1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

573 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Officials Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Act (Bill 47). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 573

Oral questions

B.C. Broiler Marketing Board. Mr. McClelland — 573

Columbia River Study. Mr. McGeer — 573

ICBC tenders. Mr. Bennett — 574

ICBC publicity re service. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 574

Grace period for vehicles without valid decals. Mr. Wallace — 574

Driver permit due date. Mr. Fraser — 575

Current number of ICBC applications. Mr. Curtis — 575

Greyhound bus franchises. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 575

Estimated ICBC applications. Mr. Curtis — 575

Possible agreement with B.C. body shops. Mr. Morrison — 576

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

Mr. Dent — 577

Mr. McClelland — 580

Hon. R.A. Williams — 584

Mr. L.A. Williams — 584

Hon. Ms. Young — 586

Mr. Smith — 587

Mr. Lewis — 588

Mr. Gardom — 591

Hon. Mr. Lea — 594

Mr. McGeer — 595

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 596

Mr. McGeer — 603

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 603

Mr. McClelland — 603

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 604

Mr. Gibson — 605

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 606

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 607

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 608

Hon. Mr. King — 609

Statement

Agreement between Automotive Retailers Association and ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 610

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there are a

group of students from Kitsilano High School visiting us today and they

are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Appen. I'd like the House to join

me in bidding them welcome.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, one of the very

innovative programmes the Department of Education and the Mission

School Board are introducing is called Education For Life. There are

six young fellows with their two leaders here in the galleries and I

would like you to welcome them.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in

the galleries today from the fair city of Revelstoke two ladies, Mrs.

Dorothy Wasylik, and Mrs. Dorothy Gullickson. They are accompanied by

my wife. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, are there any other matters — like matters of privilege or any points of order? (Laughter.)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Well, the invitation was put so kindly I couldn't pass it up, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

I would like to ask leave of the House, in order that we don't

inhibit debate, Mr. Speaker, on any important issues, to withdraw a

notice of motion, No. 17, on the order paper in my name.

MR. SPEAKER: That's on the Votes and Proceedings today? What page?

MR. McCLELLAND: Page 5 on Votes and Proceedings .

MR. SPEAKER: A notice of motion is treated precisely the same

as a motion and both of them have to be withdrawn with leave, according

to Speaker Irwin. That's at page 5, and it's to do with egg marketing.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS CONFLICT OF

INTEREST AND DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 47, Public Officials Conflict of

Interest and Disclosure Act, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

Oral questions.

B.C. BROILER MARKETING BOARD

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Agriculture. I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if at any

time did he tell the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing

Board that in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy

the Minister or his department were acting on orders from Premier

Barrett. Did you ever say: "It's out of my hands. The Premier has said

this is the way it will be."

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I certainly

recall discussing in my office with the broiler board when we were

talking about the plans for the industry. I certainly recall saying

then that it was party policy that there would be this movement from

the valley into the Interior of the province.

I don't recall saying that the Premier had ordered anything specific

be done other than that he expected me as Minister of Agriculture to

follow government policy and party policy as outlined during the

election campaign.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Did you ever

say to the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board:

"On the matter of Interior representation on the marketing board I

agree with the board on representation, but this is the word from the

Premier"?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I believe I did say at one stage that I did

agree with the board about their philosophy toward board

representation. And with that agreement in mind, agreed that there

would be no pressure on my part to put an Interior man on the board.

And that has not happened. The memorandum that went to the broiler

board did not insist that there be provisions for an Interior man on

that board. Now, I could not have said that anybody ordered it be done;

it hasn't happened.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that perhaps

since the Minister's estimates are up today, it might be wise to be

asking questions in his estimates rather than during question period

which consumes a lot of time.

COLUMBIA RIVER STUDY

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources:

[ Page 574 ]

Did he commission a study to be conducted on the

Columbia River and its ramifications by a Mr. Ian McDougall of

Dalhousie University? And if he did commission a study, has he received

that study?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, through British Columbia Hydro, and the study has been received.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question: When does the Minister intend to make that study public?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't, Mr. Speaker.

ICBC TENDERS

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

the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Regarding ICBC, is

there some method of giving preference to British Columbia companies in

the tender form or when the bids are close after a tender has been

called?

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

It's not formally set out as I recollect it, but it's certainly my hope

— I know it has been discussed, I don't think there's any decision been

made — that preference do be given to British Columbia companies — and

I would say no figures have been set.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental. In so much as the tenders were

called for carpeting in the ICBC offices throughout B.C., and in a

tender quotation of $129,000, the only B.C. company bidding was high by

only $611, why was this contract not let for B.C. carpet rather than

carpet from Montreal?

ICBC PUBLICITY RE SERVICE

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to take that as notice; I can't give you the answer now.

In the meantime while I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, the other day the

Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked me a question

regarding publicity for service after 12:01 on March 28. I was pretty

sure there had been information already released. And last Friday there

was a press release made which set out all of the phone numbers for

every part of the province, and ads are going in the dailies tomorrow.

The weekly — I think that is going in today.

BOOKSTORE STOCKING OF

THE JOY OF SEX

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A question to the Attorney-General – if I may catch his attention. Would the Attorney-General indicate whether

he or his department have yet determined about the availability in this province

of The Joy of Sex ?

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

certainly it is not for me to act as any kind of a censor of the

subject matter in that respect. In regard to the book itself, which has

been referred to in the newspapers, I checked — kind of anticipating

that there might be a question on that subject matter. And it appears

to have been lost in the mails, much to the distress of some of my

staff. (Laughter.)

If something like that is sent into the department, it's the

criminal code, but administration by the province. It will be

considered by the law officers of the Crown in the usual way. But

speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to do anything which might be

interpreted as bringing an indictment against the Creator himself in

respect to his works or instincts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General: I appreciate the humour which is attached to his

remarks, but I must also assume that the Attorney-General does not

treat lightly the removal of books from bookstores of this province.

And just because some book has been lost in the mail, is your

department not looking into the matter?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think this was part

of the Hon. Member's question originally. It was suggested in one of

the newspapers that prior to any prosecution, or something of that

kind, there's been a suggestion that a store should not do something or

other, and I don't think that would be a proper thing if it happened.

But I don't know whether it happened or not. I'm waiting for something

that will presumably be arriving in the department. I don't think it

would be proper, if that was the suggestion made, and I don't know that

it was made.

GRACE PERIOD FOR VEHICLES

WITHOUT VALID DECALS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, may I also ask the

Attorney-General if he or his department have had any discussions with

lower mainland police officials regarding a 15-day period of grace for

parked vehicles lacking valid decals after March 1?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't personally, but I'll take the question as notice and see

[ Page 575 ]

if any discussions have been had by anybody in my

department in that respect. I would rather doubt it because Motor

Vehicles is not in my department.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, this involves a breach of the

law which possibly the police officials are planning to overlook. Now,

what kind of system do we have in the province where possibly police

officials themselves decide to overlook breaches of the law? I'd like

to ask, in the event of the Minister's answer, will the full array of

penalties be imposed against anyone and everyone who is found to be

driving without insurance after February 28?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll take it as notice and see if any discussions have been held in my department.

DRIVER PERMIT DUE DATE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A question to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Is it correct that the driver permits

that are coming out will be due and payable on the same day that income

tax is due, April 30?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. FRASER: When?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It will be announced in due time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. Look, the forms haven't been sent

out yet. I told you the other day the forms will be sent out next week.

I told you there'd be lots of time. Now that's as far as it's gone so

far.

CURRENT NUMBER OF

ICBC APPLICATIONS

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

the Minister of Transport and Communications: Would the Minister inform

the House as to the latest number of processed or completed

applications for driver's insurance in British Columbia under Autoplan?

What figure has he received as recently as yesterday or today from ICBC

headquarters?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The indication I had from ICBC yesterday

was that somewhere between 850,000 and 900,000 vehicles is their

estimate of the number who have already purchased their automobile

insurance and with it the decals that are required before you can

operate a vehicle on the roads in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out, Hon. Members, what we really

need is a graph on the wall that could be kept up to date. That

question has been asked so many times. (Laughter.)

GREYHOUND BUS FRANCHISES

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have another question which was asked

the other day and I took it as notice. Somebody asked me a question

about the Greyhound buses. I forgot just who it was; someone over there

asked me if the Greyhound buses were having their franchise cancelled.

I'm informed, after I checked with the Motor Carrier Commission, that

Greyhound buses do not have a franchise. What they have are a number of

licences to operate in different parts of the province on the mainland.

So far as we know, none of the licences have been changed in any way,

and no applications for changes have been made.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same?

ESTIMATED ICBC APPLICATIONS

MR. CURTIS: I had a supplementary before the Minister's statement, with your permission.

The Minister, then, I take it disagrees with the estimate made by

the president of the B.C. Automobile Association that some 400,000

motorists have yet to pick up their insurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If that's what the man said, then certainly.... But that's his estimate, and we have our own estimates.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What would be the Minister's estimate as to the number of unlicensed vehicles as of today?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I can't give it to you as of today.

I indicated that as of yesterday the information that I had was that

there was 850,000. Now I would suggest that perhaps....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not 850,000 yet to come?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, you said unlicensed. No, 850,000

licensed. I would expect that the estimate from the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia would be much closer than that of the

president of B.C. Automobile Association.

[ Page 576 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, on the

same subject. In view of the fact that the driver insurance is being

made retroactive until March 1, is there any provision for automobile

insurance not purchased prior to that date being made retroactive?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, there's no suggestion that automobile

insurance can be made retroactive. You get it, it's valid as of the

time you purchase it — as of March 1 and after.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how can the Minister justify having the

insurance which the driver must purchase made retroactive when the

actual insurance on the automobile is not going to be made retroactive?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that is argumentative, surely.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am merely asking him for an explanation, Mr. Speaker.

POSSIBLE AGREEMENT WITH

B.C. BODY SHOPS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question also to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Could he advise the House what the current situation is

with the body shops in the Province of British Columbia at this moment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. I had a discussion one night last

week over the telephone with a Mr. Kinnaird — I don't know whether he's

executive secretary or.... There was a discussion yesterday. There was

a discussion this morning, and I'm optimistic that an agreement will be

reached.

MR. MORRISON: This is to do with the same question. I don't

consider that that was an answer. I wanted to know what the current

situation was. Are you saying that nothing yet has been settled? Is

that the point that I interpret from your answer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With a very substantial number it is

settled, yes. With a very substantial number. And discussions are

taking place with the others.

MR. MORRISON: Can you tell us the number?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm trying to think of the figures; if I

took the time I could probably dig them out of here. But the estimate

is that about between 50 and 60 per cent have already agreed to accept

the first offer. The negotiations and the talks are still going forward

with the others. Now, that's as much as I can tell you.

MR. CURTIS: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, but to the

Minister of Labour. Will non-union auto body shops be subject to

provisions of the Public Works Fair Employment Act after March 1 when

they will be receiving public funds for auto body work undertaken?

MR. SPEAKER: I would say....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't ask propositions of law to Ministers. That's handled by the police and magistrates, surely.

MR. CURTIS: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, this

is a matter of

interpretation of the Public Works Fair Employment Act.

It's simple: it's a Crown corporation and there will be public funds

expended.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm quite agreeable to your argument, but

I point out it says: "You must not ask the solution of a legal

proposition such as

interpretation of a statute, the Minister's own

powers," et cetera. That's an item on page 147, Beauchesne .

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I don't accept anyone's legal advice. Maybe that's why I have problems sometimes in the chair.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Minister was prepared to answer.

MR. SPEAKER: That may well be, but I don't say that he has

the right to answer simply because you want him to. I think there

should be one more question because I took up time arguing this point.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications: Does he have any figures from ICBC as to

the number of overpaid premiums that they've received, and will

interest be allowed on those overpaid premiums?

MR. SPEAKER: I thought that had been asked before.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and I answered it, as I recollect it.

I answered it twice, as a matter of fact. I answered it once, "no

interest" — no, I told you I

[ Page 577 ]

would take it as notice, and then I told you it was being considered. It is still being considered.

As to the estimate of the number, you will have to wait and see how

many come in. I've made a public estimate — how long ago? Oh, I guess

six weeks ago or longer — that we expected somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 15 per cent.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MR. DENT (Skeena): As the MLA for Skeena I would like to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, and on behalf of the problems which he faces.

We have one egg producer in the whole of the northwest of British

Columbia, serving a very large population including Prince Rupert,

Kitimat, Terrace, Hazelton, Stewart and all other points in the area —

one egg producer with a quota assigned to him by the Egg Marketing

Board of 200 cases per week of eggs. This is in an area where the

consumption is in excess of 2,000 cases of eggs per week.

The owner of this poultry operation was a Mr. Nick Samsom. The

present owner, because it was sold, is a Mr. Stan Kincaid. There was an

implication made...

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you state your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: I wonder if the Member for Skeena is reading from last night's Blues .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's a point of order. Continue your speech.

MR. DENT: A statement was made by at least three of the

Members of the Liberal Party which concerned me about this man, or

first about Mr. Samsom and then his successor, Mr. Kincaid — but mainly

Mr. Samsom, who was the owner of the farm at that time.

Now the statement was made, and I'm only quoting from Hansard

for the particular comments of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson). He was referring to Mr. Kovachich and, because Mr.

Kovachich was a member of the New Democratic Party, implying that the

government was acting in a manner...which was being nice to a political

friend or somebody who is associated with the government.

But this is an injustice, in my view, to my constituent, or former

constituent, Mr. Samsom. Mr. Samsom at no time has ever been associated

with the New Democratic Party or been a member of the New Democratic

Party. He has had a case, a legitimate case, which he has carried over

the years and taken up with the Egg Marketing Board and with others.

He's simply an ordinary citizen, and I don't know what his political

affiliation is. He's never told me; he's never told anyone, to my

knowledge. He may be a Liberal, for all I know. He may be a

Conservative or a Social Credit.

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

was in no way implying that the Hon. Member's constituent was a member

of the New Democratic Party. I was referring to the other gentleman,

Mr. Kovachich.

MR. DENT: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that these

two men were treated equally. That is, their cases were considered in

the same manner. Therefore, what was said about one would apply to the

other, in my judgment, and therefore it casts some doubt as to the

integrity of Mr. Samsom, and I think that is not good at all.

I would like to put in the record that Mr. Samsom at no time has

ever used any kind of political influence. He's never been associated

with our party. He is simply a citizen who had a problem and, as I

said, he may be a Liberal or a Tory, or whatever. I just never asked

him. That is the first thing that I would like to set straight.

Now the second point is that these men in the north, particularly

Mr. Samsom, and more recently Mr. Kincaid, the present owner of

Samsom's Poultry, have had a desire to expand their own production

above the 200-case limit in the absence of other new producers in the

area. The Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) said that nobody else wanted

to set up a business there. However, they have also prevented the

existing operator from increasing beyond the 200-case limit.

I just want to quote a statement that was made about this situation

by Mr. Brunsdon, the former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board, in

which he's describing the board's position vis--vis the egg producers

in the north — and it also would apply to Samsom's Poultry.

"The present situation in the egg board's case began

almost three years ago when Interior producers, particularly at Prince

George and west to Terrace, began demanding larger egg production

quotas. 'The board refused until

[ Page 578 ]

some of the producers paid their board levies, said Bill Brunsdon, former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board.'"

And Mr. Brunsdon continues:

"The argument was that they should be allowed to

supply more eggs to local markets, and that eggs from the lower

mainland coming into the area should be cut back."

That's in terms of quota. Mr. Brunsdon continues:

"We agreed to quota increases, but only over a period."

I assume he means a long period, and these are Mr. Brunsdon's words:

"You can't switch markets around overnight. We could

have issued quota increases, but that didn't assure them that their

eggs would have been bought. The board can't direct chain stores and

wholesalers where to buy."

These are the words of Mr. Brunsdon. And I just want to repeat them

so that we understand exactly what he is saying. He says, "but that

didn't assure them" — that is, the local producers in Terrace and in

the north — "that their eggs would have been bought. The board can't

direct chain stores and wholesalers where to buy."

Now the implication, as clearly as I can understand it, in those

words is that what the former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board has

said is that nobody would buy those northern eggs if their quota was

increased. Or at least there was no assurance that they could sell any

increased production of eggs in Terrace or in Prince George.

Now I'll just repeat it again so that we will understand that that's

what was said: "...but that did not assure them that their eggs would

have been bought"...if the quota had been increased. "The board can't

direct chain stores and wholesalers where to buy."

Now is everyone clear that that's what Mr. Brunsdon has said? He is

of the opinion that if there was an increase in quota granted suddenly,

there's a good possibility that they wouldn't be able to sell their

increased production locally, because maybe the chains wouldn't buy

these eggs.

I would like to read now into the record two letters. One is from

Burns Foods Limited, addressed to Samsom's Poultry. One is from Kelly

Douglas and Company, also concerning Samsom's Poultry.

From Burns Foods Limited, November 7, 1973:

"Dear Sirs,

"In the past we have had some of your eggs, and the demand

for Terrace eggs in the area is very great. All our accounts in Prince Rupert

would like your eggs every week, due to their superior quality and freshness.

We would like to distribute your eggs in this area. Our weekly requirements

would be" — how much — "about 400 cases per week. Please advise if this is possible

and, if so, when we can expect to get eggs from you on a weekly basis."

What could be clearer than that in terms of a request for locally produced fresh eggs from the Terrace area.

And from Kelly Douglas. What is Kelly Douglas? Is that a small operator in Terrace? That's a chain.

"We would like it to be possible for us to purchase 300 cases of

grade A large cartons of eggs per week." There is nothing, in my

judgment, clearer than that. It was signed R. McKay, Produce Manager.

This is from the Prince Rupert branch of Kelly Douglas.

Now I want to repeat again that the area served consists not just of

Terrace; it consists of Prince Rupert, of Kitimat, of Terrace, of

Smithers, of Hazelton, of Stewart, and all other smaller points. It's a

very large population area. One producer, 200 cases of quota per week

that he's allowed — and the consumption is in excess of 2,000 cases per

week. And there's a demand for his eggs.

Now anybody with any free enterprise common sense would see that if

the man can produce a good product locally for the needs of the people

there, then the way the system should work is that he should be able to

grow to meet that demand. In fact, from what was read into the record

by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), the egg producers were of

the view that they were going to be able to grow with the market to

some extent.

I recognize the fact that the Egg Marketing Board has a federally

applied quota of 12 per cent production for national quota, and that

fixes the amount of production allowed in B.C. under the agreement. I

appreciate the fact that they are already up to this amount mostly, and

therefore it is not possible for them to increase quota in the

territory without going above the nationally applied figures. However,

there are other means.

Now I am confident, very confident, that the Minister, who has been

applying himself to this problem diligently on our behalf in the north,

will try to discover some kind of solution to this problem, or that the

Egg Marketing Board will find some kind of solution.

However, I frankly do not have confidence in the Egg Marketing Board

resolving this problem on our behalf. And I don't blame them. You know

they have a very good title; they're called the B.C. Egg Marketing

Board. But the north half of B.C. obviously does not come into their

calculations.

Now I don't blame them. They mostly live in the Fraser Valley, and

majority rules. If they have a meeting of egg producers, why, of

course, if they pass anything by majority, the Fraser Valley always

wins. That's the way it works — the majority rules. So we're just

shafted for the rest of our days until such time as we.... I can't see

any hope that the majority

[ Page 579 ]

of the Fraser Valley producers would have any

compassion about us. Why should they? They've got the Fraser Valley to

worry about.

But I think they're misnamed; I think they should be called the

Fraser Valley Egg Marketing Board, and not the B.C. Egg Marketing

Board. I lack confidence in their ability to relate to our particular

problems.

One final point. There is a practice carried on which I think is

worth noting. Viewed from the consumers' point of view on the short

term it's great news; it's called "dumping." I think we all know what

dumping is. Dumping is when somebody has sold all they can sell in the

prime market area, they then take what they can't sell and they find a

nice place where they can sell it really cheap and recover some of

their costs and get rid of it. This practice is carried on by many

businesses.

I sold Christmas trees once and we did the same thing. I sold all

the good trees I could up until the last minute, and then we sold all

the rest for 50 cents apiece to whoever would come and get them —

because it would recover some of our costs. It's a good practice. But I

wish to heck they wouldn't use us for a dumping ground, because it

really upsets our whole system up there.

I received a telegram from my fellow MLA from Fort George because he

was concerned about it. It says this...and we work together a little

bit on these problems:

DUMPING REPORTED IN PRINCE GEORGE AGAIN TODAY. WOODWARDS DUMPING

59.9 CENTS PER DOZEN EGGS IN THE PRINCE GEORGE AREA.

Now that's a good price for the consumer, a very good price. I'm

sure that the consumers on that day were very happy to buy the eggs at

such a nice price. I'm sure they would be happy in Vancouver to get

such a good price. But it was bad news for our producers in the north,

bad news for our producers.

If they're supplying certain stores and they have to try to

guarantee supply week by week and maintain a certain production and

tramp through the snow drifts and the 20 or 30 below zero weather, and

keep the chickens alive and all the problems that they have to worry

about that they don't have to worry about in the Fraser Valley, and

then they suddenly find that their eggs are being undersold by 30 or 40

cents a dozen, it is really bad news. The egg producers that were left

in the Peace River were wiped out by that practice.

Now I ask you: what has the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

or the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) done to defend their

egg producers in the days when they had egg producers?

AN HON. MEMBER: You said there weren't any in the Peace River.

MR. DENT: They've been wiped out. They have been wiped out. They used to be there.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They have not been wiped out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You'll have your chance to speak. Let the Member continue his speech.

MR. DENT: If the Hon. Member for South Peace River can name

one registered egg producer in the Peace River area, I would be glad to

get his name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: My point of order is that one gentleman by the

name of John Watkins, who was the NDP candidate in the 1972 August

election, is a very large egg producer in....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. You can make your speech later on.

MR. PHILLIPS: He asked me to name one, Mr. Chairman, after all. Be fair to the poor Member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are a lot of things asked for across this floor. Continue your speech and he can make his when his turn comes.

MR. DENT: According to the names that were provided me by the

Egg Producing Board in a letter which I received from them, there were

no producers in the Peace River. Now maybe this man is operating on the

side outside the marketing system.

I want to conclude by making this statement. I think the issue is

very clear in this whole matter. From our point of view in the north,

this is a battle between the Fraser Valley producers and the rest of

the province outside of the lower mainland.

The fact is that in my view the Fraser Valley producers will not be

happy until they've wiped out every producer in the rest of the

province and have the entire market to themselves, and can happily

shove Fraser Valley eggs down our throats whether they're fresh, rotten

or whatever they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are good eggs.

MR. DENT: I'm sure they are good eggs in the Fraser Valley.

But the fact is that that letter from Burns clearly indicated that the

desire of the people in my area is for fresh, locally-produced eggs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Member who has just taken his seat suggested that certain members of the Liberal Party had accused a

[ Page 580 ]

constituent of his who is an egg producer, and

another constituent of the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler), of

improper action. I'd like to set the record straight and say that at no

time did we accuse these people of improper actions. We accused the

Premier, the Minister of Agriculture and that Member of improper

actions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you'll have a chance to say it again if you wish.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The previous speaker made only

one bit of sense in his whole speech, and that was when he said the

issue was very clear. But he didn't understand the issue; he didn't get

it. The issue has nothing to do with the expansion of markets into

other parts of the province.

I believe in the expansion of markets, agricultural markets, in

other parts of the province. The real issue, Mr. Chairman, has nothing

to do with that expansion. The real issue is the political interference

by the Premier of this province in marketing boards which have been

duly set up by the provincial government.

The Premier's action has gone much farther than just a simple

meeting arranged by the Premier to attempt to reconcile some

differences. Far more important than that is the Premier's direct

interference.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The Minister of Agriculture wants to resign. He's said it twice.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich), Mr. Chairman, had been progressing very favourably with the

people from the marketing boards to attempt to establish an increased

market area for British Columbia. The actions of the Minister of

Agriculture had progressed to the point where we are now in the process

of developing a processing plant in the Interior of British Columbia,

probably in the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis) constituency. If that

isn't some kind of political interference, I don't know what it is.

Those negotiations had been going on very well. The marketing board,

particularly the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, was in

agreement with the expansion because of the processing plant which then

made it economically possible to do that expansion. But the whole

affair was messed up because the Premier got his fingers into it and

started to meddle with the results that had already been achieved.

At the present time, Mr. Chairman, a significant number of very

credible people have different understandings of the facts and the

sequence of events in this whole matter of interference with the

marketing board. They are sufficiently concerned about the sequence of

events in relation to these matters to have gone on record with signed,

sworn affidavits, pointing out what they believe has been the sequence

of events, and what they believe to be the interference by the Premier

— the measure of interference by the Premier.

Not only has it been those people who are at the heads of their

various marketing agencies, but they are also developing growing

support from their own peers within the industry. The evidence of that

has been showing up in the news reports.

I must repeat that there is nobody in opposition to the expansion of

the broiler industry throughout the Province of British Columbia where

it is economically feasible. And if you had left your Minister of

Agriculture to deal with the people involved, that would have happened

in an orderly manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was doing a good job.

MR. McCLELLAND: He was doing a good job, but he was

interfered with. The Premier made his job that much more difficult.

It's now to the situation where people have had to go out and swear

affidavits to get their position cleared up.

There has been a series of questions asked of the Minister of

Agriculture and the Premier of British Columbia laid down in the latest

affidavit made by the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler

Marketing Board, Mr. D. Bruce McAninch.

I think it's only fair that those questions be asked for the record

in this House. Beginning with what is listed as No. 4 in the affidavit:

"That on the 12th day of December, 1973, at or about the hour of 2

o'clock in the afternoon...."

I might say that we're not asking anyone to stretch their memory

back 18 months or 16 months or 12 months or 8 months; only a couple of

months. All of these meetings have taken place in the very recent

future, so it shouldn't be stretching your memory cells too much to

recall what went on in these meetings.

"THAT on the 12th day of December, 1973, at or about

the hour of 2 o'clock in the afternoon, I attended at the office of the

Hon. David Stupich, Minister of Agriculture for the Province of British

Columbia, at Victoria, British Columbia, and then and there personally

presented to the said Minister the broiler permit policy...."

It's attached, as well, to the series of affidavits which I would be prepared to table before the House if the House so desires.

The question to the Minister, then, is did he attend at this meeting

and was he presented with the broiler permit policy which was

established by the British Columbia broiler growers' board, the Boiler

Marketing Board?

[ Page 581 ]

The affidavit continues:

"THAT I was informed by the said Minister that the

said broiler permit policy was acceptable to him and that the Minister

said to me: 'This is fine with me,' or similar words to the same

effect."

In other words, according to the chairman of the British Columbia

Broiler Marketing Board, the Minister of Agriculture agreed with the

stated policy with regard to a broiler permit policy and the whole

question of expansion into the Okanagan-Kamloops area.

The affidavit continues:

"THAT on the 22nd day of December, 1973, I received

from the said Minister of Agriculture a telegram, which telegram

requested that the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board rescind the new broiler

board order No. 1M-76, which order is contained in

schedule 'AA' to

this my affidavit, pending further discussion with the Interior broiler

production industry and Department of Agriculture. The said telegram is

annexed hereto as

schedule 'B' to this my affidavit."

The Minister said yesterday that he did recall sending such a

telegram and that it did deal with those regulations which had to do

with the transfer of quota from the Fraser Valley and other quota

regulations in the Fraser Valley. The Minister said he sent that

telegram.

The affidavit continues:

"THAT upon receipt of the telegram annexed hereto as

schedule 'B' I, as chairman of the said marketing board, requested a

meeting with the said Minister on the 27th or the 28th day of December,

1973, for the purpose of discussing the new broiler permit policy

contained in

schedule 'AA' hereto and board order No. 1M-76 contained

in

schedule 'AA' hereto."

The question to the Minister is, first of all, did he get that

request for a meeting and, secondly, did he cancel order No. IM-76, and

is that in fact an application of pressure from the Agriculture

department on the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board? The

affidavit continues:

"THAT the 28th day of December, 1973, I received a

telegram from the said Minister informing me as chairman of the said

marketing board that there would be no advantage to meeting on the 28th

day of December, 1973, and that further that the order No. IM-76 was

totally unacceptable. A copy of the said telegram is annexed hereto as

schedule 'C' to this my affidavit."

The question to the Minister with regard to that has to do with a

statement the Minister made in the House yesterday that there was no

way that that Minister can order any marketing board in British

Columbia to take any kind of action. The Minister said that was beyond

his jurisdiction. Yet we see in a telegram from the Minister to the

Broiler Marketing Board the words that the order No. IM-76 was totally

unacceptable. Now, how do you reconcile that with the Minister's

statement that he has no jurisdiction to interfere with the operation

of the board or to order it to do anything?

The affidavit continues:

"THAT on the 5th day of February, 1974, at or about

the hour of 9 o'clock in the forenoon I attended at the office of

Maurice King, Associate Deputy Minister of Agriculture, at Victoria,

B.C.

"THAT present then and there in the office of Mr. King

were Maurice King, S.B. Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture,

William Wood, B.C. Department of Agriculture poultry commissioner, and

Richard Arthur Stafford, manager, B.C. Broiler Marketing Board, and

Harry Liedtke and Les Harbidge, both members of the B.C. Broiler

Marketing Board.

"THAT I was then and there informed by the said Mr.

Peterson that the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of the Province of British

Columbia, had ordered that instead of the broiler permit policy

contained in

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

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

nine broiler producers be allocated 5,000 birds per cycle."

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, we asked that question yesterday: how

do you pick the two? I suggested there was a committee made up of three

people. The Minister has answered that one of those persons, I believe,

has accepted; we're waiting for acceptance of invitations from two

others.

But it's interesting, nonetheless, that none of those people are

members of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board and that no

members of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board were invited to

be on this committee. I don't recall any criteria set down by which

those two people would be accepted and I don't recall any criteria by

which the other nine would be rejected from having that kind of an

increased quota. Those are questions the Minister needs to answer.

Also, is it true that Mr. Peterson, the Deputy Minister of

Agriculture, told the members of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing

Board that the Premier had ordered that that would take place?

The affidavit continues:

"THAT I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that

[ Page 582 ]

a committee of three be appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett."

The affidavit continues:

"THAT at or about the hour of 9:45 o'clock in the

forenoon on the 5th day of February, 1974, the Hon. David Stupich,

Minister of Agriculture, attended at Mr. King's office.

"That Mr. Stupich informed me that the Department of

Agriculture in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit

policy was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Stupich informed

me: 'It's out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will

be'...."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SCHROEDER: That's different than what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read that again.

MR. McCLELLAND: "...Mr. Stupich informed me: 'It's out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be'...."

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a social worker, isn't he?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if this kind of a statement was

just contained in some kind of corridor comment or if it was contained

in a press clipping in an interview with some chicken producer

somewhere, it wouldn't matter; it wouldn't make very much difference.

You could probably slough it off. But it's contained in a signed, sworn

affidavit by the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing

Board; it's backed up by the secretary-manager of the British Columbia

Broiler Marketing Board; and it's backed up by the members of the

British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, all of whom have indicated in

very nearly the same words exactly what happened at that meeting in

Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Members on the opposite side are on very

shallow ground when they talk about vested interest. After some of the

comments we have heard in this House and some of the speeches we've

heard in this House from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), they're

very shallow to be talking about vested interests in this matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Continue your speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: I shall.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell the Attorney-General to quit threatening the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the affidavit continues:

"THAT I as chairman of the B.C. Broiler Marketing

Board informed the government representatives at the said meeting that

to allow 2 of the 11 Kamloops-Okanagan broiler producers to be

allocated 20,000 per cycle and 9 broiler producers to be allocated

5,000 per cycle was not acceptable to the board."

There is another important question contained in all of this, Mr.

Chairman. We have asked the Minister of Agriculture in this House

yesterday afternoon, during question period, during the Minister's

estimates and again last evening during the Minister's estimates over

and over again about his order to have two producers in the

Okanagan-Kamloops area to have a quota allocated of 20,000 birds per

cycle. We have yet to have any kind of an answer from the Minister with

regard to that question: whether or not that order was given by anyone,

up to and including the Premier of British Columbia.

The affidavit continues:

"THAT the matter of broiler production permits for the

Kamloops-Okanagan was left unresolved as far as the Broiler Marketing

Board was concerned."

The Minister told us in the House yesterday that the matter had been

resolved and that the Broiler Marketing Board had agreed to the new

figures he mentioned, and those figures are contained in the next

section of the affidavit which says:

"17) THAT on the 11th day of February, 1973, at or

about the hour of 8 o'clock in the forenoon, I attended upon the Hon.

Mr. Stupich at his office...."

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: "...at or about the hour of 8 o'clock in the forenoon." I don't know whether that's standard or daylight time, Mr. Chairman.

"...I attended upon the Hon. Mr. Stupich at his

office. At that time and place, the Minister informed me that he wanted

broiler production permits for the Kamloops-Okanagan area to be set at

8,000 birds per cycle for 11 producers, plus an additional 5,000 birds

per cycle secondary permits when the Interior

[ Page 583 ]

poultry plant becomes operational."

Now, Mr. Chairman, some questions again need to be answered with

this matter. The Minister, with respect, hasn't cleared this whole

matter up. I ask the Minister whether or not he agreed to a proposal

made by the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board that the quota for

the 11 producers in the Kamloops-Okanagan area would be set at 5,000

birds per cycle — to a total yearly production of 25,000 birds, as I

understand it.

Now the Broiler Marketing Board has outlined that in their broiler

quota policy — those figures. And the Broiler Marketing Board has said

that the Minister agreed with those figures. The words again are: "This

is fine with me." Yet on another occasion, on February 11, a few weeks

later, the Minister is talking about 8,000 birds per cycle, with an

additional 5,000 birds secondary permit. The Minister said in the House

yesterday that the broiler board had agreed to this new quota of 8,000

birds per cycle.

I wonder whether the Minister cares to alter that opinion at this

time, in the light of your previous answers to my questions and in the

light of the statement made by the British Columbia Broiler Marketing

Board where they say: "The matter is left unresolved" — as far as the

Broiler Marketing Board was concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the affidavit continues:

"18) THAT further at the said meeting the Minister wanted an Interior broiler grower placed on the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board.

"19) THAT I informed the Minister that members of the

B.C. Broiler Marketing Board are elected at large and that the placing

of an Interior representative on the said board was contrary to the

constitution of the board.

"20) THAT I further informed the Minister that in the

absence of the full marketing board membership, I could not

accept...those permit terms."

He is referring again to the 8,000 birds:

"...I could not accept the permit terms set forth in paragraph 17 of this, my affidavit.

"21) THAT the Minister informed me that he agreed with the marketing board position on at-large representation."

The Minister agreed. The Minister has indicated again today that he agrees with that position. The affidavit says:

"...using the following words: 'I agree with the board on representation, but this

is the word from the Premier.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you say it again?

MR. McCLELLAND: "I agree with the board on representation, but this is the word from the Premier."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: The affidavit continues:

"22) THAT I then and there proposed to the Minister

that consideration be given to two Interior broiler producers becoming

directors of the British Columbia Broiler Growers Association.

"23) THAT the Minister informed me that he would

discuss this proposal with Premier Barrett and that the Minister would

shortly contact the board.

"24) THAT on the 22nd of February, 1974, I received

from the Minister of Agriculture a copy of a memorandum dated February

12, 1974, and directed to the Hon. David Barrett, Premier, which

memorandum is...also attached to this affidavit.

All the way through this whole affidavit, all the way through this

whole question of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board, the British

Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, we see the involvement of the Premier

of British Columbia, in a much more active role than the Premier has

indicated, as a sort of coordinator to sort out the problems of a

couple of spoiled children. It's far more than that.

It's progressed far more than that, until the question now is: how

much direct involvement by the Premier of British Columbia was there in

the operation of the marketing boards? I suggest, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister and to this House, that this whole area had

better be opened up to some serious discussion and to some serious

answers to questions because those questions aren't being answered.

None of them are being answered at this time.

I want first just to summarize, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I

want answers to the questions about the statements attributed to the

Minister, that "it's out of my hands." The Premier has said, "this is

the way it will be." We need answers to the questions about the

Minister's quotes of: "I agree with the board, but this is the word

from the Premier."

I want answers to the question: isn't it true that the matter of

broiler production permits from the Kamloops-Okanagan area is still not

resolved, regardless of what the Minister has said? I want answers to

the question in which the Minister has said that the broiler growers

had agreed to those new quotas of 8,000 birds per cycle — and whether

or not he'd like to alter that opinion.

I want answers to the question about whether or not the negotiations

being carried on between the Minister's office and the marketing boards

in British Columbia have been substantially threatened because of that

interference by outside sources. I think that's the real issue, Mr.

Member for Skeena. It has nothing to do with anything else.

[ Page 584 ]

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

The Hon. Member for Langley, Mr. Chairman, asks the questions, but there are

some fundamental questions that need asking in this House — fundamental questions

about the concentration of this industry in the central Fraser Valley, in the

riding of Langley, in the riding of Chilliwack. That's where the great concentration

of this industry is.

We could legitimately have producers throughout the province. It's a

nice vest-pocket arrangement in the central heartland of Social Credit

in the central Fraser Valley. That's why we're hearing from the Member

the way we are. It's an interest that's interested in perpetuating

itself.

You get the impression from the Member for Langley that this is some

kind of broad provincial organization that represents the people from

Terrace, from Skeena, from the north, from the Okanagan, from Shuswap.

Is that the kind of organization it is?

It's an organization elected by the producers in your vest-pocket

area in the central Fraser Valley. You know that. That's the real

issue. The whole question of increasing quotas in that basic, narrow

area — your heartland — is the question.

What about the farmers and producers that can be established in

Skeena, in the North Okanagan? What about developing secondary industry

in relation to agriculture in these other regions? It was never done in

the days of Social Credit. Clearly we intend to see secondary

industrial development related to agriculture in the other regions of

the province, and not just have the old pattern of nest-feathering,

which was the pattern under Social Credit in your riding, and your

riding primarily — that central Social Credit heartland.

The people of British Columbia, the consumers of British Columbia,

continue to pay to this day for your kind of quota system, your kind of

special privilege system that resides in the lower mainland, an area

where we don't have to have the new growth. We can do something in the

other parts of the province and get growth, get production and a

different kind of system that is not related just to the few that

you're standing here protecting today, Mr. Member.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I think that

it's important, when we are considering the salary of the Minister of

Agriculture, that we have just the kind of contribution to this debate

that we have enjoyed from the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. We always do enjoy his contributions because they make so

clear the problem that truly faces the people of British Columbia at

this particular time.

He talks about the producers and secondary industry and so on, but,

Mr. Chairman, I happen to have a great deal of concern for the

consumers of agricultural products in this province. We are paying

every day increasing prices for eggs and milk and beef and all other

agricultural products.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Right on!

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you haven't got the message, Mr.

Member, to your cabinet, because if one of the problems in this

province is marketing — and I suspect that it is — and if one of the

problems in this province is how these agricultural products are

produced, then we're not making much advance to the solution of this

difficulty. We certainly aren't making any advance by the kind of

political interference which is being clearly portrayed on the part of

the Premier in the conduct of a Minister and his department; and that's

the whole issue.

For the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to stand

up and say that we want to keep the thing in the Fraser Valley — that's

nonsense! But we have orderly marketing systems in the Province of

British Columbia and, Mr. Chairman, I remind all the Members that they

exist not only in the case of eggs, not only in the case of broilers,

but in the case of milk, turkeys, fruit — you name it.

We've got an orderly marketing scheme in the Province of British

Columbia, and if it is not working to the benefit of the producer and

the consumer in British Columbia, then it needs to be changed. But it

needs to be changed, Mr. Chairman, by the Minister of Agriculture and

competent officials in his department working with the existing

organizations to bring about those changes, not by political

interference by the Premier of this province, a renowned social worker

who wants to practise his experience as a marriage counsellor among

farmers.

That's what these affidavits prove, and that is why we are so

concerned when we are discussing the salary of this Minister of whom, I

suspect, most of the Members on the opposition side have the greatest

respect.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that the Members on all sides who sit on the

agriculture committee have respect for this Minister. We know what he

is doing, but we do not like to see the Premier and Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) meddling in his responsibilities. If we can get

nothing else across to this committee than that during the course of

this debate, then we will have made a major step forward to solving

some of the problems that face agriculture in British Columbia today.

Let the Minister of Agriculture deal with agriculture.

[ Page 585 ]

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Keep the Premier's hands off your chickens!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. The reason we are asking the

Minister of Agriculture to stand in this House and give us the answers

is so that it will be clear to all the Members on all sides of this

House the extent to which the Premier's interference is fouling up the

proper development of programmes by the Department of Agriculture.

We've heard a lot from a lot of the backbenchers, and I must say I

was very concerned, when I happened to see a copy of the affidavit to

which the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) just referred, to

find that the Minister's memorandum to the Hon. Premier of February 12,

1974 — and that's not very long ago — was also sent to G. Anderson,

MLA, chairman of the NDP caucus and agriculture committee and Don Lewis

— I assume that's the MLA for Shuswap.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Why, Mr. Chairman, are these matters,

passing between two Ministers of the Crown, namely the Minister of

Agriculture and the Premier, being made available to private Members of

this House on a limited, restricted basis?

I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the reason was given during question

period today by the Minister of Agriculture when he responded to the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) with regard to matters of policy.

He said that what was being done was party policy, and then he

attempted to correct himself to say it was government policy. Well, I

think we're entitled to know, when we're considering in this committee

whether the Minister is entitled to his salary — the Minister who has

charge of these particular responsibilities — whether he is being

guided by government policy established by the executive council, or

whether he is being governed by party policy, which is set by someone

outside this House and outside this government.

Those are the kinds of answers that we have to have from the Minister at this particular time.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I must say that I can understand why

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

Williams) would think that his party policy and the government policy

are the same, because certainly the president of his party believes

that it should be, although he seems to have some difficulty in

convincing the Hon. Premier that that is, in fact, the case. What does

the Premier say about it?

MR. FRASER: Where is he?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we might as well add all of

the material that is available to this particular debate. The Hon.

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has referred to an affidavit sworn

by Mr. McAninch, chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing

Board.

I understand there is another affidavit, Mr. Chairman, a copy of

which I have. It is an affidavit of Richard Arthur Stafford. He's the

manager of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, and he

confirms in the affidavit many of the matters which were dealt with by

Mr. McAninch in his.

I would just like to refer to two paragraphs of this affidavit, which was sworn on February 23 — not very long ago.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Paragraph 15.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, this isn't paragraph 15, it's only paragraph 9, but I'm glad you asked me because I'm going to read paragraph 8. It says:

"that about the hour of 9:45 o'clock in the forenoon

on the 5th of February, the Hon. David Stupich, Minister of

Agriculture, attended at Mr. King's office. Mr. Stupich informed me" —

that's Mr. Stafford who is informed — "that the Department of

Agriculture, in the matter o f the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit

policy, was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett. And Mr. Stupich informed

me: 'It is out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it

will be...."

MR. McCLELLAND: Sounds familiar, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: "...or similar words to that effect." So

here we have not one but two sworn affidavits, sworn statements of

people who, from their personal knowledge, having dealings with the

Minister of Agriculture and members of his department, testify....

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): What was the date of the affidavit?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The 23rd of this month.

MR. CUMMINGS: When was the incident?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The incident was on the 5th — 18 days before.

Interjection.

[ Page 586 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The 5th of February, 1974. The affidavit was the 23rd of February, 1974 — 18 days!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, even you could remember something 18 days, Mr. Member!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: At any rate, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is

interfering with this Minister's responsibility, and I want to hear the

Minister indicate whether he agrees that in the management of his

Ministerial responsibilities, he is obliged to act to the dictates of

the Premier of this province in matters of policy affecting

agriculture. If that is to be the case, then maybe we should consider

whether or not we should pass this particular vote until we have had an

opportunity to consider the Premier's estimates.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to enter this debate on the behalf of the consumers

of this province — all of the consumers, north and south.

MR. CHABOT: How about east?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I have received many, many letters from the

time that I first spoke about consumer affairs in this House, to the

time I was appointed Minister Without Portfolio, to the time that I was

appointed Minister of Consumer Services. I have received numerous

letters dealing with marketing boards — fruit marketing boards, milk

marketing boards, egg marketing boards — and a great many of them, a

large percentage of them wanted to know why and how these boards have

such a stranglehold control on the marketing of produce and the

products of this province. They don't understand marketing boards.

The average consumer — 99.9 per cent of consumers — couldn't care

less about all the affidavits filed anywhere about who said what to

whom on what day. They couldn't care less. What they are concerned

about is the price of eggs in the local supermarket, which is 91 cents

a dozen right now. That's what they are concerned about. They don't

care. They want to know how in the world the price of eggs in B.C. is

the highest in Canada. That's what they're concerned about. They don't

know how the Egg Marketing Board arrives at these figures.

And then we get into the Milk Board, too. That's another one they're unhappy about. We get letters about the Milk Board.

Now, the concept of marketing boards is good.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against the farmer?

HON. MS. YOUNG: You wouldn't know, Hon. Member, because you're not a farmer.

The concept of marketing boards is good. It is meant to stabilize

the market to provide the supply to meet the demand. That is the basis

for marketing boards. It has always been this, and I can agree with

that. We've had marketing boards for a long time. That's what they were

brought in for in the beginning. But now, over these years, they seem

more interested in curtailing supply in order to raise the prices — at

least, that's the way it looks to the consumer.

The present marketing board, in my view and in the view of many consumers, is ossified, ancient, parochial and rigid.

MR. PHILLIPS: What an attack!

HON. MS. YOUNG: They are a little closed shop.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, boy!

HON. MS. YOUNG: They are a tiny little empire that has it all

their own way and they're all in the Lower Fraser Valley, in the lower

mainland. They are jealously-held private empires.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MS. YOUNG: We know that the population of this province

is growing by leaps and bounds. If fact, it's one of the fastest

growing areas in the entire world.

We cannot stop immigration as much as we would like to. But we can

attempt to encourage disbursement of population; we can encourage

secondary industry; we can encourage towns; we can encourage families

to move to other parts of the province to develop the province. The way

we can do this is by providing the agricultural needs of those areas.

Right now, the Council for Northern Development is very much

concerned about having a price study done between the northern part of

the province and the southern part of the province. They want to know

why the price of eggs is so high in the north, why the price of

vegetables and the price of all their foodstuffs is so high. What is

causing the extremely high cost of living in the north? They want

answers.

Then they get answers like, "Well, we don't want any egg producers

in Skeena. We don't want any in Omineca. We don't want any in Shuswap."

The lower mainland egg producers, that tiny little monopoly, that

private little empire, are keeping it all out. That's where it's really

at: who's in charge? It's that bunch of people right down there in the

Fraser Valley.

[ Page 587 ]

I'm telling you right now, Mr. Chairman, the consumers are fed up to

the teeth with the workings of the existing marketing boards; they want

some answers and they want some representation on those boards. They

want some voice; they want some influence on the boards so that they

can express the point of view of Mr. and Mrs. Homemaker, the people who

have to go out and purchase the goods to keep them running.

I'd like to ask a question of the Minister and, in fact, the

representatives who are speaking so highly of the marketing boards over

there: are the marketing boards willing to put consumer representation

on those marketing boards?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I've sat with interest

and listened to the debate since the Minister's estimates first came

before the floor of this House. I think the first comment I have to

make is with respect to the hon. lady cabinet Minister (Hon. Ms. Young)

who has just taken her place after speaking in the debate. If I was

Minister of Agriculture, I would wonder how in the world I would

reconcile the differences between the obvious lack of knowledge of the

farming industry that this lady Minister shows when she speaks in this

House and the position you have, Mr. Minister, as a Minister

responsible for representing the agricultural industry in the Province

of British Columbia. How far apart the two poles are.

It's unfortunate because, as I sat and listened to the debate both

yesterday and this afternoon, I have to come to the unfortunate

conclusion that the Minister of Agriculture, in trying to do the best

job he can for agriculture in the province, is not only interfered with

by the Premier, who knows nothing about agriculture as he himself says,

but by the other Members and colleagues in his cabinet who also are

ignorant of what really goes on in the farming industry and how you

build a viable economy in the Province of British Columbia.

In that respect, Mr. Minister, you have my sympathy because I happen

to come from a riding that does depend to a great extent on the

agricultural industry. It's a part which is very vital to our economy

in the Peace River country.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): How many eggs do you produce? Do you grow any eggs?

MR. SMITH: Yes. I'm going to get to that point in just a moment.

We have a problem in the Province of British Columbia in the

marketing of eggs and distribution of eggs. It is a problem that the

Egg Marketing Board was created to try and solve. That's why it

originally came into being. There would be no marketing boards at all

in the Province of British Columbia if concerned farmers had not, at

one time or another over a period of the last 20 years, come before the

government and said, "We have a problem that we ourselves cannot solve.

We would like to get into some orderly marketing system."

As a result of those petitions to government, marketing boards of

one form or another have been created throughout the province. To a

great extent they have performed well to the benefit of the consuming

public in the province.

They've had their problems, certainly. There's a problem with

respect to surplus production of eggs at certain periods of time in the

lower mainland area and the Fraser Valley. There's a problem with

respect to underproduction because of a growing population in the north

in the Prince George area and from there west to Prince Rupert, with

the expanding population trends that have taken place in that area in

the last 10 years. No question about it: there's underproduction in

those areas; the eggs produced do not keep up with the demand. So there

is reason to believe that more quotas should be issued and new quotas

established in that area.

In the Peace River area we also face a problem of underproduction.

But as the Minister well knows, the competition in the Peace River

block in British Columbia is not from the other egg producers in the

Province of British Columbia; it's from egg producers in the Province

of Alberta who ship their surplus into our marketing area. It's a

problem that Mr. Pope looked at when he was the commissioner, to his

credit, and came up with some worthwhile recommendations towards

solutions.

One of the solutions, incidentally, Mr. Minister, as you well know,

was to go to the people who market the eggs — that is, the large retail

chains — and say, "Look, co-operate with the farmers who support you in

other areas besides farm products and buy locally." Because of that

programme, the people who ordinarily purchased the eggs for

distribution in the retail market place did change their pattern of

buying to a certain extent because they knew there was a problem.

But the point that we take most violent exception to, Mr. Minister,

is not that you have failed to do your job because of something you

personally initiated but because of the untenable position you have

been placed in by the Premier of this province and other members of the

cabinet. They have not allowed you to act properly as Minister of

Agriculture and do the job the way it should be done.

There are too many, not only stories, but sworn affidavits

concerning political interference. Let's take a look at what's going

on. The Member for Prince George (Mr. Nunweiler) talks passionately

about the need to increase quotas in the Prince George area. It seems

the name most commonly heard when we talk about egg production in

Prince George is the name of

[ Page 588 ]

one Mr. Kovachich, an acknowledged member of the

NDP, who for a long time has indicated that he was not happy with the

quota he was operating under and wanted to increase that quota. So he

has been issued an increased quota of up to 200 cases.

It's interesting to note that at the same time his quota was

increased, which would allow him to market more eggs, a debt he owed

the marketing board was written down from some $23,000 to $7,000. That

might have been justifiable; I don't know all the ramifications and the

reason behind that write-down. He feels he was being unduly set upon by

the Egg Marketing Board in the province.

But it's also interesting to note, Mr. Minister, that less than a

week ago there was a comment in one of the daily papers of this

province that Mr. Kovachich had made a public announcement to the

effect that "I quit. I'm going to sell out. I'm tired of fighting with

the government." Fighting with the government? He had just received an

increased quota to 200 cases. Then he suddenly and mysteriously decides

the egg business is no longer for him; he's going to sell out. Is that

profiteering?

We've already heard from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) about

the value of the quota, and how you go about obtaining that value — by

the sale of chickens that are turned out, as far as production is

concerned, at about $3 a bird. It's nice clear profit, isn't it, for a

man who was in such desperate straights a few months ago and who has

now found a sale for the increased quota that has been issued to him?

The question that we must ask is: is that a windfall profit? Is that

a windfall profit? If not, who are the other producers in the Prince

George area who would like to get into the marketing of eggs — and in

the Skeena area, and in the Prince Rupert area? It's also interesting

to note that one of the main producers in the Peace River lives at

Chetwynd; he's often argued about the problems of quota.

It's an interesting sidelight that the same man who has argued about

quota was the NDP candidate in the last provincial election. What deals

are being made for him, Mr. Minister? How is he being looked after? —

Mr. Watkins.

You should know his name. He was your candidate in the last

provincial election, Mr. Minister; he ran for the NDP. I'll inform you

that he was, as a matter of fact, your candidate running for the NDP in

the last provincial election.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Would I sign an affidavit? It's a matter of

record, but if you want an affidavit, fine. I would hope, as one Hon.

Member to another, you would take my word for that.

However, the Minister treats the matter of an affidavit pretty lightly, pretty casually, in a pretty blas way.

I would say that no person, unless they are aggravated to the

extreme and have an extreme case that they feel must be made and

brought to the public, would go to the trouble of filing three- or

four-page affidavits and swearing to that affidavit that the affidavit

was the truth as they knew it.

These people are a hodge-podge of people from all over the province.

They're representatives of the farming industry and the poultry

industry. It's an amazing thing that the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) and some of his cabinet colleagues seem to think that people

who are on marketing boards and are pushed to this extreme have some

ulterior motive in mind. Obviously this is the way their minds work,

and the settling of the problem of the farm economy is the last one

which the Minister of Health and some of his colleagues wish to deal

with.

The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) has talked

about the establishment of secondary industry in the agricultural

sector. Fine, we agree that we want to see more secondary agricultural

industry in the province. Why then, Mr. Minister, after approving the

Act, the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, which would help get

expansion in secondary agriculture in this province — it would help to

attain that goal — why, then, are there no funds available, and none

approved or voted, if this was a serious commitment on the part of the

Minister?

We have the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act and we have no

money at this particular point in time to fund it, as I understand.

There's been nothing approved. So that, we must conclude, is also a

matter which the Minister must take before cabinet.

Perhaps he's run into a lot of diversified opinion, particularly

from the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) and people who

think differently about agriculture than the Minister himself does.

It's unfortunate, Mr. Minister, that you have had to become the

scapegoat for people in your cabinet who are uninformed about

agriculture in this province. But from the affidavits that we have

before us, and the evidence that we have from the farming community, we

can come to no other conclusion than that people who are known

supporters of the NDP and those with vested interests have been looked

after first, or will be looked after first, if the marketing board can

be persuaded to follow the dictates of the cabinet and the NDP policy.

And that is something that we will not accept as Members of the

opposition.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): It is indeed an honour and a

pleasure for me to take

part in this debate again, because it's touched

on points that are really of deep interest to me — things that I've

been concerned about for years. I say it is regrettable that

[ Page 589 ]

this forum has gone to area against area, which I don't think is necessary.

The whole thing is based upon greed. I'm not blaming the people

involved, but the structure of marketing boards, and the structure of

quotas gave marketing boards the power to write money. It's just as

plain as that.

I reported in the House yesterday where an egg producer in the

Fraser Valley just in the last couple of months transferred

600-and-some-odd cases of quota at $300 a case. I understand that man

never bought one case of that quota; he got it gratis. Possibly the

Members at the far end should check and see if he's a Socred member.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): That's not even funny.

MR. LEWIS: What do you mean, "it's not even funny"? We had charges made by your friend there in regard to the Peace River....

MRS. JORDAN: We're not blaming the government; you are.

MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll tell you that you were administering

the government when some of these policies were made. You've made

charges that there's favouritism; there are charges of interference.

Let me set the record straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. LEWIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it will be a pleasure.

For several years prior to being elected to this House I fought

against the policies of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board in regard to

regional control. The structure of the board was three members from the

lower mainland, one member from Vancouver Island and one member from

the Interior. As anybody here can see, that's a totally unworkable

situation when it comes to fair treatment in any part of the province.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Democratic, okay. There were three members elected

from the lower mainland; they were elected by producers from the lower

mainland. They were answerable to producers from the lower mainland.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, yes, the ratio is there, but what happens to the outlying areas? What happens to the minority?

I referred yesterday to the fact that when qualifications were being

made for quota in the province, the lower mainland went hog-wild. They

realized there was going to be a market to this quota and it was a

quick way to get rich. Many, many farmers built new buildings, filled

them with birds — never had a market for those eggs.

Those eggs were dumped into markets like Edmonton. Those eggs were

put into breaking plants. And when quotas were set, all those eggs were

used as qualification for future production.

Now if my memory serves me right, the board has been in production

for six years and they're still a long way from being able to get rid

of their total production. Just through the greed that was allowed —

through the greed that took place by people that had the foresight to

know what it meant....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How big is your quota?

MR. LEWIS: My quota is 140 cases and it's worth $42,000. I

didn't buy it. I fought against this during the times we were fighting.

The Interior of the province fought against values on quota. They made

representations to the committee that was set up by the Minister of

Agriculture at that time stating that they wanted values taken off of

quota.

I still feel the same way. Why should I have a $42,000 windfall for

the right to farm? All I want is a right to produce food, a right to

make a living in the agricultural field. This is what other farmers in

the Interior of the province want. And I'll lay any amount of money

that many farmers in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island want the

same thing.

It's not happening; it's in a monopoly, a real monopoly. You know,

they talk about investigating monopolies. Well, that's a monopoly. A

young person who wants to get into agriculture in the province at the

present time must buy the right to farm.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has been very outspoken in

regard to the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). He said, "Oh, he's got

ulterior motives."

Well, I'd like to tell that Member for Langley that I have nothing

whatsoever to gain, other than the farmers in the Interior of the

province having a right to farm. His riding probably has 75 per cent of

egg production for the whole of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're not gaining anything with the processing plants.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a shortage of it.

MR. LEWIS: The lower mainland or the Fraser Valley area has

80 per cent of the total province, Vancouver Island has 10 per cent and

the Interior has 10 per cent — and 75 per cent is in the Member for

[ Page 590 ]

Langley's riding.

Broiler production probably runs more like 90 per cent in his

riding. I'd like to ask that Member for Langley if the broiler board

runs any ads in his paper. That's a good question, eh? You'd better

check that one over and see if you've got any ulterior motives.

MR. McCLELLAND: The answer is no.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: No, I don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair and confine his remarks and questions to the Minister?

MR. LEWIS: Yesterday I referred to the fact that during the

qualifying period 60-odd farmers came to Victoria and wanted the

qualifying period to be extended. They approached the then Minister —

the Hon. Frank Richter — and he made a ruling that the 30 days in

November would be used as a qualifying period. So those people that saw

the value of quota and used every means they could to get their

productions to a maximum were able to qualify in the month of November.

I would like to read to you a little piece out of the hearings that

were held by Mr. Garrish throughout the province with two lawyers in

attendance — two qualified lawyers, I must say, and I think that they

were very knowledgeable and very fair. I think Mr. Garrish is a man

that nobody would question. The past Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Shelford) named him to head this commission. The present Minister of

Agriculture has named him to the Land Commission, so apparently they

both respected this man's ability. It says:

"The original basis for issuing quotas was to take the

marketing records for any 12-month period between June 30, 1964, and

June 30, 1967, for each registered producer and relate the total of

these to the estimate of market requirements. The pre-scheme

marketings, as they were called, were to determine very largely the

amount of quota to be issued.

"However, a number of producers had established egg

production facilities or added to existing facilities during the period

the egg marketing scheme was being developed. The pre-scheme marketing

did not provide them with quotas to cover these facilities.

"As a result of the representation to the then

Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Frank Richter, he directed the

board," — now listen to that — "to make provisions for quota for these

producers."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEWIS: Now, the Members from the corner of the House who

were in that government at that time were part of a government that was

interfering.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Old Frank?

MR. LEWIS: Yes, he interfered.

It says: "He directed the board...." Now, that's amazing. That's really astounding.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, good heavens!

MR. LEWIS: I wouldn't even be surprised if he consulted with the Premier. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You can't prove that, but we can prove it with this Premier.

MR. LEWIS: This is the finding of a survey that was taken by

Mr. Garrish and by two lawyers who were set up by the past government

to investigate the egg marketing. If that's not evidence I don't know

what is.

AN HON. MEMBER: But we can prove that your Premier did.

MR. LEWIS:

"A formula was devised, based on the marketings during

November, '67, and this formula was used as needed to modify the quota

of producers as determined by their pre-scheme marketing.

"While it is true that some producers in all three

areas of the province benefited from this provision, it is indisputable

that the greatest proportion of this additional quota accrued to the

producers in the Fraser Valley."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's it.

MR. LEWIS: Now this is the point I'm making. I'm not taking

regional differences. But I'm saying that a few people saw the

advantages that were there, they took advantage of it, and through

greed — which is only normal enough for human beings, as everybody

knows — the control was in the Fraser Valley, and the Interior and

Vancouver Island never had one chance in regard to any fair treatment

in the future.

I don't know how many Members of this assembly realize that I was a

member of the Egg Marketing Board during much of this ruckus.

[ Page 591 ]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): 1970-72.

MR. LEWIS: I would also like to remind you that I walked off

of that board because I saw what was happening. I was in a position

where there was no way that I could make an imprint on decisions that

were being made. The decisions that were being made were headed towards

doing away with egg producers in the Interior of this province.

They started a programme of dumping eggs into the Kootenays —

dumping them in there at 25 cents a dozen when the market price was

probably about 45 or 50 cents at that time. They went into the Peace

River country and dumped them in there at 25 cents a dozen.

Now I wrote a letter to the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith)

at that time, and he never once brought that up in the House! I was

fighting for his area — for the Peace River of this province.

During the time that I was fighting what was going on, I never once

attacked the government as such. I dealt with the marketing board and

fought the system. But I never attacked the past Minister of

Agriculture. I made representation to him many times but I never

stooped to the type of thing that's being going on in this paper the

last few days.

I would like to know how many decisions our friend Mr. Trudeau makes in regard to his cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll have to ask him.

MR. LEWIS: I'd like to move on to the Broiler Marketing

Board, and I'm sure glad that the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) brought this one up.

He said I don't know the facts. But I would say the problem is that I do know some of the facts.

I know that quota in this province for broilers is selling at $3.75

a bird. I know that Panco Poultry owns somewhere around 190,000 birds.

At $3.75 apiece, figure that out and see who is getting rich.

I also know that there are a number of producers with over 40,000

birds. At $3.75 a bird this is a windfall of $150,000 apiece to each

one of them.

Sure, I've made representations to the Minister. I said yesterday

I'd made representations to the Minister. As an elected representative

of this province I feel I have the right and the responsibility to see

that agriculture has the right to grow throughout the province.

After I had been working for some time to try to see that there

would be some production in the Interior, the broiler board made the

announcement that they were going to be real nice fellows and allow 11

growers in the Interior of the province to go into production at 5,000

birds apiece. In my view this is a total farce. They knew that there

was no way that this could succeed. It was too small an amount to make

a plant operational. So they said: "Oh, that's okay, we can fix that.

We'll move some farmers from the Fraser Valley up there and they can

farm and supply the product." I say the farmers in my riding are

capable of farming and they should have the right the same as anywhere

else in this province to produce farm products.

Now, to rub salt into the wound, on that same day they also passed an order...

MR. PHILLIPS: You're a hard-boiled egg.

MR. BARNES: There's a lot of rotten ones down at that end.

MR. CHABOT: Scrambled!

MR. LEWIS: ...increasing permits in the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island by 600,000 birds — an increase 10 times the amount

they were willing to put into the Interior to even let that plant

start. Now, if that isn't criminal there's something wrong.

At that point I sent a telegram to the Minister expressing my

concern about it and suggesting that the broiler marketing board should

be put under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture until

this was straightened out.

I still feel very strongly in regard to this. If the Minister isn't

prepared to move in this way, I for one, as a farmer in this province,

would sooner see no marketing boards than to continue under the present

restrictions that are placed on farmers throughout this province.

Now, that's a strong statement. But if they're going to deny farmers

in the Interior of this province the right to farm, then I say abolish

the system and put everybody on the same footing. I'm in favour of

orderly marketing, but everybody must have a chance in this province —

all areas of the province must have a chance.

This Broiler Marketing Board, just before Christmas, also passed the

order converting 10,000 permits for most farmers in the lower mainland

into quotas. What happened when they did this was that it created a

value of $3.75 a bird on that 10,000 permit. That was a real nice

Christmas present — $37,500 to each one of those growers.

I think there's something wrong with our system when this type of

thing is going on — it's got to be stopped. If the opposition and the

lucrative growers feel the only way they can defend and hold up this

type of thing that's happening in the Member for Langley's (Mr.

McClelland'

s) area is by smearing the present Minister of Agriculture

and the present Premier, I think they've gone pretty low.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr.

[ Page 592 ]

Chairman, I have a question to the Hon. Minister,

again dealing with this very unfortunate and very patent situation that

has developed. Is the Minister still here? Oh, here he comes back again.

What is involved here, Mr. Minister, is not just minute or miniscule

powers of recollection; what is involved here is Ministerial and

governmental integrity. The Hon. Minister said last night: "Why

shouldn't there be political interference?" There certainly was

political interference, and that's tantamount to an admission from the

Minister that that actually occasioned.

Once again, I'd ask the Minister: did the Premier say to Mr.

Brunsdon, as Mr. Brunsdon states in his affidavit under clause 13,"I

was further informed by Mr. Barrett in the following words: 'If you

don't toe the line I will make a law to cover it,' or similar words to

the same effect"? Did the Premier use those words, or did he use

similar words to that effect, Mr. Minister? I'd ask you to answer that

question, yes or no, or tell us what you recall that the Premier

actually said.

Here we have the executive, according to the affidavit of this

gentleman, acting ad hoc and running roughshod over the administrative

side, running roughshod over the marketing boards, forgetting that they

are elected representatives, and forgetting that these marketing

boards, irrespective of the criticisms there may be against them, are

instruments of the democratic process.

You know, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister, there are laws enacted

by this Legislature and powers granted by it to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to make laws. But laws are to be

followed. And if they're not followed, they should be changed. But

they're not supposed to be changed as a result of political

interference — to use the Minister's words — on the part of himself, or

on the part of the strongest man in this province, the Premier of this

province.

If it's going to be the custom in British Columbia that whether our

laws are to be followed or not is to be decided upon the discretion or

the whim of the executive, that is exactly the same reason why Mr.

Nixon has found himself in hot water in the United States today. I say

that there is no question of a doubt that there is egg all over the

chin of this Minister, and over the chin of the Premier. Quite frankly,

the very hard-boiled attitude that has been adopted by each of them is

not producing solutions, but indeed is compounding a very awkward

situation.

How is this very serious charge, Mr. Chairman, of political

interference and political pressure going to be resolved? It's got to

be resolved. It's not just enough to talk about it. There has to be

resolution, and I'm very happy to see that the Hon. Minister is nodding

his head in obvious consent when I make that statement.

This charge, which is a very serious charge to this point, has

generally and certainly by innuendo been treated by the Premier

essentially as a denial of sworn facts. That's essentially the position

taken by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. He

essentially has denied the sworn facts in these affidavits.

Now we find from an

article in the Vancouver Daily Province ,

dated today: "Premier Barrett and Agricultural Minister Stupich were

censured by lower mainland egg producers Tuesday night 'for holding a

hatchet over the head' of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board." That's what

they say. They are saying you are holding a hatchet over their head. Is

that true, or is that not true?

Then apparently at the meeting this statement was made, referring to

the two gentlemen who filed their affidavits concerning the egg

incident: "'We owe those two directors who signed the affidavits

everything,' a producer said. 'It is up to us now to support them 100

per cent when Barrett takes them to court."' When Barrett takes them to

court.

What action is the Minister contemplating or is the Hon. Premier

contemplating, to the knowledge of the Minister, or is the government

contemplating against these two men who have made sworn statements of

which the Hon. Minister has full knowledge?

One of the members at this meeting expressed concern that Premier

Barrett might take over the marketing board as the result of the

protest. Is that going to be contemplated as government policy? Okay,

that's what they are saying there. But I tell you that the government

has a very solemn responsibility to take affirmative action. I would

suggest that the action that should be taken would be one that is

outside of the political arena, which this government so heavily

controls and apparently so heavily handed controls. Let's have some

affirmative action wherein political interference cannot form a part,

the Minister supporting his attitude of political interference.

I put this question to the Hon. Minister: is it not, indeed, in the

interests of the good government of this province that an inquiry be

held under the Public Inquiries Act of the Province of British

Columbia? It is

chapter 315, for his information.

There are some very interesting statements in

section 3 of the

Public Inquiries Act, Mr. Chairman. It says, and I'm going to

paraphrase, that whenever the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems it

expedient to cause an inquiry to be made concerning any matter and so

forth connected with the good government of the province or the conduct

of any part of public business thereof, including all matters dealing

with...obtaining influence and support for franchises, charters, or any

other rights or privileges from the Legislature or the government of

the province.... Is it not in the interest of these individuals, in the

interest of the marketing boards, in the interest of the producers, in

the interest of the

[ Page 593 ]

consumers and very much in the interest of all the

Members of this Legislative Assembly and the people of British Columbia

that a public inquiry be order under the Public Inquiries Act?

I would ask that the government do just that, and appoint a totally

independent and completely impartial commission or commissioner to see

whether the executive, namely the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, and

namely the Hon. Premier, have transgressed their responsibilities and

duties in bulldozing and politically interfering with the marketing

boards, as has been indicated in sworn testimony which is before us.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Wouldn't you like to think so?

MR. GARDOM: Wouldn't I like to think so? The Hon. Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who is now going to the door and now

returning...and now leaving.... (Laughter.) He's a fast stepper.

The Hon. Minister of Health interrupted the remarks of the Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and was suggesting — at least that's the

inference I received — that these four people who have entered into

sworn affidavits were Social Credit political hacks. That's what he

said.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes he did, Mr. Attorney-General. I heard it very, very clearly.

Is that true? Does he intend to make that charge? I don't think he

should enter into those kinds of asides to the House if he doesn't

intend to stand up and make that charge.

Let's look at the affidavit of Mr. McAninch, sworn three days ago.

It indicates that on February 5, which is 22 days ago — and I'm going

to refer to paragraph 14 — "That Mr. Stupich informed me that the

Department of Agriculture in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan

broiler permit policy was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett." Is that

true, Mr. Minister? The affidavit continues: "Mr. Stupich informed me:

'It's out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will

be,' or similar words to the same

effect." Was the board acting from orders from the Premier? Was it out

of your hands, Mr. Minister? Was it the way that Mr. McAninch said?

The Attorney-General appears very anxious to get into this debate,

and we look forward to hearing from him when he rises from his feet. I

think he's got quite a solemn responsibility to bear as the chief law

officer of the province, when you find the two Ministers of the Crown

essentially are accused of political interference, which surely to

goodness is against the good order of this province, and the good order

of this government, and that's why we have a Public Inquiries Act.

Mr. Attorney-General I would suggest to you that if the government

or your two Ministers don't see fit to appoint the necessary

commissioner, it is your solemn responsibility to do so or go down the

track.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're the democratically elected government.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, and who interfered with that but the Premier of this province?

Look at this:

section 19. The gentleman continues:

"That I informed the Minister" — referring to the

Minister of Agriculture — "that members of the B.C. Broiler Marketing

Board are elected at large and that the placing of an Interior

representative on the said board was contrary to the constitution of

the board.

"20. That I further informed the Minister that in the

absence of the full marketing board membership I could not accept the

permit terms set forth in paragraph 17 of this my affidavit."

In paragraph 21 he says this:

"That the Minister informed me that he agreed with the

marketing board position on at-large representation, using the

following words: 'I agree with the board in representation but this is

the word from the Premier,' or similar words to the same effect."

Was that the word from the Premier, Mr. Minister? Did the Premier

direct that a committee of three be appointed to determine the

allocation of broiler permits? Yes or no. Are you saying, Mr. Minister,

that Mr. Brunsdon, Mr. McAninch and the other two gentlemen are not

telling the truth? Are you accusing these four people of distorting

facts? Are you saying they lied?

If you're not going to take a position on sworn evidence, surely

it's a crystal-clear admission of ad hoc political interference and

political pressure by the individual with the greatest power the

democratic process can give anyone in B.C., the Premier.

Has he abused his power? We all remember the quotation of Lord

Acton. Has he abused his power? Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts and

absolute power corrupts absolutely." Has the Premier acted absolutely?

I'd say the only way this very apparent sore, so far unanswered, upon

the abuse of power on the part of the executive can be cleansed is by

an independent tribunal where witnesses can be called and where the

Minister of Agriculture, who was present and who has not denied his

presence at these particular meetings, and the Premier who was present,

certainly in the egg situation, will have the right to say under oath

what these four other people have already put under oath.

[ Page 594 ]

I say, Mr. Chairman, that these marketing board officials deserve

this and all the members of these boards deserve that. The very

procedure we should be sanctifying in here very much deserves that. It

certainly is in the interests of good government and all the people of

B.C. that we do have such an independent, impartial inquiry.

I'd ask the Hon. Minister if he happened to receive a memorandum

dated January 31, 1974, this year, from the B.C. Egg Marketing Board,

concerning six egg producers in B.C., and which memorandum was directed

to all of the Members of this Legislative Assembly. He nodded he did?

The Minister has indicated he received that.

Has the Minister, since January 31 of this year, asked the B.C. Egg

Marketing Board not to release that memorandum to all Members of this

Legislature? Well, the Minister is writing that question down. We'd

like the answer to that question as to whether or not this memorandum,

which allegedly is directed to all Members of the B.C. Legislative

Assembly, was, at the direction of the Minister to the egg board, not

to be released to all Members.

In the memorandum attached to the affidavit of Mr. McAninch of

February 12 under

schedule "D", we see the memorandum from the Minister

to the Hon. Premier. It's interesting to note that it appears to be

signed by the Minister and it also appears to be signed by the Premier,

by Gerry Anderson and D.E. Lewis. It starts off:

"Since the meeting in your office, there have been

several meetings among members of my staff, with the caucus

agricultural committee, and with the broiler board. The following is a

summary of the situation to date. In that you have taken a personal

interest in these questions, I would appreciate your consideration of

the following points."

Then a number of points are listed. I'd ask the

Hon. Minister to what extent did the Premier take a personal interest

in the many questions you have mentioned therein?

Referring to the very last page, the Minister says this:

"I would recommend that we do not interfere with the

board itself at this time other than to recommend to the Interior

directors that they ask for an invitation to attend broiler board

meetings regularly to acquaint themselves with the operation of the

board and the work of the organization totally."

By that statement is the Minister indicating there had been prior interference or there will be future interference?

What we have to do is find out also, Mr. Chairman to the Hon.

Minister, what is the government's real motivation behind all of this?

Is it to discredit all of the marketing boards in the Province of

British Columbia and then have the government take the whole shebang

over? Is it your intention to incorporate egg pooling, whereby

producer-vendors would totally disappear and just have a number of

centrally-located or regionally-located egg pools in the province where

only wholesalers could go to those areas for the purchase, thereby

eliminating any degree or vestige of competitive free enterprise which

seems to be grossly restricted even today in that enterprise? I'd like

to know what the policy direction of the Minister in this regard will

be.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I don't

really want to talk about marketing boards; I don't know anything about

them. But I would like to get a position straight from the Liberal

Party because I'm finding it all a little confusing.

I had the pleasure over the weekend to serve on a panel at the

University of Victoria with the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson), the leader of the Liberal Party. When he was asked by

somebody from the audience what he would do with the civil service if

he were Premier, he said that if the Liberal Party formed the

government of this province it would be his duty as Premier to

politicize the civil service to carry out the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister only to direct his remarks to the Minister and to have them relevant to Vote 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Chairman, let's not have that fobbing off from you either. The fact is,

that's a stupid remark from the Minister. There was a lengthy and

informal discussion...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...and you were not there, you idiot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? I appreciate

that he feels he has been injured by comments of the Hon. Minister of

Highways, but I would ask the Hon. Member to nevertheless follow the

rules of the House in making his comments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: (Mike not on.) ...to raise this red

herring at this time. I discussed that with the Minister in a seminar

at UVic. I discussed similar topics at a seminar a day later at Albert

Head

[ Page 595 ]

Penitentiary (and a far more intelligent discussion took place the second day than the first.)

But I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this type of

attempt to misquote statements made during discussion in seminars

simply doesn't advance the work of this House one little bit. I can

speak on my behalf in this House; he can speak on his behalf. This

reference to meetings that took place outside this House is the type of

nonsense this government is getting too good at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well-taken. I would ask

the Hon. Minister of Highways to keep his remarks confined to the vote

before us and address his comments to the Minister.

HON. MR. LEA: Right, Mr. Chairman. It was either that or words to that effect.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister of

Highways for his usual brilliant contribution to the debate. At the

same time, I'd like to help that Minister and the Minister of

Agriculture by making it once more clear what the issue is before the

Legislature at this time. The issue is one of integrity in government;

it's one of truthfulness on the part of Ministers of the Crown.

If, when these affidavits were filed, the Premier had come forward

and said, "Yes, I did order the board," and the Minister had come

forward and said, "Yes, I was forced to instruct the board on the

orders of the Premier and the executive council," while we might not

have agreed with their course of action — undoubtedly we would have

maintained that the marketing board, the Egg Marketing Board, the

Broiler Marketing Board, were independent agencies that should reach

their decisions without the benefit of political muscle — we at least

would have known that the cabinet had the courage of its convictions.

If they pushed the marketing board around, either with or without the

help of such people as the Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), they would

have had the guts to admit it.

But, Mr. Chairman, we haven't had that. The Minister's had a case of

amnesia. He couldn't remember what took place two months ago — one

month ago, or 17 months ago. Well, the Minister particularly had

difficulty with 17 months ago. The Premier, Mr. Chairman, according to

the affidavit that was laid, said that he was going to kick the

"censored" out of the marketing board if they didn't do his bidding.

While he has denied saying that, and while you have forgotten, that

denial and your amnesia must be seen in the light of the statements in

that affidavit, where the Premier, not two months after he had taken

office and had promised publicly that there was to be a new deal in

British Columbia and we were to have open government, said in the

privacy of his office, according to the affidavit: "...and if you say a

word of this outside my office, I'll deny it."

That's one promise the Premier kept. He's been assisted in keeping

that promise by the memory of the Minister of Agriculture. He

remembered what the Premier said that day.

I don't think that the issue of integrity in government is any less

in British Columbia now than at any other time, or in any other

jurisdiction. If this is the style of government, we have to know it,

Mr. Chairman, and the people have to know it.

I personally agree with much of what backbenchers on the government

side have said — that it's important to spread our agricultural

industry around British Columbia, that it's important to have egg

producers in the Interior and in the north, that these people should

have their share and more, that if there is an undue monopoly of this

industry by producers in the Fraser Valley, that's something that has

to be corrected.

But, Mr. Chairman, to do that you don't destroy the effectiveness of

a board that you've set up. You don't destroy the integrity of

government. You don't deny and twist and try to get civil servants and

quasi-independent people to take the blame for that. You stand up like

the men you're supposed to be as cabinet Ministers and take the

responsibility for your decisions and accept the consequences of it.

No speeches for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) or obfuscation by the Minister of Highways, or

pleas by the Members for Skeena or Shuswap or Fort George are going to

change any of that, because what this little dispute over egg marketing

has done is to reveal something about the character of the New

Democratic Party government. It's revealed something about the

character of the Premier and, I'm sorry to say, the Minister of

Agriculture.

I sympathize with his position, because he had the crunch put on him

and he as much as said so. But, Mr. Chairman, having the crunch put on

doesn't excuse you for developing a convenient case of amnesia. That's

failing to take the responsibility for your

part in this sorry affair.

I regret, Mr. Chairman, having to get up and hammer again and again

and again at some fairly simple questions. Though the matter may seem

small and the questions simple, they help to get at the character of a

problem in government.

The problem showed up in a small way over egg marketing when you

consider the number of responsibilities that the cabinet had in British

Columbia. But if we don't solve it now and get straight exactly what

the duties of cabinet are, it's going to crop up in a far more serious

way during the term of office of this cabinet when many more people may

be injured.

[ Page 596 ]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to that day we discussed in

the Legislature last night. Just before we adjourned the Minister

recalled that he had a meeting, and he agreed that the people mentioned

in the affidavit by Mr. Brunsdon had indeed been at that meeting. He

explained that there were two sides to this problem and both sides

wanted to reach a settlement. He acknowledged, as I recall, that an

office in his department had been used. It was at that point that we

adjourned.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister this specific question.

While these people were drafting the agreement that day, was he as the

Minister, or was any member of his department, on that day after the

meeting with the Premier and before Mr. Pope went to the Strathcona

Hotel that evening in touch with the producer in Prince George asking

the amount that he was prepared to pay in settlement?

Were there any discussions on that day between the Minister and the

producer against whom the levies were to be laid? I just want an answer

to that one question, Mr. Chairman.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): If we're going

to start with the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), I'll start

picking it up with his questions much earlier on this afternoon.

The first question you raised was the location of the poultry

processing plant that has been announced for the Interior of the

province, and you suggested that there were political implications. The

exact location has not yet been decided upon. The directors of

Pan-Ready Ltd. recommended a certain property in Enderby. It is being

looked at by the Land Commission to see whether or nor they feel it

would be appropriate to use for that purpose. Whether or not that will

be the site, I don't know.

As far as I am concerned, I am very anxious that we acquire a site

very soon, as it takes something like nine months to get the plant

ready, and there are some difficulties in getting not only building

materials but the equipment for the place itself. However, the choice

of the location will be determined not by politics, because one of the

communities looked at was Vernon.

We are looking for acreage, and this is at the recommendation of one

director in particular, who, I thought, seemed to be particularly

knowledgeable on this, who had previously been the president of the

Broiler Marketing Board. He is not now, but he is still a member of the

Broiler Marketing Board, and is a director of Pan-Ready Ltd. As a

matter of fact, I think he is president of the organization. It was his

recommendation that there be at least five acres, with the advisability

of having a slightly larger acreage, if possible, but, even more

important, that it be serviced by sewer and water. It's not that easy

to find that large a piece of land in the Okanagan communities in that

area of the province.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll find it for you.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In Vernon? Well, if you can find a location

it would still be an open question. It hasn't been decided yet, because

there are some problems with the particular site that is being looked

at right now. We've had difficulty locating land for other reasons in

the Vernon area, and perhaps you can help with this particular question.

The broiler permit policy was presented in my office on December 12,

and I think this is really your first accusation. The other, I think,

was a political accusation, but I take it as an honest question you

were asking: was there a political reason for going there? I say that

the location that's being pursued most seriously at the moment is

entirely on the basis of having the acreage, sewerage and the water

available. And if you can find another location, we would be quite

happy to look at it, although there is some urgency.

The broiler permit policy — I think in this case it was an

accusation. I believe you were reading out of perhaps an affidavit that

was quoted in this morning's newspapers. I didn't get around to reading

that. I was quite sure I wouldn't have to, that someone would read it

to me this afternoon, so I took notes as you spoke.

You said that at a meeting on December 12, I agreed to the policy

announced by the broiler board. I don't know that the meeting took

place on December 12. I am willing to say it was the 12th. Certainly it

was in mid-December or somewhere around that period. And certainly I

did agree that day to what the broiler board told me they were going to

do. They told me that they agreed with the policy of having broiler

production in the Interior. They made a case for there being 11

producers, in that they operate on an 11-week cycle, so 11 was the

magic number that fitted everything. On the basis of our own survey of

market needs, the total they came up with seemed reasonable.

More important than all of that, they said that in view of the

market situation in the province, it was not reasonable to allow for

any more permits to be let out at this time over that figure of 55,000,

that the industry really couldn't stand it. This was the impression I

was left with. I'm not going to say they used similar words to that

same effect, but they left me with the impression that to do any more

than issuing 55,000 in the way of additional permits at this time would

be rather disastrous for the planned production within the broiler

industry in the province.

They told me what they were going to do. They told me there were

going to be increases in the valley for certain people — fixed

increases. They told me that permits that had previously been issued

were

[ Page 597 ]

going to be converted to quota in the valley —

permits that had been issued some three years previously. All of this I

accepted, and also the policy that there would be the 55,000 — not

quota, but permits — issued in the Interior. A firm permit.

And then the order came out. I don't know what date the order came

out, but it's true. They left my office, and we were in agreement. Then

the order came out. And the thing that they had neglected to tell me —

perhaps it slipped their minds, I don't know — was that in addition to

everything we discussed, they were also making available to all of the

broiler producers in the Fraser Valley who didn't have the optimum

figure of 45,000 — and there must have been about 200 of them —

secondary permits to the extent of 5,000 birds per producer, for a

total of one million birds per cycle.

HON. MR. COCKE: Shame!

HON. MR. STUPICH: They didn't bother to tell me that. They

convinced me that it was not practical to issue any more than 55,000 in

the Interior because of the supply conditions in the industry, but they

didn't bother to tell me that they were also issuing 5,000 secondary

permits to all of those who didn't have the total of 45,000.

When that order came out, and when I saw those figures on it, only

two

interpretations were possible — either they forgot or there was

some bad faith. And I didn't know which. But my instructions to them,

by telegram — you said by telegram, your affidavit says by tel