1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2577 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Barrett : 2577

Mr. Brummet –– 2581

Mr. Ritchie –– 2581

Mr. Cocke –– 2584

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2586

Ms. Sanford –– 2589

Mr. Stupich –– 2590

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2593

Appendix –– 2597

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I have two introductions today. First of all, on your behalf, Mr.

Speaker, I recognize two members from the Delta constituency. I would

like the House to welcome Mr. Dennis Elsom and Mr. John Sigurdson.

know that all members of the House and each of our legislators will be

extremely pleased to pay tribute to the legislative interns who are in

our gallery today. I know that each of the interns in the gallery will

feel the warmth of that reception on the floor of the House. May I just

say that today, May 23, is the last day of service for the interns.

They are graduating, having served all members of this House in a

dedicated way.

The members with us today are: John Belshaw

from UBC., Elaine Dunbar from SFU, David Larsen from UBC, Rod Mahrt

from UVic, Cathy Mayoh from UVic, Geordie Proulx from UBC, Michael

Shepherd from UVic, Greg Smith from UBC, and April Yamasaki from UBC.

They are accompanied by Dr. Jeremy Wilson, and Clarence Reser from the

Speaker's office, who have led them so very well in this internship

program.

I would like to pay tribute not only to these

interns but to those who have preceded them, to Dr. Jeremy Wilson, to

Clarence and to others who have been involved in the program. The work

that the interns have done gives them a tremendous opportunity for

their future; but it also has given our legislators an opportunity to

have extremely able and dedicated assistants. We thank them all and

wish them all the very best.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker,

of course I want to join with the Minister of Human Resources in

expressing our appreciation for the program and our enjoyment at having

had the opportunity these past few weeks to work with the legislative

interns, to become associated with them and to enjoy their presence. Of

course, we particularly come to know those who are associated with our

particular caucuses — with special reference to John Belshaw, David

Larsen, Michael Shepherd and April Yamasaki for having given us the

pleasure of letting us work with them.

I am sure that during

the first week in which the legislative interns were here, they may

have wondered how it was that they came to be here in the first place.

After that period of time they must have wondered how those of us who

are on the floor got here. In any event, we have enjoyed the

relationship. I'm sure all members of the House want to join in wishing

the legislative interns a pleasant visit to Ottawa — where you will

find things much different than they are here — and also in wishing you

every success and every bit of luck in your years ahead.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that's the first time I've chased the Premier out before he could even sign his mail.

For a few moments this morning, I want to raise one agriculture subject with

the minister, and suggest to him that there may be another method of dealing

with the problem of Cargill and Panco. The minister has made a mess of this

situation. We all know the history of how this problem came about; we all know

that at one time Panco Poultry was owned by the people of British Columbia,

that its purchase by the New Democratic Party administration for $3.5 million

brought some security to turkey and chicken producers. It guaranteed that those

producers had a rational outlet not only for their production but also for the

marketing of their production, and the processing of all poultry fowl was taken

care of here in British Columbia through a guaranteed market. Because of an

ideological hangup the minister decided he wanted to sell Panco Poultry. Instead

of selling off the Liquor Control Board, which is socialism, or selling off

B.C. Hydro, which is a debt-ridden corporation caused by the Columbia River

fiasco, they sold off a money-maker.

don't know why they arrived at the philosophy that the government must

own only money-losers and sell off the winners, but that's what the

decision was — let's sell off a winner. It was owned by the people of

British Columbia for a little over three years. It was purchased for

$3.5 million and sold, all told, for nearly $14 million. We made a

profit of $10 million in a little over three years by holding that

corporation on behalf of the people of this province. Of course, that's

what the minister described as "socialism gone mad." The people were

making money from something they owned themselves; he couldn't stand

it. the government couldn't stand it, so they sold it to Cargill.

But

there was a problem beyond the philosophical matter that we disputed in

the purchase of Panco by Cargill. The member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) was the first one to raise it. He pointed out that Cargill was

not associated with the United Way. Cargill is a multinational

corporation that has a very bad reputation, both in Canada and in the

United States, as being interested only in the corporation and not at

all in the area in which it's operating. There's no need for me to

catalogue the offences that Cargill has been accused of, and in many

instances found guilty of, in the United States and Canada. But the

minister clutched Cargill to his bosom, sold off Panco Poultry, and as

the member for New Westminster warned, delivered a monopoly situation

into the hands of Cargill, and Cargill began to act exactly as the

member predicted. Not only did Cargill see itself buying the physical

plant of Panco Poultry, but it was also buying a market.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

the minister was aware of the history of agriculture in this province,

he'd be aware that the constituency he represents, and the surrounding

areas, at one time had flourishing agricultural industries, in terms of

products such as tomatoes and other truck-farm products that were

processed in canning companies in the interior.

After the Second World War, the same pattern that Cargill displayed took place in that area in that American cor-

[ Page 2578 ]

porations

came in and bought out the canneries. They weren't interested in the

canneries at all; they just wanted to buy out the market. They shut

down the canneries, the fields were put out of production, and we began

our dependence on imported foodstuff from Mexico, California, and

canned food from the United States. The minister was unaware of that,

even though he lived in the area where that tragedy had taken place.

But he did have people advising him and they were aware of how American

corporations worked in the agribusiness industry. He was warned

publicly about Cargill, and yet he went ahead because of an ideological

hangup that the government shouldn't own Panco Poultry. When the member

warned that Panco was buying a market, the minister paid no attention.

The minister believed that Panco would come to British Columbia, join

the United Appeal, become a charitable organization and become

concerned about what the people of British Columbia needed. Nothing

could be further from the truth.

The minister was another

victim of an American corporation that had established a pattern of

absolutely no concern whatsoever for maintaining the local marketplace

structure. So what happened? Enter Panco. The member for New

Westminster warned that Panco would slowly begin to throttle

competitive outlets or producers and would slowly move into the

marketplace and begin to expand a monopoly situation that they had into

absolute control of the whole marketplace. What happened, Mr. Chairman?

Within short order Maplewood, one of the major competitors of Panco,

was forced by the marketplace and manipulated by Cargill into a

situation of closure. I don't need to go through all the steps. We're

all familiar with them. Then when Maplewood was forced into closure,

its only salvation was that Cargill, now an octopus, should pick it up

as another arm.

We have federal laws in this country about

foreign intrusion into parts of the Canadian economy, and the Foreign

Investment Review Agency has to give approval before a foreign

corporation takes over a Canadian operation. Squeezed to the wall by

Panco, which, was now owned by Cargill, and to save its own skin — and

that's understandable — Maplewood applied to the Foreign Investment

Review Agency to approve a sale of its facilities to Cargill. The

original position of the Social Credit administration was a bland

acquiescence saying: "Yes, it's okay. Let Cargill buy them." Is that

not correct? I don't hear anyone who's opposed to that

interpretation.

The fact is that the minister's original position was a blessing to

Cargill to become an even greater monster. When there was a bit of a

public protest about this — and my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) pointed out that the minister was in favour of Cargill

expanding its control of the poultry industry in the province of

British Columbia, in particular the turkey processing and marketing —

the minister then pulled a switch. He said: "No, I'm not in favour now

of Maplewood being purchased by Cargill. We need to find something

else."

After weeks of fumbling and dithering and burnbling

and confusion and avoiding the press in the corridor to explain his

position on why he flip-flopped, he then came in the House and

flip-flop-flipped. He went back to his original position and said the

only way to save Maplewood now is to allow Cargill to buy it.

It is the typical acquiescence of a Canadian politician to an American corporation

— throwing his hands in the air and saying: "I can't do anything about

it." I may use the analogy, of course with humour, of the murderer who

kills his mother and father, goes into court and pleads his defence on the basis

of the fact that he's an orphan.

Who

is it that caused this situation in the first place? That minister and

that government created the situation where Cargill came in and

interrupted the status quo and the balance. It was that minister who

blindly sold off control of the influence in the marketplace to

Cargill, and it is that minister who flew in the face of all knowledge

about Cargill as a multinational corporation, saying they're going to

become good B.C. citizens.

Fooled again. And why does that

kind of fooling take place? Because there are certain Canadian

politicians who believe that American corporations know best, that they

really have our best interests at heart and they will do the nice thing

that we want them to do, won't they? The minister himself was the first

to be shocked to discover that Cargill didn't give a fig for his

opinions. Cargill doesn't give a fig for the marketplace or the

producers of British Columbia. Cargill is only interested in one thing

— enlightened self-interest. How shocked the minister was to find out

that corporations operate on enlightened self-interest. What a nasty

blow.

The minister said no to Cargill after he realized that

there was a public outcry against Cargill expanding its operations and

getting almost total control of the industry. And then, after seeing

that he couldn't come up with a solution, he went on to say: "Yes,

Cargill should take it over."

That's a quick review of

where we are today. I want to ask the minister a series of questions.

Then I want to make some suggestions. I want to know from the minister

how it is that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) can get out

of cabinet $3.5 million U.S. to give taxpayers' money to a non-profit

society in Victoria to lease a jetfoil for six months so that we can

hire an American crew and fly an American flag to experiment with

bringing in tourists, when he couldn't come up with a couple of million

dollars to back up turkey producers on a guarantee to buy Maplewood. I

want to know what it is that allows the minister to open a door for an

American corporation with a history of squeezing out local competition,

a monopoly approach to the marketplace, willing to pay a high price not

for physical facilities but for the market value itself, and stand back

and allow that corporation to tweak his nose and move off with every

bit of the market in this province. You tell me how it is that the

Americans can get $3.5 million U.S. from us to hire a jetfoil for six

months and we're going to blow that money — and in the meantime you

wink a blind eye to the situation in terms of helping the turkey

producers.

Mr. Chairman, did the minister make any effort to sit down with the turkey

producers and say to them: "Fellows, you raise some of the money. Go to

the bank and see if the bank'll raise some more and we will back you from

the B.C. Development 'Corporation."? Did the minister go into cabinet

and say "Never mind blowing $3.5 million U.S. on a jetfoil. I need money

to protect British Columbia turkey producers and I want that money for the turkey

producers here in the province of British Columbia."? Not handouts, not

grants, but a guarantee on the note to give those....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Like Swan Valley?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I'm glad you mentioned Swan Valley. I want to, tell you, Mr. Minister, we're talking about

[ Page

2579 ]

Cargill now, and we're talking about your complete capitulation to Cargill

here in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Swan Valley, Dave? Tell us about Swan Valley.

MR. BARRETT: Well, here they go.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, now we've got their attention....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Can I list the questions you want in my estimates?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just tell us about all the NDP disasters.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the disaster was that we let you get nominated in

Surrey. Any other questions?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask all hon. members to come to order.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for protecting me from those vicious slings and arrows that we suffer in public life.

The

minister has not made one single move to protect the turkey producers

in this province. I'm going to make a suggestion to the minister, and I

know he's listening. I know the minister is seeking intellectual

companionship, but I'm asking him to listen just for a minute. Have you

made any approach to the federal government and asked them to help the

turkey producers with federal funding and financial, assistance

programs? Would you, Mr. Minister?

I see a Liberal. No, it's Dr. Pat. Mr. Chairman, how's the exhaust pipe going there?

ask the minister if he has made any effort to approach the federal

government and ask them if they would be willing to guarantee a note to

the turkey producers to help them buy Maplewood. Have you exchanged any

correspondence or phone calls with Eugene Whelan and said to him: "We

have a problem here, Mr. Whelan, and I think perhaps the two of us

could guarantee a note for the turkey producers and save the plant?"

Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Agriculture had designs all along in

allowing Cargill to take over Maplewood. His original proposal has always been

the same: let Cargill expand, let Cargill do it. You know what the outcome will

be if Cargill gets hold of Maplewood: the turkey producers of the province of

British Columbia will be at their mercy. The next step that will happen....

I will predict the steps that will happen, because it's a pattern that's

been repeated everywhere where Cargill has operated in the same business that's

going on in North America: vertical integration. Have you heard of that, Mr.

Minister? Do you know what vertical integration. Is in the agricultural industry?

Just nod your head if you do. If you don't, I've got some sympathy for

you. You haven't done your homework. If you do, you're falling victim

to exactly what the pattern of agriculture has been in North America for 30

years.

Vertical

integration will take place in British Columbia in the poultry

industry. Cargill will get hold of Maplewood, begin to cut staff, cut

production and slowly consolidate a market that they bought. Not the

plants — they're not interested in the plants. They're interested in

the market. It is cheaper to process poultry in the United States by

adding an extra shift in existing Cargill plants or subsidiaries and

beginning to flood the B.C. market at a competitive price, break the

marketing boards in that industry, and then have the B.C. market to its

own over the long run.

MR. RITCHIE: That doesn't work.

MR. BARRETT: It doesn't work?

MR. RITCHIE: Not under the GATT agreement.

MR., BARRETT:

My dear friend, I'm glad to hear you say that. Now we're really getting

into what the agreements are and what the realities are. When has any

Canadian government had the guts to stop dumping of products, slowly at

first, and then gradually, into the Canadian market? When was the last

time we marketed tomatoes out of the interior of this province both for

canning and public sale on a mass basis in terms of the market we

served after the Second World War? I'll tell you what happened. My own

father was in the business. The politicians at that time sold out B.C.

and Canada just as they're selling out B.C. and Canada today.

MR. RITCHIE: Your statements are misleading.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman. I like that fellow down there, but he knows when to sell

his business. You know when to sell your business, don't you? You bet

your life. You can read the writing on the wall.

Vertical

integration is now moving rapidly into British Columbia and the

agricultural industry. Vertical integration will now overtake the

turkey producers, and in ten years they will be lucky to have the

memory, because that's the only thing they'll have left after the

minister allows Cargill to take over Maplewood.

The minister mentions GATT. Of course GATT works when there are alternatives,

but the minister overlooks one thing, and the member for Central Fraser Valley

(Mr. Ritchie) understands it very well: GATT only comes into play when there

is a competitive producer. If there is no competitive producer left anymore,

GATT goes by the boards and the market is wide open to the American producer.

Let

me show the member how the poker game works so he will understand. How

you get around GATT is simply this: you cover the market for expanded

production facilities that you have in the United States. The obvious

expansion is a Canadian market. So you don't immediately dump into the

Canadian market, because that's against GATT, and you'd get your hands

slapped. So what you do is you go and buy out the Canadian production

capacity. That's the first step. You get control of the Canadian

production capacity, then you extend it by giving competition to cut

out the few independent competitors. Maplewood's backed up to the wall.

This is the classic....

MR. RITCHIE: It doesn't work. You're wrong.

MR. BARRETT: It doesn't work? It's exactly what's happening.

[ Page 2580 ]

Mr.

Chairman, we bought Panco for $3.5 million. Three years later it sold

for $14 million. It was bought for $14 million by Cargill, not because

they wanted the plant; they were buying the market. The next move by

Panco was to have a monopoly control of the market. The next move by

Panco is to buy out Maplewood. The next move will be to cut back

production here in Canada as they began to cut back turkey processing

by cutting the price to turkey producers in the Fraser Valley.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Yes! The minister sits there....

MR. RITCHIE: You're misleading and confusing.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not misleading or confusing; I'm giving you a recitation of exactly what's happened so far.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You'd better get your researchers to do a better job.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, please, during Committee of Supply all members are

allowed to speak as many times as they wish, but they are not to impede

the speech of a member who already has the floor. I will ask the Leader

of the Opposition now to continue on vote 10.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to thank the Chair for protection for a new member, Mr.

Chairman. I have never been so severely repressed and harassed by such

a capable bunch of hecklers in all my time here. I even heard a burp.

Yes, even Fred is in the game.

Mr. Chairman, what has taken

place today is that we have abandoned Canadian content and Canadian

ownership in a very important segment of the industry. It's the same

pattern of selling out our market, the same pattern of closing down our

production facilities, and then the same pattern of a vacuum in the

market caused by closing down our production facilities gradually at

first, which overcomes the GATT agreement, and then that vacuum has to

be filled by American products. What will happen is that Cargill,

through its subsidiaries, will begin to flood the Canadian marketplace.

MR. RITCHIE: You're wrong.

MR. BARRETT: If I'm so wrong, why were you in such a hurry to sell out your business? You can see what the future is.

MR. RITCHIE: You know who bought it.

MR. BARRETT:

I know about it too. I saw the same thing happen with tomatoes, with

lettuce, with carrots, and the only thing that saved the lower Fraser

Valley was the B.C. Coast Vegetable Marketing Board. For all those

opponents of marketing boards out there who understand that their

original purpose was to save what was left of Canadian production of

agricultural commodities to serve the market of Vancouver and the

surrounding areas.... I'm predicting the same thing is going to happen

with turkeys and chickens.

It will be the responsibility of that minister if he allows the sellout.

There is still time to stop it, and the way to stop it, my suggestion is, is

for the minister to get on the phone to Ottawa and say: "I'm no longer

supporting Cargill's bid for the purchase of Maplewood." I'd like

a cooperative move by Ottawa through Eugene Whelan and through the government

of British Columbia to guarantee the loans for the turkey producers. Let the

turkey producers take the risk that they're willing to take, with a guarantee,

and let us have some competitive marketing and processing going on in that industry

in this province. Without that we're headed, within three years, to a complete

monopoly of the whole marketplace, in terms of turkeys and chickens in this

province, by Cargill. And then what will the minister do — wring his hands and

say: "We couldn't stop it. It was too late"? It is not too late

to stop it now. If it's good enough to provide $3.5 million U.S. to a non-profit

society to bring jetfoil service into Victoria, then it's good enough to

finance — or at least guarantee the notes of — a group of turkey producers in

the Fraser Valley, so they can have an alternate outlet other than Cargill's

monopoly situation.

I'll

tell you, Mr. Chairman, the first warning was given by the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), then the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). But when the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province

get up and also attack the government on this very same argument — and

they're not socialists; they used to support you — then, Mr. Minister,

I believe that you're not a bad guy, it's just that you don't have any

clout in cabinet. Somebody else can get $3.5 million U.S. for a

high-flying jetfoil, but you can't get a guarantee for some Fraser

Valley turkey producers. Why? And why haven't you gone to Ottawa and

said: "Share in a guarantee with the turkey producers"? Have you tried

that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sit down, I want to respond,

MR. BARRETT: Make a little note.

Have

you tried going to Ottawa and asking for federal government help for

financing the turkey producers? Mr. Minister, people are going to say

you are weak.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, they'll never say that.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, they are going to say it; I'll try to stop it. People are going to

say you are indecisive; I'll try to stop it. Backbenchers are going to

begin to covet your job; I'm going to try to stop that. Mind you, their

own abilities are an inhibiting factor.

HON. MR. HEWITT: After your vicious attack, nobody would want it.

HON. MR. FRASER: Scurrilous.

MR. BARRETT:

I woke up Alex. Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways for waking him up. We haven't done his

estimates yet, and I've got a few problems in my riding. I separate you

from the rest of the gang. You're one of the problems, but I love you,

Alex. Whatever I say against that bunch doesn't include you, until I

find out whether or not I got something out of you.

Mr.

Minister, the farmers and consumers of this province are watching you

over this issue. The consumers know that the fate of putting some of

the staples of food on the table is being affected by your

indecisiveness. The producers know

[ Page 2581 ]

that

if you don't get out there and fight for them they are going to lose

their investments in the marketplace, and the people of British

Columbia are going to go one step further into the hands of an American

corporation like Cargill that is totally committed to vertical

integration. We will see the beginning of an even greater loss of

independent producers from the agriculture business in the province.

Help,

Mr. Minister. Rescue your image. Get on the phone to Ottawa. Get in the

cabinet and fight. Save the turkey producers and save Maplewood without

selling out to Cargill. Otherwise, you might as well let Cargill have

your seat in the Legislature.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr.

Chairman, it's always interesting to listen to the entertainment pitch

from the Leader of the Opposition. He makes quite a practice of stating

accusations or assumptions, trying to make them sound like facts or

knowledge. He does it very well, and he is entertaining.

much has been said about Cargill from that side of the House and it has

been so one-sided. Far be it from an amateur like me to try to defend

Cargill. I am not in a position to knowledgeably comment — that doesn't

seem to bother some members, but it does me — on all the things that

Cargill has done, a big company of that size. But I would like at least

to bring to the attention of members and put on record that in the

Peace River country Cargill did do something a little different from

what those members suggest.

Some of you may recall that in

October last year the B.C. Railway bridge over the Peace River burned.

At the time a great deal of grain was sitting in the fields, needing to

be shipped to market. It was a very drastic situation. The Highways

minister and this government immediately put up a temporary Bailey

bridge — it has been left in place and improved, but at that time it

was considered temporary — to allow grain to be hauled from the north

Peace area to the south Peace, across the Pine River bridge on the

south side of the Peace. Of course the extra hauling from the elevators

— instead of loading into railway cars — was an extra cost factor.

called a meeting of the elevator companies in that area, plus the

railway. I asked them to consider saving the grain that was out in the

fields, because it was a burnper crop and some of that grain was

rotting. The only saving factor was that we had good, dry weather so we

didn't lose millions of dollars' worth of grain. I'm not talking about

a big conglomerate; that grain belonged to the farmers at that time,

and it would have hurt them.

I called this meeting of the

elevator operators. I asked them if they would start hauling the grain

and I said I would do whatever I could to convince the government to

assist with this program. Within a short while this government agreed

to pick up 50 percent of the extra cost of hauling that grain, which

amounted to about 12 cents a bushel. From Buick Creek the extra hauling

cost was 25 cents a bushel; the government would still pick up 50

percent, but it had to go through the elevator companies. Two growers'

co-ops and Cargill were involved; those are the three elevator

companies operating in the north Peace area.

I might say

that after that meeting, when I said if they would start hauling I

would do what I could to help, Cargill immediately started hauling

grain. The growers' co-ops, despite all my contacts with them in

Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and so on, refused to do any hauling

because they were only making 10 cents or 12 cents a bushel on that

grain.

I could not get across to them the point that they

should, as a growers' co-op, be serving their customers. The only

company that started hauling and continued to haul until the rail line

was replaced was Cargill.

Despite the fact that we have

these emotional words such as "takeover" and "sellout, " and — as the

Leader of the Opposition says — "squeezing out local competition, " I

would like to suggest that in the North Peace River Cargill will pick

up some more customers next year, not because of any squeeze tactics

and not because of any elicit tactics, but simply because of the good

business practice of serving their customers.

That one

incident, which is all I'm able to comment on knowledgeably, is at

least one thing that Cargill has done. It is not the big bad wolf, as

those people try to make out because of some bad things that they have

done, which I don't contest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass? The member for Central Fraser Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have been the minister.

MR. RITCHIE:

No, I'm doing fine. Again I'm compelled to respond to the remarks made

by the Leader of the Opposition because not only is it quite obvious

that he's trying to create some great big monster here out of nothing,

but it is also obvious that he doesn't understand what goes on in a

marketplace or even understand the marketing system which they are

supposed to endorse quite strongly.

Let me go back to 1975

when Maplewood Poultry was known as Willows Poultry. It was then owned

by Canada Packers Ltd. Because of the involvement of the government of

the day, they decided to close up. It was at that time that Mr. Hambley

came along and attempted to purchase the facility. He had approached

the government of the day who, at that time, through the Minister of

Agriculture, indicated that there would be funds made available.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll be right back.

MR. RITCHIE:

Don't be away too long, because I'd like you to hear this. It's obvious

that you need a little lesson on some of our marketing schemes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll be right back. Hold your breath.

MR. RITCHIE: Okay. We'll ramble around a little bit. He knows what went on there.

any case, the government of the day, through the Minister of

Agriculture, suggested that there would be funding available to get

that plant opened up again, but it was refused. It didn't get the

funding that was suggested. In spite of the fact that there were over

100 people losing their jobs and in spite of the fact that there were a

lot of growers out there who didn't have a home for their product, the

government of the day said: ''No, we're not prepared to put up any

funding to reopen that plant." I know they were short of funds, but on

many occasions I heard that they didn't worry about that. If they

decided to buy something they'd buy it anyway and the funds would come

from somewhere.

The main reason, I believe, they refused to put up the funding was that they were already in a position of controll-

[ Page 2582 ]

ing

the poultry industry through the complete ownership of Panco Poultry,

which was bought at a price that was in excess of what the owners at

the time were prepared to, accept from a grower group.

What

I am saying to our members over there, and to all the people in this

House, is that the growers of the day had put in a lot of time and

spent a lot of money investigating the operation and having it studied.

They came up with an offer. The information that I receive was that the

then Premier personally got into the act and he overbid them. I'm sure

he's listening somewhere. He just doesn't want to stand the

embarrassment in the House here. There are a few things that went on

then that could make you feel very embarrassed indeed. I think some of

the comments made by you today are a shame in view of what happened in

the past. That can be dealt with later too, and you'll be getting

yourself into another embarrassing hole but that's fine. You carry

right on. I can take it.

The fact of the matter is that you

said they had 100 percent ownership in Panco by this time and they were

about 40 percent in Pan Ready. Together they decided that they were

going to put some pressure on the turkey growers and make demands of

them in regard to pricing and to grading.

What did they do?

They came along together and they said: "This is what you growers are

going to get, and this is the grading system that's going to be, and if

you don't like it, we're not going to take your product." This was

Panco Poultry, owned by government, and this was Pan Ready owned by the

Pacific Co-op, 40 percent owned by government. They got together and

they said: "We're sorry, you growers...."

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Did you hear what I said?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Repeat it. The socialist baby.

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, I'll try to carry on here. I think he knows all this, and I'm

sure he'll read it in the Blues. Anyway, you did interfere in the

purchase of Panco Poultry with a price that was over and above what the

owners of the day were prepared to accept from a group of growers, and

you successfully negotiated the purchase of Panco Poultry for the NDP

government of the day. You immediately found yourselves in the position

where you realized that to reopen the Willows Poultry plant you'd be

faced with some stiff competition, and your government refused to give

any financial support to Mr. Hambley so that he might reopen it. And

that is all on the record. You refused to support it, in spite of the

fact that we had over 100 employees out of work, and in spite of the

fact that we had a number of growers who were in a bad state because

they had no place for their product.

But that wasn't enough, Mr. Chairman. They then continued to protect themselves....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all mixed up.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm not mixed up, I lived through it. These are facts, I don't need notes.

But then to further protect themselves, Mr. Chairman, they went on and they got together the management of Pan Ready

and the board — which at that time was under the chairmanship of Mr.

Harry Liedktke — and they told them and the turkey growers: "We are not

going to continue with this system of grading and we're not going to

continue paying this price, and unless you accept our terms, we're

going to refuse to take your product" — and they did refuse to take

their product. The condition that the turkey growers find themselves in

today, they were in in 1975 — caused by the NDP government of the day.

Now,

had the Willows been left, alone, as was the desire of your government

— and you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition — Maplewood Poultry wouldn't

have been around today. But Maplewood Poultry is around, because Mr.

Hambley on his own initiative raised the financing and got it back into

production and put over 100 people to work and got the growers back

into business. That's why, and you know it; you know it only too well.

In fact, I'm sorry that we don't have the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) here, because she was very much involved in that whole

transaction as a member of what then was known as the superboard — not

the supervisory board — because they had super powers. That member on

that board made the demand on the growers, and told them, by signing an

illegal agreement, that these were the terms that they would receive.

These are all facts. And I'm sure you remember it, and if you don't,

I'm sure the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) will remember it, because

I had various meetings with him in that regard.

You talk

about competition and why Maplewood failed. Well, I'll tell you why

Maplewood failed. Not because of Panco and not because of Cargill.

Maplewood failed only because of the marketplace. What the Leader of

the Opposition does not understand is that periodically the B.C. market

is used by other provinces for surplus product, and it so happens that

there is a fairly substantial surplus of turkey in Canada at the moment

and has been for some time — and this product, of course, can move west

cheaper than it can move east. Mainly, of course, because of our unfair

tariffs, we are a dumping ground. This is not to say that the product

has been dumped at a price below their cost, but certainly at a price

below ours, and that's what has caused the failure of Maplewood. It's

simply a case of the spread between what they pay for the product and

what they can get for it in the marketplace. They failed because of

out-of-province competition. And I'm not defending Cargill at all; they

can defend themselves.

But I want to tell you this, that the

whole story from the opposition seems to revolve around the idea that

just because there wasn't another buyer, this government should have

stepped in and bought it. Well, I want to go on record as saying that

I'm opposed to that, and most of the growers out there are opposed to

that. Most of our farmers are free enterprisers, and that's why they're

farming. They're not for government ownership; they know what

government ownership can do to them, because it has already done it to

them; they've already been hurt by it — by your personal activities

they've been hurt. So don't get the idea that our farmers would favour

this government or any other government buying that operation. They're

opposed to it. They're opposed to your involvement, like they were back

in 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: The farmer from New Westminster wants to speak. We'll give him a chance afterwards.

[ Page

2583 ]

MR. RITCHIE:

They're all farmers when it comes to a time when there's an opportunity

to make some political points. I consider you to be riding on the backs

of the farmers right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on the socialists!

MR. RITCHIE:

If you knew anything about farming you'd be ashamed of some of the

things that you have said. I listened to the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson) — I'm sorry he's not here — standing up talking about

soils — Number 1 soil, 2 soil — obviously reading a paper that he

didn't understand.

MR. BARRETT: What did you sell out for?

MR. RITCHIE:

Why didn't he ask you. Because I recall when you stood out there on the

soil and said: "Just because it's dirty it's not any good." You're

farmers only because it's politically profitable for you at the time,

but you're doing yourselves more harm than good.

Then you

went on to talk about how the American product, through Cargill, can

come in and depress and control our market. I've never heard so much

hogwash in all my time. That's misleading information and you know it

misleading the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, he's attacking me. He's saying things he shouldn't say. You should know better.

MR. RITCHIE: Are you objecting to something I've said? What did I say that I should know better about?

MR. BARRETT: See, you don't even know what you said. Shame on you!

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, he went on to talk about marketing schemes and how

they're affected by GATT and so on and so forth. Well, again it's quite

obvious he's playing games. He either knows and is twisting it, or he

doesn't know. I prefer to suspect that he doesn't know.

But we have certain commodities in Canada that have come under a national plan, and I would suggest....

MR. BARRETT: And if they're not produced any more, then GATT doesn't exist.

MR. RITCHIE:

You can get your turn again. And I would suggest that possibly you

spend a little time with your member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) because

I'm sure that he's very familiar with the schemes.

But, Mr.

Chairman, there are certain products produced in Canada that come under

the national scheme. They are, at the moment, turkeys, chickens and

eggs, and under that scheme only what was imported into Canada from the

U.S. — the average of the previous five years — may be allowed in.

Absolutely nothing is permitted beyond that, under any circumstances,

unless a product is not available in Canada.

MR. BARRETT: That's it. Now you've got it.

MR. RITCHIE: What you're forgetting to say, or what you're purposely

not saying, is that it's not a question of a processor controlling that.

The grower decides that, not the processor.

MR. BARRETT: Don't be silly. If he has no processor, then he can't get his stuff to market.

MR. RITCHIE: Don't you kid yourself. I've got a few more things to say that will make you look....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order. please. All members will come to order, please. The hon. member

for Surrey, the Leader of the Opposition and everyone will come to

order, please, The member for Central Fraser Valley has the floor.

MR. RITCHIE: I don't mind, Mr. Chairman. Let them heckle away: it's

just fine.

But

under the national scheme. commodity groups that are signatories to

that determine what is going to be produced in Canada. That's

determined by each province participating in developing the production

plans for the coming year. Those plans are developed using the

consumption of the previous year as a base and also taking into

consideration what is allowed into Canada under the national scheme.

What is allowed into Canada under the national scheme is the average of

the previous five years. The processor has absolutely nothing to do

with what is being produced in Canada unless he's into production. The

only difference today, Mr. Chairman, from whenever the NDP were in

power, is that they did have some power.

MR. BARRETT: He can stop processing,

MR. RITCHIE:

He's only speaking from his own experience, because when he was in

power he was in production at the expense of the independent grower.

That's the experience he's speaking from. But that is not so today; we

do not have any processors in production today.

MR. BARRETT: You sold out.

MR. RITCHIE: What do you mean we sold out?

MR. BARRETT: You know what I mean.

MR. RITCHIE: We said we'd give it back to the independent producers.

MR. BARRETT: To Cargill — that's what you did.

MR. RITCHIE:

We can deal with that at a later date. But in any case you should

realize. Mr. Leader of the Opposition, that Cargill or any other

company or processor cannot control the market. That is done at a

national level. Only if they cannot find products in the market will

they allow products to come in from the U.S. And then it can only come

in by way of a permit issued by the federal Department of Industry,

Trade and Commerce. So all of the information that you have given this

House this morning is absolutely wrong and misleading.

Mr.

Chairman. I could go on here for a long time just reminiscing on the

horrible experiences that some of our farmers had under the NDP

government, but I don't think that's going to do us any good at all.

It's very concerning when I sit here and listen to so many of them who

have become instant farmers and suddenly know what's good for the

farmer. Yet when they an opportunity to do what was

[ Page 2584 ]

good for the farmer, what did they do? They did what was good for them. They had power over it all.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I'll be glad to take my place again, if they wish to continue

to mislead the House, but I hope that some of the points I made will

get into the record.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I rise

with a heavy heart. These people will never learn. There can only be

one answer for this province, and that's the rejection of Social

Credit. After the debate we've had on Cargill, after the debate we've

had on the botching of the whole Fraser Valley poultry industry, I

can't believe that the member who ran a feed plant in that area and who

was on the marketing board got up and gave us that kind of a speech and

then said we're misleading the House. For heaven's sake! I'm not going

to allude to his tactics in getting his nomination, but those tactics

seem to be tactics that he's prepared to use even in debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with Cargill?

MR. COCKE: I just want to talk about the history of Maplewood for a second.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're a hard-up Socialist.

MR. COCKE: You might very well listen to this, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed know-nothing tulip grower.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're showing your colours.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, my colours are consistent right down the line. I've never been a

Liberal or Conservative; I've always been NDP. Can you say that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You haven't got the brains to be anything but a socialist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will members who are speaking be kind enough to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the member who's doing all the talking across the way equates brains with sitting in his seat and screaming.

Let's

just go over for a second what happened. Maplewood came up for sale.

Who put it up for sale? Canada Packers. It was looked at by our

government, and we said that the deal was no good and why should we

bail out Canada Packers? I think that's fair enough, I don't think you

have to go and bail out poor old Canada Packers, who seemed to be quite

well, thank you. I think they are.

Mr. Hambley came along

and asked our government to give him some assistance in picking it up.

We consistently said that it was not a good deal, so why should we help

him or ourselves pick it up?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not a good deal for the socialists.

MR. COCKE: Not a good deal for the people of this province, and that's the job that we were doing.

that's the story, Mr. Chairman. As far as I'm concerned, what happened

was that he picked it up. Our studies indicated he shouldn't, but we

had an alternative: we would either expand Panco...

AN HON. MEMBER: As Cargill promised to do.

MR. COCKE: As Cargill has promised to do since they've owned it. But, no, they've done it through the back door.

...or

we would assist the co-op that owned Pan Ready. We would agree,

providing we could negotiate a better deal on that run-down plant with

Canada Packers. It was good business. Nothing less and nothing more.

Mr.

Chairman, they would prefer to listen to their biased bleats, which

don't mean anything in the face of what we have today in this province.

What we have is the same old gang selling out to their American friends.

was very interested this morning.... I don't think that anybody can put

the C.D. Howe Institute in a position of being rather left-wing, could

one? Would you, Mr. Chairman? Would you, Mr. Attorney-General? I don't

think anybody in this room would. What did they say for Canada? If you

want me to, I'll go through and quote the article. In general they said

our economy was down the tube. Our economy is in real deep trouble

unless we begin to develop a mixed economy and unless we get our

economy back in Canadian control.

AN HON. MEMBER: And get the government to run everything?

MR. COCKE: Read it over nice and carefully, okay?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the member re-read this article, because there's no question as far as I am concerned.

It also says:

"The failure of industrial and other government policies

to stimulate an adequate technological base within private industry in this

country and massive control of the technology abroad suggest that the government

participation may be the only way to develop a distinctive technology in selected

sectors. "

This particular area is a selected sector. So far as our party is concerned,

we're not interested in wide control. What we're interested in

is seeing to it that we repatriate our economy to Canadian control and develop

an economy of our own that's developed here on a base of Canadian and not

other economies.

Just

for a moment I want to deal with Cargill. I wasn't going to say another

word about this but, you know, I just can't understand how it is that

people can be so supportive. The member for Peace River got up a little

while ago....

AN HON. MEMBER: And told the truth.

MR. COCKE:

You know, he said that up in the Peace River Cargill gets their support

because Cargill were the people they could deal with. There's a nice

book review that I would suggest that you read: Merchants of Grain . Read the

[ Page

2585 ]

book. It's heavy going. Mr. Chairman, in that book,

Cargill is described as a corporation, one of the few, in that $50

billion industry in the United States. There are five companies owned

by only seven American and European families. It's the most blatant

example of an oligopoly in the world. The five companies, the giants of

the world grain trade, are Cargill, Continental, Bunge, Louis Dreyfus

and André. None is an old-fashioned enterprise such as each was when it

entered the grain business a century or more ago. Today all are

quintessential modern multinationals with extensive interests in

shipping, banking, food processing, insurance, mining and practically

everything else you can think of. But 50 percent of their business

still consists of buying and selling grain. That gives you some idea of

the power. They're in international politics....

MR. BRUMMET: So? They helped the farmers up there; that's all I said,

MR. COCKE:

They'll help the farmers as long as it's in their interest, and then

they will take the farmers and squeeze them as they have done

everywhere they've been.

MR. BRUMMET: Garbage! At least they will let the farmers own the land, not rent it to them like you say.

MR. COCKE: Oh, Fred Flintstone and his own rent farm....

MR. BRUMMET: In this House you said to rent them the land.

MR. COCKE:

You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to stand for this kind of

stupidity, even from him. What I said was that young people in this

province today cannot afford to buy farms. Therefore this government

that has a great deal of farmland should make some of that land

available on a lease basis so that young people can get into farming.

What's wrong with that?

MR. BRUMMET: Nothing. That's being done. You said rent them the land; don't let them own it. A socialist policy.

MR. COCKE: I just don't understand it. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that they do a little more work and a little more research.

Anyway,

these large multinationals, particularly Cargill.... You'll notice that

anytime they're described, Cargill is always right at the top. Cargill

is a corporation with probably something in the order of $17 billion in

sales last year, a corporation with three times the sales than we have

budget in this province. I suggest that they've used this muscle in a

very, very indiscreet and bad way in terms of world politics. Let me

just give you something that's in that book:

"Their

monopoly allows the United States government to use grain as a

political weapon. Morgan cites Chile as a prime example where Allende

took power; the U.S. cut off grain supplies to the country. After the

1973 coup, they restored their shipments. Their weapon is not only used

against progressive governments, but has tied reactionary states to

agricultural dependency on the U.S."

Cargill's

habit, and they'll discover that in the north.... They're certainly

discovering it in Saskatchewan now as far as grain is concerned.

Incidentally, wheat particularly must surely be the most important food

on the face of the earth; possibly next to rice. but certainly the most

important grain food.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you trying to say?

MR. COCKE:

They've got it locked up, Mr. Member. If you don't understand that,

then why don't you try to do something else that might be more in line

with your own thinking?

There is no question that what

they've done in the Fraser Valley is built themselves into a position

where in short order they will control the poultry industry completely:

not only in the way the Leader of the Opposition said. but they

announced a very short time ago that they will be in the feed business

within a year in that area. They will therefore be able to make the

demand on the producers to "either deal with us or your turkey food or

your chicken food is in jeopardy." That's the way they work.

MR. BRUMMET: Where the government runs the agriculture industry, in socialist countries, how do they do by comparison?

MR. COCKE:

The member for North Peace River again shows his ignorance by talking

we bought Panco Poultry for $3.5 million that they sold it for $14

million. How about that for government running something? Pretty well,

eh? Pretty good profit and every year in between a profit was made by

Panco Poultry. Not bad, eh, Mr. Member? And don't forget that when the

government is running it, they are running it on behalf of the people.

When Cargill is running it they are running it on behalf of two

families in Minnesota, the Cargills and the Stewarts, that's all.

MR. BRUMMET: You don't understand.

MR. COCKE:

I don't understand? I don't ever want to understand your kind of warped

thinking. No wonder the school system has produced biased students. It

takes an awful lot of education and a lot of reading for them to

understand the bias that's been created by that kind of absolute

stupidity.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much for a loaf of bread in Russia?

MR. COCKE:

What the hell has that got to do with it. Vander Zalm? What a slimy

statement! How were things in Hitler's Germany in your youth? What kind

of statement is that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's a question.

MR. COCKE:

A dumb question. We don't believe in totalitarianism and we don't

believe in corporate totalitarianism either. That's what we're talking

about when we're talking about Cargill. We have no respect for the

USSR, any more than you have no respect for the right-wing governments

either.

Interjection.

[ Page 2586 ]

MR. COCKE: I'm not going to be in the parade tomorrow. I'm speaking to a thousand doctors.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, they do, and it was all because of you. It was some time ago, Mr. Chairman, that he brought that up.

far as I'm concerned, I would hope that this government will get their

act together, withdraw their Foreign Investment Review Agency

application asking — after some changes — that Cargill now be given the

right to purchase Maplewood. It strikes me that up until a few days ago

— and if it's changed I'm going to be surprised — the producers

themselves were prepared to set up a co-op to process their own

turkeys. That's what I've been given to believe, having spoken, as a

matter of fact, to some officials of that organization that I rode over

here with last week, on their way to see the minister. As far as I'm

concerned, what better way? Then at least they have some kind of

control of their own destiny rather than placing it in the hands of

Cargill,

I don't think we have to go over Cargill's record

again. I think I did that the other day. If anybody hasn't read that

record, I don't really think they deserve to be making decisions. I'm

about Cargill until they completely brief themselves with respect to

Cargill's behavior. Cargill's behavior has been consistent,

particularly since World War II, but even prior to that they were

getting very, very heavy-handed and very much involved in creating

monopolies and cartels wherever they went, so that they had total

control.

That member would rather have two families in

Minnesota having total control in our poultry industry than have all

the people in B.C. having a say in it, and particularly the producers

themselves and the consumers. I just don't understand that kind of

thinking at all.

MR. BRUMMET: If we follow your line

of reasoning, then you're guilty of the worst socialistic practices in

the world, because they happen elsewhere. Isn't that what you're saying?

MR. COCKE: I just don't understand why you don't stand on your feet and make an argument.

MR. BRUMMET: I did.

MR. COCKE:

Yesterday he told us that he was stunned. This morning, when he got up

to say that Cargill was doing good things, he proved it — when he made

that statement about Cargill and their beauty in the north. Look at the

corporation you are dealing with before you make too many statements in

terms of their integrity.

MR. BRUMMET: That's why I'm against socialism.

MR. COCKE: What a nonsensical statement!

AN HON. MEMBER: He could be in the classroom.

MR. COCKE: That's right. At least having him here we are doing a justice to the education system in B.C.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the government should give us an indication of

whether or not they have really taken this whole question about Cargill seriously,

whether or not they have really looked into that corporation. Because if they

have not, I think they are jeopardizing the industry. They are forsaking the

people they are indicating they want to protect, and placing them at the mercy

of a corporation that within two or three years will be dictating all the policies

within two or three years in terms of turkey and poultry production, the feeding

of the industry and the processing at the other end. Guess who will pay. The

consumer, of course. Actually, the producer and the consumer will pay. And Cargill

will get richer and sassier as a result of our silly policy of always trying

to confirm the interest we have in private enterprise rather than looking after

the people's interest.

government's job is not to look after the people's interest, we

shouldn't bother having government. That's the only real role they

play. If, under certain circumstances, you have to get involved in the

marketplace, so what? They don't mind getting involved in the

marketplace when they tell CPR that they can't come in here and take

over MacMillan Bloedel. CPR happens to be a Canadian corporation, at

least. But, by heavens, to give an American outfit like Cargill the

right to come in here and take over! Incidentally, before they made

that decision up there, they gave the right to Weyerhaeuser in the

United States to take over the whole forest area in central B.C. — no

problem. But when it became a political problem, they stopped the CPR.

It's not consistent.

I say, for the sake of the people in

B.C., for heaven's sake, show some courage now — Mr. Chairman, through

you to the Minister of Agriculture — get up there and say we are going

to assist the producers to get their own act together.

agree with you; I agree with those who say that Maplewood is not a

particularly viable situation. It wasn't a viable situation when it was

dumped by Canada Packers in the first place.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, on the last comment made by the member for New

Westminster in regard to its not being a viable situation in the first

place, the fact is that in 1975 the purchaser of that plant, Mr.

Hambley, came to the government and was given some assurance that he

would receive $1.5 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of assurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

It was reported in the paper that the Minister of Agriculture was

prepared to assist. The comments are not by me but by the then owner of

Maplewood Poultry. They turned him down. Yet today they are standing

up, and we're not talking about $1.5 million but about $6.5 million —

in regard to the cost of the plant and the inventory, which the members

know full well is a problem in the poultry industry at this time. We're

talking about the improvements required — about $1.5 million. We're

talking about working capital to meet the purchase of turkeys and

chickens coming in from the farms.

I would like to say that

the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) certainly assists me

a great deal. The opposition must be aware of that by now, in their

comments regarding the history of the poultry industry in this province.

had forgotten about the socialist involvement in the poultry industry.

We talk about Cargill getting in and getting a percentage of the

marketplace. When that organization

[ Page 2587 ]

over

there bought Panco Poultry in 1974-75, they acquired a major processor

in this province. They also got involved in a 40 percent equity

position with Pan Ready. Basically, the government was moving towards a

dominance in the marketplace.

I have to tell you that the

people of the province and of the world had better understand just

where socialism leads you. Those people over there can talk about jobs

and about assistance and stepping in when there is a problem in the

marketplace or in industry. But the people of the province should look

beyond that facade and look at just what the intent is. I can assure

you the intent is total socialism for this province, which is control

of industry, control of commerce and control of finance in this

province. We could get onto the move that they were going to make with

the B.C. Savings and Trust Corporation, and I could tell a lot of

people's stories about their moves. They were going to use the credit

unions for five years and then dump the credit union movement in this

province — a good cooperative movement. Their intention was to set up a

savings and trust corporation in this province, use the credit unions

as agents, and at the end of a five-year term — they're famous for

five-year terms in all their contracts — they would have taken the

business away from the credit unions; they would have dumped the credit

unions, opened up their own offices for B.C. Savings and Trust

Corporation and literally wiped out the credit union movement in this

province.

They know it and they know I know it, because I

sat for seven years on B.C. Central Credit Union's board and I was

fully aware of what they were doing. The only reason I came into

politics in 1975 — because I didn't have any aspirations to be a

provincial politician; I was happy in the credit union movement — the

only reason I'm here today, I want you to know, is because of your move

to socialize the credit union movement in this province. That's why I'm

here today, and that's why I'll stay here — to make sure that you

people don't get back into office.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not everybody wants to be a civil servant.

MR. HOWARD: Quit telling falsehoods.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, let me put it this way: I'll stake my future on that, if you want

to comment on a falsehood. I felt I had enough concern about the credit

union movement that I was prepared to leave a job, leave a community,

and come to Victoria to speak out on behalf of my people in my riding

and the rest of the people in this province, and the credit union

movement in this province. So if I based that on a falsehood, I would

be as confused as you seem to be all the time.

I just want

to answer some of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition

raised in regard to.... He said that Maplewood was manipulated by

Cargill and forced to close. Now this is a statement from the Leader of

the Opposition. Well, he knows he's totally wrong. It seems to me that

Cargill was the willing purchaser and Maplewood was the willing vendor

of the company; and here we're saying that Cargill is forcing Maplewood

to close. I can tell you that Cargill's main concern in this whole

exercise was to get approvals from FIRA and from the federal government

in order to purchase the plant before it would be forced into

receivership.

MR. STUPICH: And that's a willing vendor — one that's forcing receivership?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

It's a willing vendor and a willing purchaser, Mr. Chartered Accountant

from Nanaimo, as you well know. And you well know that if it's put into

receivership, you're not dealing then with the vendor: you're dealing

with the receiver. But then, again, you're not too swift on those

things anyway. I think you've been that route; as a matter of fact, I

think it was in the poultry industry, if I'm not mistaken.

was the high inventories and the high costs of production that caused

the Maplewood problem and caused Mr. Hambley a lot of his problems. The

Leader of the Opposition mentioned that Maplewood was "squeezed to the

wall'' by Panco. Well, I'm not sure where he gets that, nor how he

could elaborate on it. He makes statements like that, and he has

nothing to back them up: but I guess it gets on the record and he has a

good performance in the House. He knows full well — or he should — that

there are millions of pounds of turkey inventory in this province and

in Canada. Panco experiences a high inventory of processed birds, the

same as Maplewood did, and the members opposite know — or at least the

former Minister of Agriculture would know — that the purchase price of

the live product for processing is the same to Maplewood as it is to

Panco or to any other processor, because the marketing board determines

the price of the product that is purchased. So the cost of the birds is

the same for all.

In regard to the comments about FIRA and

the government's position, when we first objected to the purchase, as I

read into the record yesterday — and I won't read the actual documents,

Mr. Chairman — Pan Ready Poultry had advised Ottawa that they were in a

position where they could purchase Maplewood Poultry. They had their

financing arranged and they were carrying out discussions with the

owners of Maplewood. That was received by Victoria, and we had

indication from the broiler producers and the turkey producers that

they would prefer to see the plant purchased by Pan Ready Poultry.

Within a week of that Pan Ready withdrew their offer, and I reported

that to the House.

From that point on we dealt with the

turkey producers, and we dealt with the owner, in an attempt to find a

Canadian buyer. As I think the Leader of the Opposition and the members

opposite would know, any Canadian and any British Columbian would like

to see the ownership of a B.C. company or a Canadian company retained

in Canada. We were unsuccessful. How far can you go in attempting to

resolve a problem when, as I said before in this House, Maplewood is

the tip of the iceberg? My primary concern is those 50 turkey producers

and 100 or more broiler producers in this province that have to be

dependent on a processing plant to handle their live birds. With this

plant shut down it caused a serious lack of capacity in this province

for the processing of birds.

The Leader of the Opposition

raised a question regarding the Ministry of Tourism getting $3.5

million U.S. for the ferry service between here and Seattle. Just to go

over what we've done in the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to

resolving or attempting to resolve Maplewood Poultry Processors'

problem: although they withdrew from the Clearbrook offer, Pan Ready

still proceeded with the offer to purchase the Sooke plant. The

Ministry of Agriculture work-

[ Page 2588 ]

with the Pan Ready people and the owner of Maplewood, and within a very

short period of time completed agreement under ARDSA for $750,000 to

assist Pan Ready in purchasing the Sooke plant, which was about to shut

down. That's under our current programs. It is a forgivable loan based

on the continuance of that operation over the next five years. Under

our ARDSA program, similar assistance is available to other agriculture

endeavours. They will have no special treatment, possibly, but the

expediting of the application to assist in purchasing this plant.

We've

also moved to get a $500,000 loan guarantee for the turkey producers —

the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board — in order for them to work with the

receiver of Maplewood Poultry in Clearbrook to re-open that plant. I

can say, Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that that plant will be re-opened by

the receiver next week. We now have the funding in place and the

program set up so that hopefully the plant will be re-opened by the

receiver, the birds will be processed and some of the backup on the

farms will be taken care of.

The Leader of the Opposition

asked if there was any effort made with the turkey producers with

regard to purchasing that plant. I don't know where he is in this House

when questions that are raised by members of his party are answered by

me. I guess he's out or asleep. He's asking me the same question asked

of me before, about which I've made comments in this House during my

estimates. Yes, we worked with the turkey producers, and in the end

they were able to advise us and to raise $200,000. The total cost to

get that plant operational was about $6.5 million.

The

members opposite may say: "Well, where did you get your figure of $6.5

million?" I can tell them we got it through a consultant's report by

Woods, Gordon, who very quickly responded to our request to do a

detailed analysis to give us the facts and figures on what it would

take to operate that plant. That's where the figures came from.

there was a $200,000 investment on $6.5 million total purchase price

and operating costs of that plant. If you look at the party opposite's

approach of a loan guarantee, can you imagine the debt service costs

that those turkey producers would have to carry over the next years?

They would be in an unfortunate position, because they couldn't service

their debt, and they would never be able to look at anything other than

an operating loss. In effect that is what caused Mr. Hambley to

determine that he was either going to sell the plant or close it:

because of his carrying cost and some of his financing.

The

Leader of the Opposition raised the question: "Did you make any

approach to the feds?" The answer is yes — which I've mentioned before.

We've made an approach to the federal people, to the FIRA people, the

Hon. Herb Gray, the Hon. Eugene Whelan and Senator Ray Perrault. We are

expediting as quickly as possible the consideration by FIRA. The offer

to purchase by Cargill — I can inform the members that the documents

have already gone down to Ottawa. We have also worked with the

Department of Agriculture in Ottawa to acquire some of this excess

inventory in British Columbia, and we are having good cooperation with

that.

With regard to Cargill's dominance in the marketplace,

which the Leader of the Opposition raised, first of all, we have the

B.C. Turkey Marketing Board, which can direct product. As the member

for Central Fraser Valley said, it's a national supply management

scheme. First of all, you do have a considerable amount of protection

under that supply management scheme. The B.C. Turkey Marketing Board

has the ability to direct product to processors. Also, the Cargill

people, in their offer to purchase Maplewood, made a commitment to FIRA

that they were prepared to reduce their percentage of turkey kill in

this province, should the marketing board so desire, and that's in

writing to FIRA in Ottawa with a copy to me.

Then, I think,

the Leader of the Opposition raised the question: "Do you know what

vertical integration is?" He was referring to Cargill and the fact that

the multinationals look to vertical integration. Well, Mr. Chairman,

again we'll go back to the 1974-75 purchase of Panco Poultry. You want

to talk about vertical integration? This is a move that the government

of the day made to "protect jobs." What they're so upset about is

vertical integration and multinational companies. What I'm concerned

about is when government gets into vertical integration and controls

the marketplace. We've told you that they owned all of Panco and 40

percent of Pan Ready, but in Panco it included a feed mill from which

they supplied their own farms — they owned seven turkey farms and four

broiler farms. Those were tenant farmers on that land owned by the

government, operating those turkey and broiler plants, using the feed

to grow the birds to supply the socialist processing plant. That, to my

way of thinking, is vertical integration, which they're so upset about.

But it's different when the government owns it; it's no problem.

They

also acquired a great amount of land, and they know — and I'm sure the

former Minister of Agriculture is going to comment or speak on this; at

least I hope he will — that the growers out there were upset because of

the pressures that Panco was putting on them. Because the B.C. Turkey

Marketing Board was under limitations, the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board

was concerned about the size of production units that the government

had in Panco. There was considerable concern out there, Mr. Chairman.

But the most interesting thing — the one thing that I can't understand,

considering the debate that's gone on this House over Panco in the past

years — is that not only did they own seven turkey producing farms and

four broiler farms — well in excess of the quota allocations laid down

by the Natural Products Marketing Act of British Columbia and the

marketing scheme under that act; well in excess of individual farm

operation — but that government-owned vertically integrated company was

in contravention of their own act and the scheme which they agreed to

in the allocation of quota to farms. They had seven times the family

farm unit allocation and quota for turkeys and four times that

allocation for broilers, but they don't mention that.

when we came along the Leader of the Opposition said: "The purchase of

Panco by Cargill for $14 million! You've made $10 million on this

deal." That's what they say. Well, I've got to say that that's not

quite accurate either because the value of the processing plant in the

accounts receivable was approximately $6 million. We came along and we

sold it. They talk about selling it to Cargill for this $14 million —

that's what they were saying this morning. We took that Panco Poultry —

that socialist-owned company — and sold the feed mill to a B.C. owner.

The Heppell Brothers of the Fraser Valley bought the feed mill. It went

back to private enterprise and I'm proud that it did. It got it out of

government hands. What government was doing in the feed business I'll

never know, but it got it out and it was sold to a B.C. owner.

took those seven turkey plants and those four broiler farms, and we

sold them to seven turkey farm operators and four broiler farm

operators. They purchased those plants.

[ Page 2589 ]

They

were back in individual ownership; no longer tenant farmers working for

government, but back into individual ownership. We put them up to open

bid. We didn't sell them to anybody individually. We put them up, had

tenders on them and sold them in the open market.

We took

the excess land and we sold that. Then we sold the "processing plant" —

the vertically integrated part of that government- owned operation — to

Cargill. They had an expansion program lined up. They got approval from

FIRA and they were to proceed, only to find that when they wanted to

expand they ran into zoning changes and couldn't expand in Surrey.

wasn't going to comment on this today because I thought it was fairly

well covered in the last three or four days of my estimates. However,

the Leader of the Opposition raised it and other opposition members

have felt the need to comment on it and comment on the sale of

Maplewood to Cargill so I thought I should respond and set the record a

little straighter than they've attempted to do.

I thought

we'd still be on ICBC this morning. After yesterday I was going to

announce that it was the Minister of Agriculture's estimates, because

yesterday I had a quiet day. Everybody else was doing the talking. It

seems that today we got off ICBC and onto agriculture,

The

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) talked about the turkey

producers wanting to set up a co-op or a company. That is correct.

Although it's old news, he's correct. Yes, we did have discussions in

my office. We did attempt to see whether funds could be raised so they

could purchase that plant. In the end the turkey producers said they

couldn't proceed, they couldn't raise the funding required even though

they would have funds available to them from the government under our

present programs. They just couldn't raise the funds required to get

that plant in operation.

In the end, the Broiler Marketing

Board, the broiler producers' association, the Turkey Marketing Board,

the turkey producers' association, and Pan Ready have all come to

government and notified government by letter, by telegram, by phone

call: "We are withdrawing our objection to FIRA and support the Cargill

purchase of Maplewood." Basically the government, after exploring all

avenues, all alternatives to this sale of the Maplewood plant, adopted

the same position — that we would withdraw our objection to the Cargill

purchase of Maplewood because primarily, as I mentioned earlier, my

concern is the maintenance and the growth of a turkey production

industry in this province. The Maplewood plant is only the tip of the

iceberg of the total industry in this province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Let's

be realistic: a processing plant needs product to operate. If you're

going to invest several millions of dollars to purchase a processing

plant, then it seems somewhat unrealistic to do away with the producers

that would be providing you with that product. Therefore, I fail to see

the total impact on the producers of this province, because the quota

allocation is to the family farm unit, both on turkeys and on chickens,

so Cargill can't get into the position of getting 50 percent of the

production of birds. They are only in the processing. Under Panco, when

it was government owned, the government had that massive amount of

production under government ownership, contrary to the marketing

supply-management program of this province under the B.C. marketing

scheme.

I may have talked too long. However, I wanted to try

to get as much of the story out, for about the third time, as I could

this morning. Now maybe we can move on to other things that I know the

members opposite wish to discuss, with regard to agriculture or ICBC.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask your permission....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've missed you for a whole week.

MR. LEA: You've missed me! I've missed you too.

I would like to ask leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA:

This is the member for Prince Rupert's week. Yesterday I said it's not

too often that we have visitors from Prince Rupert because of the

difficulty of travelling to the capital. But every year a social

studies class from Prince Rupert comes down to watch democracy in

motion. Today we have students from Prince Rupert, along with their

teachers, in the gallery. watching democracy take place. I would like

to ask you to join me in welcoming them to the legislative precincts.

MS. SANFORD:

The minister has again been on his feet to defend his position with

respect to the sale of Maplewood to Cargill. I think it's tragic.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He doesn't have to defend anything; he's just setting the record straight.

MS. SANFORD:

Already the Minister of Municipal Affairs.... As soon as we mention the

word "Cargill" he cannot retain his seat or sit quietly. He is very

edgy and very touchy about this particular issue. I wish the Minister

of Municipal Affairs would join the rest of them over there and jump to

his feet and defend Cargill. It really is tragic that elected members

in the province of British Columbia get up one after another to defend

a multinational corporation like Cargill, which is invited by the

province to come in and purchase Maplewood here in B.C. It is a

tragedy. They obviously do not understand what is involved with a

company the size and the magnitude of Cargill corporation.

Why

don't they instead make money available to those producers, so that

they themselves can get in and purchase that Maplewood plant? Here we

have representatives of the government in British Columbia running down

to Ottawa, and appealing to FIRA to allow the multinational Cargill to

come and purchase a plant here in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman,

that's tragic.

We have had information from a number of

speakers on this side of the House with respect to the influence, the

manipulation and the tactics used by that particular company. It

controls and manipulates all over the globe. It is in a position where

it can determine whether people shall eat or not eat. It is a murky

company. The people who tried to get information about the control of

grain and grain sales throughout the world — people like Dan Morgan,

who wrote The Merchants of Grain — had great difficulty getting information of any kind about the kind of manipulation that

[ Page 2590 ]

takes

place in the field of the growing and export of grain. It's an

incredible story. That we in British Columbia are welcoming the

participation of a company like Cargill in this province.... This

government doesn't care. They're prepared to sell out. Mr. Morgan

mentions Cargill more than any other, because it's probably the most

dominant of the five dominant companies involved in grain sales. He

asks why these companies are so dominant. Why is it that they control

$50 billion worth of sales every year? He says that the obvious answer

is their massive investments in the transportation, loading, shipping

and processing of grain, and, of course, its distribution on all

continents. But that's only part of the reason, as Dan Morgan, the

author of this book, discovered as he delved deeper into this murky,

secrecy shrouded world — secrecy-shrouded because the funds for

expansion and diversification come from within the company empire or

from the banks. They never get involved in issuing stock to the public,

because they want the whole field to be murky. They don't want people

to know what's going on in the way in which they manipulate and handle

and profiteer.

We cannot expect that Cargill's going to

behave any differently in British Columbia than it has in any other

part of the world. Mr. Morgan, who wrote this particular book, found

out that each of the five companies involved maintains an elaborate

network of reporting stations. And it is precisely this possession of

up-to-the-minute global information which others, including

governments, don't have. That's why they are so successful in the

manipulation and sale and control of the grain markets. It's a tragedy,

Mr. Chairman — that's the way I feel about this situation — that any

government in British Columbia would run to the Foreign Investment

Review Agency and appeal to have Cargill purchase part of this province.

It's

over two weeks since we started discussion on these estimates. At that

time I raised another issue with respect to foreign ownership and

foreign control. That is the foreign ownership and control of farmland

in this province. The government has made no move on this issue in the

four years since they took office in 1976. It has been collecting

information which has been gathering dust over in the land titles

office.

I was interested in some information that was published in the Kelowna Courier

on May 1, 1980. If nothing else, I hope that this will spark the

Minister of Agriculture and that government to do something about the

sellout of our land to absentee foreigners — our farmland, right in

this province. I've already put onto the record, Mr. Chairman, on a

number of occasions, the information with respect to the sellout of

land in the Peace River to absentee foreigners. But on May 1, in the

Kelowna paper, there is an

article that refers to the foreign purchase

of farmland in British Columbia. I'd like to read part of this

article

into the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

MS. SANFORD: J.P. Squire, who is on the staff of that paper.

'A sizeable number of West Germans, still living in their native

country, are making hefty investments in Okanagan Valley real estate,'

Larry Ferster, regional manager for A.E. LePage Western Ltd. said

today."

Hefty investments are being made in the Okanagan Valley by absentee foreigners.

Larry Ferster said:

'The current weak condition of the Canadian dollar in relation to the

German mark and the favourable exchange rate gives the Germans a

terrific advantage for investment in Canada rather than in Europe. Land

has always been a very good hedge against inflation, and it's very

limited in supply. Canada and the U.S. represent the last frontier in

free enterprise for absentee foreigners who wish to purchase land.'

"As a result, Larry Ferster says" — and he's quoted here in the Courier

— his real estate company "has advertised quite a bit in West Germany

in the past four to six months with a terrific response from absentee

foreigners who are responding to ads put in by Canadian real estate

firms advertising in various parts of the world."

It's fine

for absentee foreigners to come in and own our land and make decisions

about what's going to be grown here, how and when. It's fine for

Cargill to come in and purchase and run the poultry and turkey industry

— no problems at all.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD:

I beg your pardon. Mr. Chairman, the one thing about this is they're

very edgy on this issue. They've been jumpy all morning. First it was

the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), and the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), and now the Premier can't contain

himself when he hears about these things.

This real estate

agent up in Kelowna, Mr. Chairman, is saying that he has witnessed

purchases of $500,000, $1.5 million and $2.3 million in sales recently

in the Okanagan Valley. The government takes no interest in this. They

are prepared to allow the farmland of the province to be sold out to

whoever wants to buy it. Whether they're interested in farming or not

is not an issue. Whether there is going to be any food production here

or not is not an issue. They don't mind if companies like Cargill make

decisions about what happens in terms of the poultry and turkey

producers of the province — no problem, let them buy it out. If they

think they can make a buck, they are prepared to sell out the province.

We've seen it time and time again.

Over two weeks ago I

raised this issue about the absentee foreign ownership of farmland in

this province. The Minister of Agriculture in that two weeks has not

yet made one comment on that issue. I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that he

will comment this morning.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman,

I was wondering whether or not the Minister of Agriculture will be

available for discussion of his estimates. Will he be back this morning?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

I'm sorry I missed the remark from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), Mr. Chairman. If it's worth commenting on then you'll have

to repeat it. It's certainly not a very productive morning.

don't intend to say a great deal about Cargill or about Panco this

morning in spite of the invitation from the Minister of Agriculture to

talk about Cargill. There is one remark I'll make, but I'll wait until

he returns. He did issue another

[ Page

2591 ]

invitation

and several of his colleagues followed up the invitation by asking us

to talk about Swan Valley. We've had a couple of invitations and

opportunities to talk about Swan Valley in the past, but the government

has always backed away from it or tried to back away from it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

The Premier is amused. You'll recall that there was legislation on the

order paper — I want you to hear this, Mr. Chairman; I appreciate

they're not interested, but I want you to hear it — I believe it was in

1976 that would have given us an opportunity in second reading of that

legislation to discuss thoroughly the government's involvement in Swan

Valley, to discuss thoroughly the opportunity that was lost to the

people of British Columbia when the government sold out British

Columbia in disposing of Swan Valley in the way that they did.

However,

the government ran away from that opportunity, withdrew that

legislation from the order paper, and handled the matter of financing

quietly, after the House had adjourned, when there was no opportunity

for us to have this kind of discussion in the chamber. There had been

various comments across the floor, as there have been now, but that's

all. There was no opportunity to discuss it unless we wanted to do it

under the minister's salary.

Last year we chose not to

debate the minister's salary at any length at all because we knew the

minister had absolutely no interest in the Ministry of Agriculture. He

had proven that in the past. Certainly the cabinet has shown its lack

of faith in that minister by five times overruling his recommendations

in agriculture.

I see the minister is back now. I'm pleased that he is before I get really involved in this Swan Valley thing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Boy, I'm glad you mentioned this one.

MR. STUPICH:

He says he's glad I mentioned it. Mr. Chairman, that's really odd

because there was an opportunity to discuss Swan Valley in public

accounts in 1977. At the time, that Minister of Agriculture did

everything possible to delay that meeting or to delay the appearance of

witnesses at the meeting, witnesses who knew something about Swan

Valley and who could appear before the committee and answer questions.

His obstructionism was so apparent that I made a point of dictating a

memo to the committee detailing the discussion between that minister

and myself and describing his attempts to stop the public accounts

committee from examining the witnesses that were there to tell us about

Swan Valley.

In spite of his attempts and in spite of his

telling me in the conversation we had that all 11 members of the Social

Credit group on the public accounts committee would be unable to attend

if we were going to talk about Swan Valley....

When we finally had the meeting, nine out of the 11 Socred members suddenly

found it convenient to attend, but then took up over half of the meeting trying

to stop the committee from dealing with Swan Valley. This is all in the Hansard

minutes of the public accounts committee. The total meeting is reported on 121

pages. The first 61 pages of the Hansard report of that meeting were taken up

with stalling — largely led by the Minister of Agriculture — in an attempt to

stop the committee from examining the Swan Valley directors. Then the last few

pages are taken up with business of the committee. Somewhat less than half the

meeting, because of the stalling of that member, was taken up in dealing with

Swan Valley.

did want to make one comment on Cargill. The minister expected I'd be

talking about Cargill and I'll simply say this. For that minister, who

professes to be something of a financial man and tells us about his

wide experience in credit unions, to tell us that a deal between the

largest family-owned corporation in the world — and one with, I

suppose, about the worst reputation — and a person who owned another

corporation which was within hours of going into receivership was a

deal between a willing purchaser and a willing vendor.... I really

don't understand how such a narrow-minded person can be so thick-headed

as to describe that kind of a deal as a reasonable deal between two

willing people.

To get back to Swan Valley, because I have

really been looking forward to the opportunity to talk about Swan

Valley in this House. I looked forward to it in public accounts, and in

spite of the actions of the Minister of Agriculture we did get some

information out of that meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whole truth.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, the whole truth is in the minutes, and if the minister really

wants to, he can look it up in the minutes of the meeting. I can read

from it, and if the minister really wants me to and really encourages

me to then I may indeed refer to the answers to questions that were

given at that meeting. The answers were not challenged; the answers

were accepted by the committee.

The Swan Valley system could

have been something really good. The minister boasted about selling it,

disposing of it. Part of it was sold to Hardee Farms, and to the best

of my knowledge the Creston plant is operating. We have not had a

report from the House. This will be an opportunity....

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd be glad to.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, any time you want to stand up and tell us about that, I'd like to hear about it. Do you want to do it right now?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to give you enough rope.

MR. STUPICH:

Well. honestly, I just don't know what's happening in Creston. The

member isn't here now. I don't know how the Hardee Farms operation is

going. I understand the deal was that they were going to operate it for

three years and if, at the end of that time. they hadn't stolen all the

technology and learned everything they wanted to know and moved

everything to Ontario or wherever.... If they still wanted to operate,

I think they were going to pay some more money or.... I just don't

recall the details of the Hardee Farms acquisition of the Creston one.

With

respect to the Standard Brands acquisition of the Richmond plant,

again, I don't know what's happening. The minister did tell us in a

press release put out August 26, 1977, that "Standard Brands Ltd., one

of Canada's largest food processing companies, will acquire all the

shares." It still had to receive some approvals. I

On December 1, 1977, he announced that everything was complete, and announced some of the details — certainly not

[ Page 2592 ]

all

of them, I would think — but he did say that Standard Brands was

acquiring the Richmond facility for $3.2 million, was going to pay only

$0.2 million down, would assume accounts payable of $0.4 million, and

the balance of the purchase price was to be payable within three years.

I don't know if that was within three years of the December date or the

August date, but I'd appreciate knowing. He also told us that this sale

of the Richmond plant to Standard Brands would result in the Richmond

plant operating with a substantial increase in manpower. I'd be very

interested in finding out whether there has been the substantial

increase in manpower promised to us by the Minister of Agriculture when

he put out this release on December 1, 1977.

Is the Richmond

plant operating? Is there a substantial increase in manpower? If it is

operating, where's the product going? Because certainly I haven't seen

any of it. I don't go shopping that often, but I do shop occasionally

in food stores, and I have not seen any of the product since, I think,

late 1976. However, the minister told us in December 1977 that it would

operate, that there would be a substantial increase in the manpower at

the plant, and that we could look for great things, presumably, from

private ownership.

Is that something about the Richmond

plant? I'd kind of like to hear about the Richmond plant. Help

yourself. Do you want to get into the debate now?

Mr.

Chairman, the Premier is offering to stand up and speak. If he wants to

enter the debate at this point, I'm quite prepared to yield as long as

we don't pass the vote, because I don't want to have the government

once again get us out of this discussion on Swan Valley until we've had

some time to discuss it. So if the Premier is serious and he wants to

get up, he has simply to rise and I'll yield very quickly.

Here

is a letter from Mr. Piper to me shortly after the time I resigned as a

director of.... I wrote a letter. Of course, with the change in

government I realized that my position on the board was not something

that should be continued. I did resign as a member of the board of

directors, and I received a letter from Mr. Piper, the president of the

company, dated February 10, 1976. I'd like to quote briefly from this

letter. "Although we have been beset by development problems associated

with the new technology" — and indeed it was new technology, and I have

some more to say about that — "inflation" — and you'll recall that we

were going through a period then of very high inflation for two

years....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You were government then.

MR. STUPICH:

Yes, that's when we were government. I suppose the Premier is

suggesting that we were responsible for inflation not only in British

Columbia but in Canada; not only in Canada but in the whole of North

America; not only in the whole of North America but in the whole of the

western world; and not only in the whole of the western world but also

in the Middle East, where the oil was coming from — and OPEC was

quadrupling the price of oil in the period of one year. I suppose he

credits all of that to the actions of the NDP government, in saying

that we....

HON. MR. BENNETT: All I'm saying is that at that time we had the highest inflation in Canada.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, the Premier is interjecting that inflation in B.C. was

higher at that time than it was in any other province. We were in

office for a period of 39 months, and there were months when we were

higher than the rest of Canada and there were months when we were

lower. I would remind you that....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Name the month you were lower.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, in July 1974....

AN HON. MEMBER: You were lower? We'll check it out.

MR. STUPICH: Be my guest.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Nanaimo has the floor and should be afforded the courtesy that....

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I would remind you also that when Canada entered the

anti-inflationary program announced by the Prime Minister on

Thanksgiving, the one province in Canada to take immediate action to

freeze prices was the province led by the NDP administration — British

Columbia. It was the only province which announced an immediate freeze

on food, energy and drugs and put it into effect. I remember attending

a meeting of....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, if any of these people really want to enter into the

debate, I'm quite prepared to yield. I'll wait until you recognize

them, but if they do want to get up and speak.... Otherwise, they can

keep chattering from their seats. It's safer, they're not recognized,

and they make their inane comments, some of which are picked up by Hansard ,

but none of which are credited to the idiots who are voicing them, so

we can't refer to them afterwards and say: "Well, this is what this

particular hon. member said." They prefer to remain anonymous. I

suggested earlier that the Minister of Agriculture was narrow-minded in

being so thick-headed and it appears he is not alone in that regard.

However,

we were the one province that acted immediately to freeze food prices,

drugs, energy costs. We did try to do something about the inflation

that was a problem in the whole world. However....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

The Premier obviously doesn't want me to talk about Swan Valley. He's

trying to get me off the track. As the Minister of Agriculture did

everything within his control to stop the public accounts committee

from talking about it, as the government did everything in its control

to stop this kind of discussion in the House by withdrawing the

legislation that would have invited that discussion, now the Premier

keeps interrupting hoping that I'll forget that I was going to talk

about Swan Valley. They don't really want to be reminded about the

disservice they did to B.C. agriculture and to the people of B.C. in

dumping Swan Valley the way they did. The Richmond plant would have

been operating today, had the NDP been re-elected in 1975, and would

have been a success by now.

[ Page

2593 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just like IOK Poultry and South Peace Dehy.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, Mr. Chairman, somebody over there — I guess it's the Minister of

Agriculture again — would rather remain anonymous when he's making

these comments than stand up and say them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No. I'm sorry. I thought he yielded.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I do.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just didn't want to remain anonymous, Mr. Chairman.

want to comment on the involvement in some of the disasters in the

field of agriculture, and Swan Valley certainly is a prime example. IOK

Poultry and South Peace Dehy. The track record of the former Minister

of Agriculture is pretty poor.

I wasn't going to get into

too much detail on Swan Valley because I wanted the former minister to

make his statements, and then I wanted to be able to respond and sort

of cap the conversation. If he'd allow me that privilege before 1

o'clock I'll wait until he finishes his comments. Will you nod your

head and allow me that privilege? He wouldn't do that. He's not nodding

his head. Well, I can do it on Monday because I'm sure we'll still be

on my estimates on Monday. I'll let the member continue.

MR. STUPICH:

The Minister of Agriculture asked whether or not I would yield and let

him make a statement. I've already indicated that any time the Minister

of Agriculture or the Premier or any of the other people over there who

chatter in their seats want to stand up and speak in this debate, I'm

quite prepared to yield to any of them. Until such time I intend to

talk about Swan Valley.

If I could once again try to read

this letter dated February 10, 1976, from Mr. Piper to show you what

position Swan Valley was in at that particular point in time just about

two months after the election: "Although we have been beset by

development problems associated with the new technology" — and it was

new technology; not brand-new in the world, but certainly improved

technology in the province of British Columbia — "inflation and delayed

equipment deliveries" — which I've already discussed at some length at

the Premier's invitation.... You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that was

something that was facing all of industry in British Columbia, Canada

and the western world. Things were moving along so fast then that

everybody suffered from delayed equipment deliveries.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Again, the Premier, who prefers to chatter from his seat rather than to

enter into the debate, suggests that I'm making excuses. What I'm

doing, Mr. Chairman, is reading from a letter. It does offer some

explanations. The Premier may categorize them as excuses if he likes.

To go back to the letter:

The Richmond project has been on the market since January 28." — that

would be of 1976 — "We launched with 12.000 cases and we are presently

back-ordered at about 5.000. Production yesterday was 600 cases at 1:30

p.m. We will receive our Continent Can line next week" — deliveries for

things like that were still held up — "and will soon reach 1,500 cases

per day on one shift....?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Was that before or after you pumped that last S5 million in?

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

who, again, prefers to be seated and not be recognized when he's asking

questions or making comments, asks about the date of this letter. I've

already said that it's dated February 10, 1976.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I said was that before or after you pumped that last $5 million tax money in.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, the minister is again preferring to ask his questions

seated and he's asking whether or not this is before or after we pumped

$5 million into something. If he doesn't recall the date of the

election, I'll remind him. It was in December 1975 and the letter I'm

quoting from is February 1976. It doesn't take much mental ability for

even that member to determine that that must have been after we had any

authority to put any money into anything. But if not, perhaps some of

the other members would explain to him that having been out of office

for two months, we were in no position to put $5 million into anything.

So explain it to him.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Did we spend any money?

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I have two questions. First, was this after we had any

authority to spend money? I would point out again that this letter is

dated February 10, 1976, beyond any time....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Yes, I know. but I am trying to explain to him that we obviously did

not have the authority. We had no authority in February 1976.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You said you had no authority after the election.

MR. STUPICH: That's not what I said. Mr. Chairman, for the sake of Hansard ,

it is the Premier who is asking questions and trying to put words in my

mouth. He is quoting me as saying that we had no authority to spend

money after the election. I said, to assist the Premier to help the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development understand that in

February 1976 we certainly had no authority, that we did have authority

until we handed over the reins of government

[ Page 2594 ]

on December 22, 1975. We had authority to conduct the government and to spend money....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is expressing some surprise....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we're not going to hear very much about Swan Valley today at this rate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. The member for Nanaimo has the floor. The

cross-comments are making it very difficult for the member to continue

his debate with any kind of continuity. I would ask members to allow

the member for Nanaimo to continue his points of argument with the

Minister of Agriculture.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier is

suggesting that we had no authority to spend any money after the

election. As the Premier knows, it takes a few days to turn over the

reins of government. Certainly the government of the day — whatever

that government is, whether it has been defeated in an election or not

— not only has the authority but has the responsibility to continue

collecting moneys that are due to the government, and to continue

spending money in the interests of keeping government functioning,

until such time as there can be an orderly change in administration.

did that in 1975, just as the previous Social Credit administration,

led by his father, did in 1972. That election was on August 30, I

believe, and the administration was turned over on September 15 — some

17 days later. It didn't take us that long to change over. Certainly

the previous Social Credit administration continued to raise and spend

money as long as it held office, even though it had been defeated in

the election. Certainly the NDP administration continued to raise and

spend money and control the government until such time as we could turn

it over in an orderly manner.

To get back to the letter —

this all started because the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development was asking whether or not this letter was dated after we

had put more money into Swan Valley. It is obvious from the date —

February, 1976 — that we were in no position to put any further money

into anything at that time. Unfortunately, from the point of view of

Swan Valley and the people of British Columbia, we were in no position

to do that. Had we been in a position to do it, then Swan Valley would

still have been operating.

It would have been a real credit

to the farmers who originally proposed it, to the University of British

Columbia for their assistance in developing the technology, the work

that was done by the Food Science department at the University of

British Columbia in improving — as I said earlier, not coming up with a

brand new process, but rather improving an existing one. I made a point

of looking into Swan Valley to some extent. I have a letter — again,

certainly dated after we left office — from the 1977 AIC-CIFST

conference in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. It's addressed to Swan Valley.

This is the explanation of the initials.

"On

behalf of the awards committee of the Canadian Institute of Food

Science and Technology, I am pleased to inform you that Swan Valley

Foods Ltd. has been selected to be the 1977 recipient of the Gordon

Royal Maybee Award. This award is in recognition of an outstanding

applied development by a Canadian company or institution in the fields

of food production, processing, transportation, storage or quality

control."

Then it goes on to say when the

award would be made. Certainly the process was something that was years

ahead of anything that was available anywhere else in the world. Dr.

Powrie, who was the head of the Food Science department at the

University of British Columbia at that time, did tell us something

about the process and how it compared....

HON. MR. MAIR: NDP hack!

MR. STUPICH:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health who wants to enter into this

debate, like so many of his colleagues, while he's sitting in his

chair, describes Dr. Powrie as an NDP hack. I don't know anything about

his politics. I've never heard of him being a member of the NDP.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

I have never heard of him.... I didn't hear it properly, but I would

think that if this government was going to do anything in the way of

food technology — I can't imagine them doing anything constructive —

but certainly if they wanted to, they could do worse than to go to the

head of the Food Science department at....

AN HON. MEMBER: They used him....

MR. STUPICH: They have used him. Certainly the Minister of Health....

AN HON. MEMBER: Money down the rat hole!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what Pat thinks.

MR. STUPICH:

That UBC...? Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health, again, says that

money going to the university is money going down the rat hole.

any case, Mr. Powrie was asked about the Swan Valley process at this

public accounts committee, once we got beyond the stalling tactics led

by the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He was asked

whether or not the pouch process was a new one. He replied that, well,

it was new as far as British Columbia was concerned. It was new to Swan

Valley. It was originally developed by Continental Can in the '50s, so

it's not something brand new. But it was first developed by Continental

Can, an American company, in the '50s.

It didn't get very

far. It was ultimately picked up by an Italian company — interestingly

enough, a government controlled company. In any case, they thought the

process did promise interesting developments. They picked it up in

about 1967 and started working on it. On the whole of the North

American continent, in this little corner of British Columbia, Swan

Valley was the first to market a pouch product.

Dr. Powrie was asked whether or not it's been accepted in other parts of the world, and he pointed in particular to Japan

[ Page

2595 ]

where 500 million pouches were sold in 1976. Obviously it was catching on there.

have another document here somewhere that predicted that it would be

into the billions by 1980. I'll come across that. I haven't got time

now to really get into it. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) welcomed me reading further from Hansard . I'll leave that for the moment.

I'll go, instead, to The Agrologist .

This one is for December 1978. "The Retort Pouch. New Technology. "

Even in December 1978, fully a year after the government had sold out

its last interest in this process, The Agrologist

was writing about the pouch process as "new technology." It is still

relatively new. "The first pouched foods appeared on the North American

market in November of 1974 and were produced by a Canadian firm, Swan

Valley Foods Ltd." This goes on to say that early development work was

initiated by Continental Can in the U.S.A. It was in 1959, 21 years

ago, that they first started working on it. Afterwards the U.S. Army —

Natick Laboratories — began a research and development program to

determine whether the flexible pouch could replace the rigid container

for field combat — "one that was light in weight, less bulky and

compatible with the pocket, thereby making it easier to carry and

safer, while providing a safely preserved, ready-to-eat, nutritious

meal." It goes on to name other companies that were interested in the

process. Large, well-established companies were interested in getting

in on the process. Swift's, Pillsbury, Rego and the FMC corporation

aided in this early development.

Here's a little more about the technology that this government gave away — under the heading of quality:

"The pouch provides superior quality in the prepared food.

Texture, colour, aroma and flavour are comparable to a freshly prepared home

product. The pouch eliminates the typical canned flavour of heat processed foods

and the blandness of certain frozen products. Delicate flavours and natural

freshness may be best retained in the pouch. Fruits, for example, may be prepared

without added sugar syrups and the fruits still will provide an organoleptic

response of the crunch of apples, the vine flavour of blueberries. etc. The

home cooked quality is possible with the pouch because of the relatively short

processing times required to sterilize in the thin pouch profile."

goes on to discuss the pouch from the point of view of product

diversity, nutrition, convenience, food safety, longevity, storage

conditions, shipping, handling and warehousing, institutional

convenience, waste disposal and cost benefits. In every one of these

headings, it talks optimistically about the retort pouch as new

technology which, of course, is supported by the award that I referred

to earlier when the award was given for that year to Swan Valley Foods..

There is an

article here from a magazine called Food Product Development ,

and it's dated July-August 1977: "To date, retortable pouches are

possibly the most important development in food packaging since the

introduction of the rigid can 150 years ago." Mr. Chairman. that's the

process that this government gave away to Standard Brands. "Shelf life

of retort pouch products is equal to or better than metal cans.

Refrigeration or freezing is not required by packers, retailers or

consumers."

The same article, under the heading of "Consumer Acceptance...."

It's quite lengthy, but I'll just read a portion of the last sentence:

"Consumers, when given free choice of canned or pouched rations....

Out of 608 meals, 536 selections were pouched products." There was a free

choice of canned or pouched, and by a very large majority the consumers preferred

the pouched product.

Continental

Can conducted a home placement study with 315 women receiving three

different packages of prepared chicken a> la king: a can, a

non-refrigerated retort pouch and a refrigerated retort pouch. The two

pouches significantly outperformed the can on every dimension studied.

A hospital patient feeding study resulted in 80 percent of the patients

rating pouched products very acceptable.

I've just marked a

few of the quotations. Reynolds Metals conducted two independent

consumer studies, one by Sidney Hollander and Associates of Baltimore

in 1969, and the other in 1976 by Yankelovich. Skelly and White of New

York City. Both of them showed the retort pouch as being extremely

acceptable. Better than nine out of ten respondents had favourable pre-

and post-use comments about the retort pouch products.

Environmental

impact: an environmental impact statement concludes: "The retort pouch

has significant energy and environmental savings compared with

traditional food container systems."

Marketing potential —

and this is the reference to Japan: Japan's sales were 500 million

pouches in 1976, when it was just getting started. European sales

amounted to approximately 40 million units. I had an opportunity to

sample some of the European product and found it not nearly as tasty as

the product being produced by Swan Valley.

Another area of

concentration might be the recreational field. It goes on to suggest

what uses there might be in the recreational field.

In the

midst of all this diversity. one aspect of the retort pouch receives

agreement from everyone. It is potentially the most significant food

packaging opportunity of this century. And it is one that this

government gave away.

Dave Heinz of Reynolds Metals concludes:

"Opportunity is what the retortable pouch is all

about: the opportunity for a food processor to market products at

frozen food prices and canned food costs, the opportunity for a

retailer to get uncommonly high returns on shelf-stable items, and the

opportunity for the consumer to have access to a true value — an

extremely convenient food product, fairly priced, that also is high in

quality. For years many have speculated as to what course the

retortable pouch would take. The opportunity is now at hand. Beyond

speculation it is up to the food processors, machinery manufacturers

and package suppliers to take the challenge."

I think there can be

little doubt, Mr. Chairman, that everything you read about the process

itself was positive. It was being widely accepted in other markets. The

product available in those other markets was not nearly as good as the

product that was being produced in B.C., because of the excellent work

done by UBC, in particular by Dr. Powrie.

Swan Valley was

looking beyond the immediate market available in B.C. — and in Canada.

for that matter. There was worldwide interest in the superior quality

that was available because of the technology that had been developed in

the province of British Columbia. During the whole of the development

period. the one concern that the directors of Swan Valley had, the one

concern that was uppermost in their minds, was their determination to

protect their technology as long as possible. They negotiated at great

length with the

[ Page 2596 ]

Irish

Sugar Company, the company that is involved to a very large extent in

food and agriculture in the Republic of Ireland and which largely

controls the import and export of food products to and from the

Republic of Ireland. They have a lot of food processing within the

Republic of Ireland and they were very interested particularly in the

french-fry frozen product. They were anxious to get the technology,

anxious to make some kind of an agreement with the directors of Swan

Valley. It