direct loan, a loan guarantee

plus an equity position. There were some questions asked about offers,

about a $3 million offer and a $6 million offer for Panco Poultry. Is

the minister participating on this board of directors?

Pan-Ready Poultry in Coquitlam: again, a direct loan, Mr. Chairman, a loan guarantee from private funds and an equity position.

In his own riding in Dawson Creek there's South Peace Dehy Products

Ltd. There is, again, a loan guarantee and an equity position. Is the

minister a member of the board of directors of South Peace Dehy

Products Ltd?

Swan Valley Foods: a direct loan, loan guarantee and an equity. Is the minister a director of Swan Valley Foods Ltd.?

There are others, in the alphabetical order I've listed, such as

Cloverdale Lettuce and Vegetable Corp., Creston Co-operative Packers,

Fraser Valley Organics, which, I understand, is an industry for

dehydrating manure. These are loan guarantees not involving an equity

position or a direct loan. Top Shelf Feeds in Duncan, Tree Fresh

Storage Ltd., Kelowna. One wouldn't really expect that the minister

would be on the boards of those, but I might ask if he is on the boards

of directors of any of those companies.

I am led to ask this question because of some information that I

have, the most current information that I can get in terms of asking,

for instance, about such corporations in my riding as Kootenay Dehy. I

see Mr. Lorne Uri, Mr. Art Sutcliffe, James Ferguson, Don Huscroft, Len

Huscroft, Robert France, Alvin Lang and Rune Anderson are on the board

of directors.

I look at South Peace Dehy, and the most current information, of

course, Mr. Chairman, is that which can be obtained from the registrar

of companies. It, of course, is subject to the most recent annual

report. I see in South Peace Dehy, Richard Johnson, Wayne Melia,

Clarence Veiner, Claude Vincent, Jack Dobbs, Vic Nobbs, Robert Coutts

and Don Pederson.

Panco Poultry: Theodore Cohen, F. Rex Werts and Barry Creelman. One

of the reasons I would ask this question is because of a precedent

which was perhaps set, and there was a lot of discussion about whether

or not ministers should be on Crown corporations or not.

Swan Valley Foods: the directors listed from the registrar of

companies are William Piper, Gordon Leversage, Jack Wiggin, Clarence

Christianson, William Powril, Sig Pederson and David Stupich.

Mr. Chairman, I would assume that the information is not up to date.

I would ask if the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is still a

member of the board of directors, or has his name been deleted? Was

there a vacancy, or vacancies and is the minister a director on Swan

Valley Foods Ltd.? Obviously, I would think, there is a vacancy left. I

[ Page 1452 ]

don't think that the former Minister of Agriculture is still filling

in in that capacity, although I understand he's still being invited to

agricultural banquets, even though he's a former minister, sometimes

when the present minister maybe can't keep up.

MR. LAUK: It's because he's got the answers and the present minister doesn't.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I am asking: was there a vacancy or vacancies?

Is the minister now on that board, or are they changing the policy of

the government and is there no ministerial representative on that board

of directors?

Of course, all of this information on Panco, Swan Valley, South

Peace Dehy, Kootenay Dehy, Empire Orchards Ltd., and others that I do

have is from the registrar of companies and would not be completely up

to date.

That is the question that I'm asking. I hope the little streak of

luck that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) had in getting some

answers will rub off on me and them maybe we can get on to the

Department of Economic Development.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to get the member a list of all of the companies under the Department of Agriculture with who is....

MR. NICOLSON: All the current directors.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be quite happy to provide you with that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just a very simple little question

to the minister. Hopefully he will start out by saying that he will

answer a couple of the questions I asked him yesterday. I heard him

over the loudspeaker earlier on today talking about the promotion of

British Columbia food products and I asked him quite specifically

yesterday if there was a new promotional campaign being planned. I'd be

glad if he'd tell me that.

I'd also be glad if he would tell us in some detail about the

disposition of the world food assistance which is in the budget, which

I asked him to do, because I think that's very important.

I'd like to ask one more question. He's had representation from the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture, I think, and others for renaming his

department the Department of Food and Agriculture. The idea is that

under this department should be groups such as, for example, the

shellfish and fish-farming industry — all of those products of the sea

as well as the land that are essentially husbandry activities as

opposed to the catch of the wild.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aquaculture.

MR. GIBSON: Aquaculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gary started it.

MR. LAUK: That's right, I did. I start everything good in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for North Vancouver – Capilano has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Some people in those industries would like to be

able to take advantage of the services of the minister's department and

particularly, I think, the income assurance features of his department.

I'd ask the minister what he thinks of those representations and if he

is inclined favourably in that direction.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll answer the last

question first. I think if you wish to go through the Hansard of the

agricultural committee when they were touring the province in the

summer of 1973, you will see where I've stated that the name should be

changed from "agriculture" to "food production."

AN HON. MEMBER: A pet project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, not a pet project, just a feeling that

I have. I want to tell the member, Mr. Chairman, through you, that this

involves a lot of change of legislation. We have to go through and

change all our Acts. I'm not even saying it's going to happen, but it

could — all things are possible. We'll have to leave the word

"agriculture" in there because there are a lot of other things like

horses and orchids and flowers and things that still come under

agriculture. Under "food production" we could take in oyster beds and

fishing and things like that.

With regard to the member's question, Mr. Chairman, with regard to

food promotion, I want to tell him that this Department of Agriculture

is always looking at new ways to promote food in British Columbia —

B.C.-grown to keep our agricultural industry healthy.

With regard to the world food assistance, I did make a lengthy

statement in the House — and it's in Hansard — answering all of your

questions. It was a two-page statement which was prepared to alleviate

any fears that the members of the opposition might have with regard to

this very important aspect of agriculture. There were no changes,

basically; everything remains the same. We're still going to support

the education programmes. The whole statement is in Hansard . I'd be quite happy to have a copy dug up for the member, but it's all in there.

[ Page 1453 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the minister has

satisfactorily answered questions in regard to the egg-marketing issue.

I wasn't wishing to go into a lengthy debate, but I think that there's

something about this minister's particular attitude in avoiding dealing

with matters that he would rather not deal with that is similar to his

attitude on questions on the B.C. Railway. He puts the onus on the

opposition that if they ask certain questions they're going to endanger

settlements. When I asked about the financial statement on the BCR, I

couldn't have it from the minister because it might endanger

negotiations going on with the unions. Now I can't get the answers —

because the minister says there are some very highly sensitive meetings

or discussions going on and that if one MLA in the House asks a

question and gets answered, the whole thing will fall apart. Mr.

Chairman, surely that absolutely justifies the nature of my questions

or the questions of any opposition member. If the whole system's in

such a mess and so fragile that by asking a question and having the

minister answer this will somehow or other destroy or....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. WALLACE: "Come on," he says. I'm only quoting the

minister's answer of about 10 minutes ago, that he can't tell us any

more because if he gives a specific answer to some of these

questions....

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): We've been debating that for four years.

MR. WALLACE: There again, the chirpy voice from Fort George

also justifies my arguments completely. He says we've been debating

this for four years, and we're no further forward. That's exactly the

point. I'm asking questions.

MR. LLOYD: Are you afraid it's going to get resolved? Is that what's bothering you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Fort George, who is

a new member to the House, reminds me that we've been talking about

this issue for four or five years. I think the fact that it comes up

repetitively by one or other or more members of the opposition points

out the fact that we are not solving a problem. To make the gratuitous

suggestion that any member of this House doesn't want a solution and

that we're debating it so that we can prevent or distort a solution, I

think, really doesn't do the House any credit.

I feel that the consumer in British Columbia wants to know just why

this is a repetitive recurring, acrimonious issue which does, in fact,

come up year after year after year in the Legislature. It's a little

bit like the aspects I mentioned earlier, that certain people who are

concerned finish up breaking the law. It is very often because they

feel in their conscience that the way in which things are being done

are not sensible or appropriate or reasonable and their only way of

drawing attention to the deficiencies is to take certain actions which

might bring them into conflict with the law.

If we haven't learned in our society by 1976 that demonstrations of

one kind or another, whether they be in the farmyard or on the

Legislature steps, mean that some groups in society feel that they're

not getting fair play, if we haven't learned that, then indeed out

society has learned very little in the post-war years.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister, in making the

point that he will not say any more about what he intends to do, or to

enlarge the degree and manner in which he wants to look at marketing

boards — to give me that answer on the pretext that by answering he

would endanger to a very great degree some agreement which he insists

is only two weeks away — is just asking the opposition to be really

rather naive after four years of debates when neither government, the

last one or this one, seems to have really solved the accusations of

discrimination against certain producers which figures in the Garrish

reports.

If you really want to go back through all that, I've got all the

material here. We can go back and discuss that if you like, but it only

serves to justify, Mr. Chairman, some of the comments made by the

opposition back bench that this has been a continual issue year after

year after year in this House. Even although the Garrish report made it

quite plain that there was room for review and change in some of the

functioning of the board, here we are in 1976 — and I suppose in that

respect it would be fair to ask the minister to what degree he agrees

with the Garrish report and what recommendations have in fact been

implemented and if so..... Again I would suggest that because we have

continuing turmoil in the industry, whatever reasoning was behind the

recommendations hasn't worked.

Now I don't appreciate trying to do a great deal of homework and

trying to ask responsible questions in this House and having this

secretive response from the minister, that by answering questions

honestly and factually he would do more harm than good.

MR. KERSTER: You didn't get any answers for four years, and you can't wait two weeks.

[ Page 1454 ]

MR. WALLACE: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that two weeks from now if we don't have the answers....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member interjecting knows very well — at

least maybe being a newcomer he doesn't know very well — that the

opposition has certain opportunities and only certain opportunities at

certain times to ask questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this the question period?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Mr. Chairman. The interjections become less

and less justified. They're asking now if this is question period. Can

you imagine a more nonsensical comment, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 3, please.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you'd stop these

interjections, I wouldn't be wasting time trying to answer them because

they're all stupid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I have just done that. Vote 3.

MR. WALLACE: Just in case the member feels that that was a

legitimate question, the whole purpose of debating estimates — in case

you really want to learn in this House — is to ask questions.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's what I'm doing. That's right. And I'm

just trying to further educate the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster)

by pointing out that we have a certain order of business in the House

and that certain items of business are called at certain times, which

leaves the opposition with only certain well-defined opportunities to

ask these questions. I can't get up after we get to the Minister of

Transport and ask him why the questions I was promised an answer to in

two weeks haven't appeared in two months.

MR. KERSTER: There's no closure on this debate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, if I could get back to the vote — and I'm trying to stay in order.

This issue....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, do you want me to start at the beginning and ask it all over again?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I've asked the question several times, Mr. Chairman, and I'm only being repetitious because the minister hasn't answered it.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The minister has acknowledged on at least two occasions and it is well reported in the press....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ask me a question. I'll give you an answer to it now. That's a challenge.

MR. WALLACE: It's a challenge, but I am very doubtful about the outcome.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just try me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go on, try him.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You ask me a question — a specific question — and I'll give you an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I am a trusting person; the question is

simply this: when and in what manner does the minister plan to review

the function of the Egg Marketing Board?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know when and I'm

not sure, really, what form the review will take at this time. But I

want to inform the member, Mr. Chairman, through you, that I have said

in this House — and it has never been said in this House before by any

other government, or it hasn't been said outside this House by any

previous Minister of Agriculture, or by any farmer, or by anybody

anywhere in the whole world — that we would take a look at marketing

boards. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It hasn't happened. I have said it: we'll take a look at them.

MR. LAUK: You'll call them together and have nothing to see. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This is a serious matter, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. But you'd never take

[ Page 1455 ]

agriculture seriously because you don't have any and you don't

really care about agriculture. I'll accept that; you've proven that

already.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We will have to take a look at the

questions involved, and we will have to answer to the general public

some of the questions they have thought up over a period of time. It is

because of marketing boards that the price of food is high? We will

have to review them; we'll have to take a look at them. I don't know at

this time what form that review will take and I don't know when it will

happen. But I've made a statement to an hon. member of this House, and

I think we'll have to leave it at that.

I don't know. I can't answer your question further than "I don't

know." I've tried to answer your question, but I can't tell you

something I don't know at this time.

MR. LAUK: You don't know.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): That never stopped you before.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What other minister has ever stood in this

House before and said that he didn't know? I'm being honest. When I

don't know something, I don't know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this a new qualification for minister?

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly.

MR. LEA: That means you won't be answering any questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I do know some; I have some answers. But I want to be perfectly candid with the House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's right, and I want to be truthful with the House.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given an

undertaking to give me the current, up-to-date directorships of the

companies. I'd just ask the minister if he would like me to send over

my list, or if they have them there. When we finish your estimates

under the Agriculture vote we will be dealing with Economic

Development. I'd like to know if it would be ready in time when we

come back to the other votes, the sub-votes and so on, of the

Department of Agriculture, once we get beyond vote 3 and on to 4 and 5

and 6 and so on.

Also, I did ask the other day about the annual report. Does the

minister anticipate that the annual report for the last...will it be

ready, perhaps, by the time we get back from the Economic Development,

your ministerial salary and so on?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the

member's frustration and anger with not having the report here, because

if I were in your position I'd be angry too; I really would be. It

should be here; it's at the Queen's Printer. It will be done shortly.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It will be here shortly. Yes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now listen, if I'm going to provide a

list, I want to make sure it's accurate. So I want to go and check to

make sure that there haven't been changes that I don't know about. I'll

go to the Attorney-General's department and check it out through the

list of companies. You can do the same yourself. I'll be happy to do

it for you, but I want to make sure it's accurate, Mr. Member. Go

through the companies'.... In the office up there. I don't want to

provide you with a list that isn't accurate.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister has not answered my

questions, and I've noticed he hasn't answered others. But he did make

some comments that give rise to further questions, I'm afraid.

Mr. Chairman, I asked: can the minister confirm that there were two

offers made recently for Panco Poultry, one for $3 million and one for

$6 million?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I answered that.

MR. LAUK: The minister did not answer. He said: "Well, we

have various offers on my desk. There is no cheque on them; there is no

written-out bank draft." That's not an answer, Mr. Chairman. He's got

to take his portfolio seriously. I want an answer: are there two offers

for Panco Poultry, and in what amounts? We are entitled to have that

information whether he thinks that the offers are serious or not.

I have other questions — many other questions. What concerns me

about the recent announcement concerning farmland, this afternoon and

with respect

[ Page 1456 ]

to the Spetifore property, is something that the Minister of

Agriculture should turn his mind to. He's treating this matter in a

very frivolous way.

MR. LEA: Don't ask the impossible.

MR. LAUK: Prime agricultural land was taken out of the land freeze for the purported purpose of a potato factory.

Now we hear this afternoon, after I said yesterday that this

gentleman had contributed substantially to the Social Credit campaign

coffers, that he's withdrawn the project for a potato factory. Is this

land to remain, therefore, outside the freeze? If it's going to remain

outside the freeze, is the Land Commission's order going to be

valid...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like you to bring the member, the

Vancouver Centre lawyer, to order. He should know the Land Commission

is not under my jurisdiction. He should know that the questions he's

asked are completely out of order. I'd just like to inform the member,

who was a minister of the Crown, who is also a lawyer and should know

this, that the Land Commission is not under my jurisdiction.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland), the old crocodile, is in his place today. You waited

for the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to come back, eh? He's waiting back

there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 3.

MR. LAUK: Vote 3, yes, vote 3. Agriculture. Taking care of

such species as crocodiles, who are waiting behind that poor little

Premier...he's waiting for him to fall asleep and he's going to

gobble him up.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, now, the minister interrupted my comments,

and I was going to relate them to vote 3, Mr. Chairman, and it's this:

that the Minister of Agriculture's responsible, as minister, for the

preservation of farmland whether the Land Commission is under another

minister or not. Now is he doing the double-shuffle here today and

avoiding answering these difficult questions, answering these charges

simply because of a technical matter that the Land Commission's under

the administrative authority of another minister? Nonsense! He's

responsible for Agriculture and the preservation of farmland. Is Mr.

Spetifore going to be permitted to keep this land outside of the land

freeze?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. LAUK: If so, what is the design from the beginning, to put it into housing or other forms of industry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: These are questions that should be answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe this should be discussed under the Land Commission vote. Would you proceed with vote 3, please?

MR. LAUK: Well, I want an answer from the minister with

respect to Panco Poultry and I want an answer about what his position

is with respect to Spetifore. Is he going to allow this kind of thing?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sit down and I'll answer.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

obviously has no control over the administration of his department and

the agencies that come under him. Perhaps the Cardinal Richelieu of

this government can take a hand and have a little chat with the

Minister of Environment and tell him, you know, to put his comb in his

pocket and pay some attention to the serious matters involved in

farmland in this province.

Now, you know, one final question of the minister, Mr. Chairman. For

the first time in the province since the Medicine Hat conference —

where Rudyard Kipling once went through...and now another great

distinction, the Minister of Agriculture was there....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He was in Medicine Hat and I think he had a little

bit too much medicine because, you know, he didn't say to the press at

the time that agriculture was discussed. Now he stands up in his

estimates and he says that we discussed agriculture. Well, I have

some questions of the minister....

MR. KERSTER: Tell us all about your questions.

MR. LAUK: This is the first time we heard about it. What was

discussed with respect to agriculture? Don't tell me about the freight

rates; I know all about that. You're saying that, you know, your

Premier put his name on a communique that said that he deplored the

idea that the user should pay the cost of the continental railroads. I

wonder if the ferry patrons in British Columbia paid any attention to

that. The

[ Page 1457 ]

Premier of this province — and I suppose the Minister of Agriculture

— was upset that the users should pay the cost of the continental

railroads, but in our own province, the users of the ferries have to

pay the cost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 3.

MR. LAUK: It's very inconsistent. What's goose for the gander — or whatever it is, you know.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I want to know what was discussed in agriculture.

What were British Columbia's points? What were their briefs, and was

there any common ground reached? I'm sure the minister can tell us all

he knows within three minutes,, but I'd like some opinion about this

dreadful situation with respect to the Spetifore land and what his

position is, and I'd like to know what was discussed at Medicine Hat.

I'd like him to explain the inconsistency of this government with

respect to the philosophy that the user should pay the cost of

continental railways, but not the cost of a ferry system which is the

extension of the highway. What I mean to say is, you expect the user to

pay the cost of the ferry system, but you're upset that the federal

government wants the user to pay the cost of the continental system.

That's an inconsistent stand. Are you confused?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, but you are.

MR. LAUK: I will be after your answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, I was going to let

that member be confused. I didn't want to tell the House about that

member not doing his homework, not really understanding.... For the

last two days he's stood in this House and made an issue about the

Spetifore farm...

MR. KERSTER: He wants to build a bridge over it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and about the Land Commission, taking land from

the agricultural land reserve. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that member,

as usual, is away off base, hasn't done his homework, and I hate to tell

this House, you know.... I should let him rest in his ignorance because he

seems quite happy, but I want to tell the member, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit

of the member and for the benefit of the House, that there was no application

made by Spetifore Farm to take any land out of the agricultural land reserve.

What they did, Mr. Chairman, was ask if a potato plant on agricultural land

was a suitable use. It's well within the terms of the legislation, but there's

this member who stood in this House for two days making accusations about everything

— about the poor and about the Social Credit government which left the

same directors on the Land Commission and really has no influence over them,

as the member would try and intimate to this House. He talks about land that

we put back in the agricultural land reserves....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, I do believe this should be discussed under Environment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not really, Mr. Chairman. With all due

respect, it comes under my vote. I am responsible for seeing that that

great industry in British Columbia goes ahead — that great agricultural

industry.

MR. LAUK: Is he challenging the Chair?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that it is perfectly legitimate

to have an agricultural plant on agricultural land. That's why you fellows

over there took thousands and thousands of acres of rocks...

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ... and put them in the agricultural land zone.

You knew that you can put a plant for pullets on rocks. That's the only

justification I can see for you taking into the land reserve all those thousands

and thousands of acres of gravel pits and rock piles, unless you were going

to really take over the use of all land in British Columbia. Maybe that was

your motive, but you did do it.

MR. LAUK: You're destroying the preservation of farmland.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We are not destroying the preservation of

farmland. I'll tell you, farmland will be for agricultural use. You

are a lawyer and you should know, Mr. Member, very well that you have

made a farce of this whole debate — making fun of agriculture in this

Legislature during the past two days! The people in this province will

know what a farce he is trying to make of it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, would you withdraw the word "liar"?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't call him a liar.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw it anyway for next time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right — just in case I do.

[ Page 1458 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why you had that in mind, but I ask you to withdraw it. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that city-slicker lawyer is trying to

drag up something out of the depths of that great conference in

Medicine Hat, but he's having a difficult time, Mr. Chairman. There

were communiques issued. The communique issued after the Medicine Hat

conference stated very clearly the decisions that were reached at that

great conference. I would be most happy to get the member a copy of the

communication on agriculture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there was a communique issued on

agriculture, but again the member doesn't pay any attention. He comes

into this House ill-informed. I wish he would do his homework. I don't

want to do all his homework for him. I don't mind doing some of it, but

all of it — no.

MR. LAUK: Are you talking about that communique on agriculture?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about the communique on agriculture, yes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I hope when the estimates

are done the member will come to my office and I'll draw him a picture.

I'll be quite happy to sit down and draw him a picture — some diagrams

and everything else.

MR. LAUK: Do it now. We've got lots of time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now he is trying to relate ferry use,

which is subsidized.... We are not asking the users to pay all the cost

of the ferries, Mr. Chairman. But again that group over there is trying

so desperately to find something to grab onto to make this debate

worthwhile.

MR. LAUK: Are you being arrogant?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No. As a matter of fact, I am a very humble man, and the member knows it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: You've got a great deal to be humble about.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I have. Mr. Chairman, what we are

trying to do...and the member full well knows, because he argued for

British Columbia at the previous WEOC conference and he argued for

western Canada.

MR. LAUK: Correct.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: But there seems to be...and I am not going to get into transportation. Let's talk transportation under Economic Development.

MR. LAUK: All right.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We were trying to reach common ground on

income assurance programmes. It was an honest and sincere effort on

behalf of all the western provinces to say to Ottawa: "Look, you

subsidize everything else and you encourage everything else. How about

standing up and protecting all the people of Canada by seeing that

agriculture remains a viable industry in all of western Canada so that

all of the people of Canada can benefit from low prices of food with

better production and better foodstuffs so that we won't be at the

mercy of the world?" Instead of just looking at British Columbia we'll

look at all western Canada, and we want Ottawa to look at all western

Canada. That's what the conference was all about, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given an

undertaking to get me the information on the various directorships. I

would just caution the minister not to go to the registrar of

companies, because the latest information they have is the annual

report of the previous year, which lists the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) as one of the directors. He's not a director any more — he's

resigned. Maybe he's been replaced and maybe he hasn't. But one

question, I think, the minister can answer right here: is he on any of

those 13 companies? He surely knows which companies he is director of.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not so sure.

MR. LAUK: He could give us that information today. I think it would be most helpful.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I told the member that I would provide him with an up-to-date list.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister is playing games.

What is he trying to hide? What's the big stall, Mr. Minister? You

certainly know if you're on a board of directors. I'm not going to say

that you're misleading us if you don't give us every last one, but you

must know if you're on more than just BCDC and B.C. Rail. Mr. Chairman,

when I was a

[ Page 1459 ]

minister myself, I knew that I was on the board of directors of

Dunhill Development, for instance. Certainly when I resigned, when we

changed governments, as is the gentlemanly thing to do, although it

wasn't done properly...what should have been done was that a meeting

should have been called and we should have handed in our resignations

at the meeting, in an orderly manner, replaced ourselves and sort of

regenerated....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are relating this to vote 3, are you?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. I would point out, though, that changes in boards of directors, like that of BCDC,

which is part of the Minister of Agriculture's responsibility.... When

the BCDC board of directors was announced there was a press release

that pointed out that people like Maurie Young, president of Finning

Tractor and a person who, by the way, I tried to get the services of as

a very well-respected member of the business community, but he was too

busy at that time to serve...and I'm glad to see that now he's able to

serve the people of British Columbia, and I'm sure he has a great deal

to offer, Mr. Minister.

The minister had a press release. He pointed out that people like

Mr. Blakely, former president of the Creston Brewery, were put on the

board of directors. In other departments people were put on boards of

directors — people like Edith Gunning, another person who, although she

is a Conservative, I was very seriously considering and would have

asked her to serve in one of the housing capacities, because she had

served Saanich.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 3, please.

MR. NICOLSON: In a case like Swan Valley Foods where an

obvious vacancy arose, as it did similarly because of an election, one

of the direct responsibilities of this minister.... Just so you might

know, Mr. Chairman, the reason why I've mentioned these others is that

it was part of the orderly changeover of government that, naturally,

ministers of a former government would not be asked to serve on — well,

maybe they would, if it was a coalition or something, but certainly not

under the circumstances that we saw with these two philosophies, which

are sometimes not considered to be too compatible.

So there was some changeover. When I phoned the registrar of

companies and I asked about Kootenay Dehy and a manure-dehydrating

company and various things, it set my mind to wondering when I noticed

that the member for Nanaimo, who is not only an NDP member of this

House but a past president of the New Democratic Party several times

over, a former Minister of Finance and former Minister of Agriculture,

was still listed with the registrar of companies as being a director of

Swan Valley Foods Ltd., I thought "this cannot be." There's a good

reason....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe you have canvassed this.

MR. NICOLSON: You understand that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand it.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, then. I hope the Minister of Agriculture

will understand this question which I am going to relate to his

ministerial vote. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, surely this did not

escape your notice. Surely you knew that the former Minister of

Agriculture could not continue to serve in that capacity. Surely you

considered that there should be some replacement. Surely he resigned,

as all gentlemen would resign, and surely there's been some

replacement. Are you or are you not his replacement? Are you or are you

not on that board of directors?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I stated previously, Mr. Chairman, just

so there is no error whatsoever, I want to make sure that the member is

provided with all the information. I said previously — and I don't wish

to take up the time of the House as that member is doing — that I would

supply him with a complete list.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, that's been canvassed, I believe. The hon. minister has stated that he would provide you with a list.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, some of these companies that I've

mentioned have experienced some difficulties. The return to the

Kootenay Dehy plant, I understand, is something like $10 an acre,

whereas if a person was simply to have used the normal baling methods,

I think that they could achieve something in the order of $160 to $200

return per acre. Perhaps the minister's concerned about Kootenay Dehy;

perhaps he's placed himself on that board. Certainly there was a

schedule with Swan Valley Foods to first of all open up a Richmond

plant for entrees, and then, as a second phase, to open up a plant in

Creston, which is in my riding, so it does give me some cause for

concern.

The people in Nelson-Creston note strange things. They note two huge

bulk trucks of potatoes coming out of the plant and being dumped —

dumping potatoes, Mr. Chairman. This is in a time when people around

the world are starving. It's something I have to answer to, and this is

my only opportunity to get answers out of that minister. If he is on

that board of directors, who's replaced the Minister of Agriculture?

[ Page 1460 ]

That has to be the height of ignorance, and the minister isn't

afraid to admit to ignorance and nor am I. Ignorance is no sin if you

don't know about something. But it's up to him to tell me whether or

not he is ignorant of who the replacement for the former Minister of

Agriculture is and if he's on that board at this time or not. It's an

urgent matter, Mr. Chairman. What's he trying to cover up? What's he

trying to hide?

You know, I go to my riding and the things which are going on frankly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you're imputing improper motives, and I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. NICOLSON: Imputing what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That he is covering up, hiding.

MR. NICOLSON: I withdraw anything that imputes an improper motive to the minister, without qualification.

The minister is delaying information which he has at hand, surely.

For instance, he can surely tell me if he is or is not on that board of

directors. I would try to stress the urgency of this by giving some

other examples, Mr. Chairman, which I'm sure will alarm you as they've

alarmed me.

People have come up to me and they've said that truckloads of

potatoes are being dumped by Swan Valley Foods. I want to know what's

wrong. They ask me what's wrong. Maybe there's a good reason; maybe

there's a good explanation. Maybe it's not what it appears to be; maybe

there's a very good reason why truckloads of potatoes are being dumped.

Maybe there was some malfunction; maybe the controlled atmosphere

storage went awry; maybe the temperature rose; maybe they raised the

temperature of some potatoes for a few days. I don't want to

necessarily know about the potatoes and why they're being dumped.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you asking for?

MR. NICOLSON: I really want to know what will stop me from

having to ask a whole bunch of questions. If you understand that

question, you'll tell me if you are on the board of directors or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair, please?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to explain the rationale then. You know, there is

concern, Mr. Minister. I think there's a logical explanation for those

potatoes being dumped, and I don't know that potatoes are being dumped.

Maybe they're dumping rocks or something that are coming out when

they're culling the potatoes. That is the kind of thing that's being

said because people are not being kept informed of what's happening

with Swan Valley Foods.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your facts straight.

MR. NICOLSON: I could cite other examples of concern. There

is supposed to be a start-up of potato processing now that the entire

plant is going. When is it going to start up? I thought it was supposed

to start up this spring. You're on the board of directors and you

should know, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The minister, having given

this information...I can certainly continue this under the specific

vote because I think it's clearly covered under one of the sub-votes of

the Department of Agriculture. I'd be pleased to do that. I've had to

be in this House, I guess, because the minister wanted company. He

likes to look across at my shining, smiling face. He's kept me in here

for his whole estimate knowing I'd have to keep asking this and keep

asking it before I could give him his salary vote. And there's not even

any salary in this job for you. It's only through Economic Development

that you're getting paid, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

We can pursue this further, but I would like to ask the minister to

consider, perhaps when he comes back after having disposed of his

Economic Development ministerial vote, to come back hopefully with some

information — a bit of a status report. Tell us when we're going to get

on with creating jobs in the Creston Valley. People want to know.

People are looking for summer employment. They're looking for the

anticipated start-up of the potato-processing plant. It's a very bold

undertaking, and the government has seen fit to participate in this. I

think it's something we can be proud of, because there's interest being

shown all over the world — in Ireland, Iran, the United States, eastern

Canada, and places all over the world.

People would like to know, and I'm just serving notice to the

minister that there is concern in the valley; there are questions, and

I'm sure there is a lot of misinformation. That's my concern. It's the

misinformation that goes on when people start to speculate. I could

confide to you privately the dangers of some of that speculation and

some of the things that are being said that I don't want to repeat in

this House.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Chairman regarding the immediate past comment about misinformation, I think it would be most

[ Page 1461 ]

appropriate now for the House to be apprised of a situation which

was before us yesterday regarding this potato-processing plant in the

municipality of Delta. Reading from yesterday's Blues, quoting the

member for Vancouver Centre...

MR. LAUK: Go ahead.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ...in

part it says:

"But is it his democratic right" — referring to Mr. Spetifore — "to receive the release of his land from the Land Commission

Act, prime agricultural land, when we already have established an industrial

assembly by the BCDC, a Crown corporation under the control and now under the

chairmanship of the Minister of Agriculture?"

The truth of the matter is that the land is not released, has not

been released from the agricultural land reserve. No application was

received to release the land that was acted upon. The land in question

onto which the plant was to go was applied under a regulation of the

Act which permits agricultural process. The land remains within the

agricultural land reserve. As to political pressures which were

suggested previously, it may be of interest to the House that the

matter was not brought before the Department of Environment for comment

by the Land Commission. The application was processed by the Land

Commission, by Regulation 9375, Land use Regulations, (B21a) and was

handled internally by the Land Commission. But just to clarify the

point, the land remains within the agricultural land reserve, contrary

to the suggestion that it was released from the ALR.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Land Commission released the use

of this land for industrial purposes. They may describe it as

"agricultural," and this gave rise to the suspicions on the part of

the opposition. It is not an agricultural processing use in a sense

envisaged by that particular regulation of the Land Commission Act,

unless the regulations have been changed since the coalition took

office. It's class 2 primary agricultural land, and approval was

granted for this use for what they called "agriculturally oriented

industries." Does that mean Panco Poultry could set up a plant there?

Does that mean that we can put up a textile plant? That's related to

agriculture too.

What utter nonsense! It's a misuse of the Act and that minister

knows it, and the charges have not been answered. Is there going to be

a disclosure about how much money this man donated to the Social Credit

campaign fund?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. LAUK: And why did he get this non-conforming use on

agricultural land that he has since withdrawn? Is that permit for a

non-conforming use going to be withdrawn by the Land Commission, and

will not the minister order that withdrawal? Or is this a back door way

to get a non-conforming use on agricultural land by saying you're going

to put up a potato factory and when there is a little bit of heat

you're going to pull back....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: That land has still got a non-conforming....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member. Are you imputing any improper motives to any member of this House?

MR. LAUK: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Point of order.

Now that there is a break in the action, so to speak, the suggestion

was clearly made by that member that in exchange for a campaign

donation a certain right was granted to him. Nobody can deny that that

was the imputation that a normal person would take from those words,

and I demand that he withdraw it and I ask the Chair to enforce that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, no such imputation, no such inference

is made. I said I wanted a disclosure of the amount of money paid by

Spetifore to the Social Credit campaign funds.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Certainly the public of this province is entitled to know...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: ...who is dealing with the government directly on government and public affairs and...

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: ...how much money they paid over to campaign funds.

When the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) stood in his place today, he

sounded not like an MLA but an advocate for the gentleman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member. If you're imputing improper motives to any member of this House, would you kindly withdraw, please?

MR. LAUK: I withdraw any kind of inference

[ Page 1462 ]

somebody may have drawn that I may be imputing improper motives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you proceed, then?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. MAIR: Surely that's not good enough. He's clearly

tied in what he alleges is a campaign donation with something received

by that person who made the donation, allegedly. Now you can't just

simply, Mr. Chairman, surely, stand up and say: "I deny any imputation

that somebody may have taken from those words."

Those words are capable of only one meaning. I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, and I ask that you insist that the member withdraw those

words and withdraw the sense in which they were uttered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, if an implication was made, will you kindly withdraw?

MR. LAUK: I already have.

Interjections.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He already has.

MR. LAUK: You know, the Minister of Consumer Services has so

little to do, Mr. Chairman. He comes in here and interrupts other

ministers' estimates. He's constantly heckling and interrupting debates

with inane comments, swinging back and forth in his chair. He has no

mail to sign, nothing to read, nothing to do in his office....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: He's sitting here anxiously during question period, hoping somebody will ask him a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order!

MR. LAUK: He has nothing to do. He's unemployed, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you have a point of order, Hon. Minister? The hon. minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: It may very well be true I have time on my hands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: One at a time.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll give you my point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: My point of order is simply this....

MR. LEA: You're not rising on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: I do. I am on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have recognized the minister. Will you kindly sit down?

MR. LEA: But he has no point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you kindly sit down? We'll decide that in a moment.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I did attempt a light-hearted

comment at the beginning of my point of order. I think that the member

is, as usual, inaccurate as well as amusing, but....

MR. LEA: Not a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, that isn't, but have patience. Well, stop talking then.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the remarks that member for

Vancouver Centre just made still do not in any way withdraw the remarks

he made earlier. I once again ask the Chair to force him to withdraw

those remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the Chair is satisfied that a withdrawal has taken place. I recognize the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, this is up to the Chair's

discretion entirely. I have recognized the hon. minister. Will you

kindly sit down, please?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I have not

[ Page 1463 ]

recognized you yet. You can make that motion, if you wish, when I

recognize you. I have recognized the hon. minister; will you please...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the Hon. Minister of Human Resources.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: the hon.

minister rose in his place and you recognized him but not on a point of

order. I took my seat as a result of points of order that were raised

on the opposite side. When a member resumes his seat as a result of

points of order, he's entitled to retake his place in the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it was my impression that you had completed your remarks.

MR. LAUK: Not at all. I took my seat as a result of points of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. minister defer? Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, when anyone deals in such a manner

with the Land Commission of this province, all former associations with

the government must be disclosed. I'm not suggesting that there was

something improper, but what I am saying is that the spectre of

something being improper can be raised in the public mind unless these

disclosures are made, and it is essential that they do be made.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I would suggest that the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) look over the Land Commission's order. He should look it over

himself and he should pay a little bit more attention. As he claims

that nothing really crosses his desk, I'm wondering what he does all

day. He never heard of Halfmoon Bay; he's never heard of the Spetifore

property; he doesn't know who attended the secret meetings to get the

results of the Thompson River pollution study in Kamloops. He doesn't

know anything.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough for the people of British

Columbia. They want to know whether people are getting any special

advantage, or whether everybody will be treated fairly and equally in

this province at the hands of Crown agencies, boards and what have you.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Just like you did when you took the files. Just like you guys.

MR. LAUK: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture has

not yet answered those questions. The Minister of Environment has

intervened in this debate, intervened in the debate on the Minister of

Agriculture's estimates, and he's made a statement.

I want to know: is the non-conforming use of this property going to

be withdrawn by the Land Commission? I want that minister to tell this

committee that he will insist that the Land Commission withdraw that

non-conforming use. It was specifically granted for that use,

industrial use. Although we don't even agree with that non-conforming

use, we want, at least, that to be withdrawn now that Mr. Spetifore has

indicated he's not proceeding with the project.

I wonder if the Minister of Environment could also stand up and

answer the question whether or not this land can be reclaimed, whether

the sand fill or what have you over the land has made it useless for

agriculture. What kind of action can be taken against citizens who will

so abuse the law as to prefill land before having proper permission and

rezoning to proceed with the project? Those are the things that have to

be answered in this House.

I wish the Minister of Agriculture would also answer my question on

Panco Poultry. We do want to get finished with the Agriculture

estimates, but it may be impossible unless he comes up with an answer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I've never heard anything quite so phony from anyone as what I've just been....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, may I remind us that we are on

vote 3. Perhaps if we could restrict our remarks to that vote it will

help us to make progress in the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: could you ask the minister to withdraw the word "phony"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, was the word "phony" applied to the member directly?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I applied "phony" to the member, and I'll withdraw the word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Hon. Minister, to vote 3.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When the Spetifore matter was brought

before the Delta council, I understand the mayor and council were very

much in support of the proposal of a potato-processing plant

[ Page 1464 ]

on that particular land. I know, as the member has been told, that

the land was not removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve, but the

use was permitted by the commission.

However, I can recall during the time that I was mayor in Surrey the

previous NDP government proceeded to allow a lettuce-processing plant

in the Agricultural Land Reserve without as much as approaching that

municipal council. That municipal council was very much opposed to what

was proposed on that piece of land, yet that very same government went

ahead with that processing plant on that piece of Agricultural Land

Reserve land.

Everything that he was saying about what was wr