1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2209 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Transpo 86 Corporation Act (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 2209

Oral questions

Labour legislation regarding domestics. Ms. Brown –– 2209

Election expenses. Mr. Macdonald –– 2209

Eckardt commission report. Mrs. Dailly –– 2210

Replacement Pharmacare cards. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 2210

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates

On vote 10

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2212

Mrs. Wallace –– 2214

Mr. Ritchie –– 2218

Mrs. Wallace –– 2220

Mr. Mussallem –– 2220

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2220

Mrs. Wallace –– 2220

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2221

Mr. Leggatt –– 2221

Mr. Ritchie –– 2222

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2223

Mr. Levi –– 2224

Mr. Hyndman –– 2226

Mr. Cocke –– 2228

Mrs. Wallace –– 2230

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2231

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inaugurate the proceedings by introducing

a member of the New Democratic Party from Vancouver East, Mr. George

Lawson, who is up in the gallery. He is now studying at Douglas College

and he seconds as my bodyguard.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, leading us in prayer today was one of my favourite people from

the royal city of New Westminster, Pastor Hoave. Pastor Hoave's wife is

visiting us in the gallery. I'd like everyone to welcome them here

today.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery today a former long-time member of this Legislature, Mr. Tony

Gargrave, and his two very gracious guests from Japan, Mr. Yamada and

Mrs. Tsuji. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, in the House today we have a good Social Credit member

from Alberta who has decided to reside in British Columbia. Would the

House welcome Mr. Phil Turner.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr.

Speaker, I just noticed in the gallery some very old friends of my

community, Ed Murphy and Annabel Murphy. Ed was the chairman of our

school board for many, many years and alderman in the city of Port

Moody. They are just an all-round nice couple of people and I'd like

very much for you all to welcome them.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, visiting us today is Mrs, Beverly Rodrigo, who is the

chairman of School District 80 in Kitimat, and Mr. Bryan Graydon, who

is the secretary-treasurer of that same school district. They are here

in Victoria on some cultural and aesthetic matters outside of normal

school business. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I would like members to join me in welcoming

Mr. Gerald Robinson of Vancouver to these precincts. Mr. Robinson has

moved to Vancouver to continue the practice of law; he's a member of

the bars of both Ontario and British Columbia. It is with some mixed

emotion that I point out that during his career he spent several very

successful years as the national director of the Liberal Party in

Canada. He brings his lively interest in public affairs to British

Columbia. Would members join me in welcoming Mr. Robinson.

Introduction of Bills

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curtis, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wolfe, presented a message from His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transpo '86 Corporation

Act.

Bill

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

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

Oral Questions

LABOUR LEGISLATION REGARDING DOMESTICS

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and it

has to do with the coverage of domestics under the Labour Code. On

April 7, Mr. Minister, the newly formed B.C. Association of Domestics

submitted to the minister's office a brief as well as a letter

requesting a meeting with him. They did not receive a response.

Therefore on April 24 they sent another letter to that minister asking

again to meet with him. In view of the fact that none of the minister's

public statements indicate that he is planning on including domestics

under the Labour Code, can the minister tell me whether he is willing

and able to meet with this new association before that legislation is

brought down?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To the hon. member,

I acknowledge the letter. I think it was last week when I first saw it.

I can tell the House that I am very sympathetic towards the concerns

expressed and I think there is a strong possibility something will be

coming forth. I would only say to this that I was in a position when

that particular letter arrived not to provide a thorough answer. If the

hon. member will accept those comments at this time, I would be most

grateful.

MS. BROWN: Just one supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, because I think the minister is saying that he is going to

meet with them before the legislation is brought down. I think that

that is what the minister indicated. Am I correct? Is the minister

going to meet with this association before the legislation is brought

down? That's what I'm trying to find out.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to meet with the delegation.

However, I couldn't really respond, as I mentioned earlier, Mr.

Speaker, in the detailed way in which I wanted to at the time.

Consequently, I did not respond to the letter which arrived last week

in the detail which I would have preferred. But I am quite prepared to

meet with the delegation next week or the week after, whenever they are

prepared to arrive in Victoria.

ELECTION EXPENSES

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General about one of his

many internal investigations, this one 139 days after it was announced

that he was seeking a report. The Attorney-General is a little bit like

the Russians swallowing Afghanistan and the fox swallowing the rabbit

and then announcing that "this is now an internal matter and I refuse

to discuss it." I therefore ask the Attorney-General: has he now

received the report that he ordered on December 14, 1979, from his

officials, relating to possible breaches of the B.C. Election Act,

having regard to Dan Campbell handing out $65,000 in cash, and the

party not reporting from the internal funds in the Premier's office

about $250,000 in election expenses until seven months after?

[ Page 2210 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Attorney-General whether he has some concern

that 139 days after he orders a fairly simple report, it is not on his

desk. What is he waiting for? Is this because it affects the Premier's

office? Is the Attorney-General afraid that the Premier might

doubletalk some students on that issue in the meantime?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD:

I want to know why, after 139 days, the Attorney-General sits there

very calmly and says: "No, I haven't received a report." Why not? Is it

because it involves the Premier?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order. It is clearly argumentative and will not be accepted in question period.

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Attorney-General. On January

25, 1980 — almost three months ago — it was reported that Norman

Prelypchan, director of civil law for the Attorney-General's ministry,

had been named by Deputy Attorney-General Vogel to make inquiries into

the Eckardt commission on electoral reform. My question is, Mr.

Speaker, has the minister received this report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The matter to which the member refers is a request I made to the Deputy

Attorney-General for an opinion dealing with a certain statutory

declaration which was delivered to me. I have not received that opinion

from the Deputy Attorney-General and, of course, am not expecting any

report myself from Mr. Prelypchan.

MRS. DAILLY: If

we're not to expect a report from the Attorney-General, can he tell us

in what form the House will be made aware of the investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The House will be made aware of the opinion I receive from the Deputy

Attorney-General as to whether or not any action is required that is

appropriate to my ministry as a result of this declaration that was

filed.

REPLACEMENT PHARMACARE CARDS

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Yesterday there were questions directed to me regarding the Pharmacare

program by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I would like to

share these answers with the House.

First of all, during the

questions the allegation was made that there were 15 persons who didn't

receive cards and those 15 people had phoned the office of the member.

I would like the House to know that in checking with my office I am

informed that nobody in my office took a call from Ms. Brown's office

regarding the allegations. Had she or her staff called, a client

information sheet would have been completed. My staff tell me that none

are on file for such an incident. However, I'd be pleased to share

these answers. In so doing I would like to say to the member that if

there are any questions of concern, a phone call to my office will

certainly receive a response readily, or even just a conversation in

this House or outside this House on a day-to-day basis would suffice.

The

re-issue of Pharmacare cards was undertaken by the ministry in order to

update Pharmacare records and achieve closer control of the program.

When Pharmacare identity cards were first issued, records of the

British Columbia Medical Services Plan were used to establish

eligibility, age and other essential information. The Medical Services

Plan identity number was used as the identity number on Pharmacare

cards. About 35,000 persons were carrying blue cards, which were

essentially invalid, since they had been issued from lists of MSA and

CU&C members in late 1973. Over the past seven years the Medical

Services Plan records were updated, so it was essential to issue these

new cards.

Since that time Medical Services Plan records, as

I say, have been continually updated and new identity numbers were

assigned. Pharmacare cards and records, however, were not updated, and

some discrepancies were found between MSP and Pharmacare records. The

mass re-issue of Pharmacare cards was planned to rectify this situation

and to ensure that all eligible clients held Pharmacare cards with

current, valid identity numbers. This is particularly important since

Pharmacare introduced a new processing system on April 1. The new

computer system improves processing time and increases accountability.

It is also designed to automatically reject any claims for payment

based on old or invalid identity numbers.

The change in

colour — which the member asked about yesterday — from blue to green

was planned to enable both pharmacists and card holders to distinguish

the old cards from the new ones.

The change in wording from

"department" to "ministry" was incidental to the re-issue, as was the

change in wording from "pharmacist" to "pharmacist supplier."

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I would raise a point of order having to do with the

obvious extended length of the reply. I draw to the Chair's attention a

ruling on February 28, 1977, by the then Speaker. He said:

is my recommendation that whenever an hon. minister has a lengthy

answer to any question taken on notice that the minister concerned

advise the House at the conclusion of oral question period that an

answer has been tabled. In this way neither the time of the House

within oral question period nor time allotted for other business after

oral question period would be infringed upon.

Further, Mr.

Speaker, on March 26, 1980, during this session, a similar question was

raised with respect to the same minister. At that time Mr. Speaker

reviewed the practice of the House and said: "If the question is of

such a nature that it requires a lengthy answer, perhaps the best way

of a return is to have the answer on the order paper itself as though

the question had been a written question."

My point of

order, Mr. Speaker, is that I think, taking into account those two

previous rulings, it should be your function to suggest to the hon.

minister that the answer, because it is obviously lengthy, be tabled.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

May I just speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker? I would think that

an oral question in the House implies that the member would want to

have an oral response, particularly to this question. I weighed whether

I should give this answer within the question period or not, but

because the implication was that it was a matter of

[ Page 2211 ]

urgency

and because the very raising of the question places some concern into

the hearts and minds of those senior citizens out in the community, I

feel it is a matter of urgency to respond within this forum.

Secondly,

Mr. Speaker, may I just add something else to this point of order? If

the member who raised the point of order feels this is such a lengthy

and complicated order of business, then I suggest that he should put

place within his own caucus the suggestion that those kinds of

questions be placed on the order paper and then answered on the order

paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before coming

down with anything that would possibly be of a nature that would fix

certain guidelines, if hon. members would allow me the privilege of

going over some of the past decisions and rendering further information

to members of the House it would be appreciated, rather than reaching a

hard-and-fast ruling at this time. If the Deputy Premier would continue

her reply, in this case we will allow the additional time for question

period to be taken, and I will endeavour to come back to the House with

a further ruling for clarification of all members. That is the decision

of the Chair, and I ask the Deputy Premier to continue at this time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, The change in wording from "department" to "ministry" was

incidental to the re-issue, as was the change in wording from

"pharmacist" to "pharmacist supplier." The latter change reflects the

extension of Pharmacare benefits...

Interjections.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have the attention of the House, because it is important.

...to

include non-drug items such as prosthetic devices, which would normally

be available through suppliers rather than pharmacists.

The

cost of the re-issue of the cards was $100,275.34. This covers costs of

production including manufacturing and embossing of plastic cards,

printing of carrier cards and delivery to 296,000 Pharmacare clients. I

might just mention that this same Pharmacare division was responsible

for the dispensing of five million prescriptions.

I would

also like to tell you the procedures used for the re-issue of cards.

The mailing of the new cards was done over a ten-day period in

mid-February. Approximately 90 percent of Pharmacare clients received

their new cards before the end of February. The new cards became

effective immediately for prescription drug benefits and other

Pharmacare benefits. The old blue cards were honoured by pharmacies up

to March 15. Since that date, pharmacists have been accepting valid

Medical Services Plan cards as interim proof of age and eligibility for

benefits in cases where senior had not yet received their new cards.

Those people who have not received new cards have been advised through

news releases and through pharmacists to apply for a new one by filling

out an application form. Applications forms are available at all

pharmacies; the Pharmacare office responsible for issuing replacement

cards is now completely up to date with the processing of applications.

Pharmacare

cards as seniors' identification on city buses is not part of the

ministry's Pharmacare program. Transit authorities have in the past

accepted Pharmacare cards as proof of age and eligibility-for reduced

seniors' fares on buses in Vancouver and Victoria. Although this is not

a part of the Pharmacare program, the ministry did make arrangements

with British Columbia Hydro to ensure the acceptance of both the old

and the new Pharmacare cards by bus drivers until the end of March. At

that time — and I'm surprised that the member who raised the question

did not know — responsibility for urban transit was transferred to

local governments and further arrangements were made through the Urban

Transit Authority and the metro transit operating companies in

Vancouver and Victoria for the continuing acceptance of either the old

blue cards or the new green ones as seniors' identification. In

Vancouver bus operators have been instructed to accept a Pharmacare

card of either colour as seniors' identification until further notice.

In Victoria the same applies until the end of June, with an extension

of time available, if required.

These arrangements have also

been made with B.C. Ferries to ensure that seniors will not be

inconvenienced if their new Pharmacare cards are delayed. In trying to

find out further information, we have spoken to Mr. Miller at the UTA,

and there is nothing to support the suggestion that the transit people

are only recognizing the new card. The UTA knows that the distribution

is in progress and will recognize old and new cards until distribution

is completed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I

would like to thank the Minister of Human Resources for moving so

quickly on my request and granting an extension on the use of the old

Pharmacare cards until June 1. I appreciate that, Madam Minister. Thank

you very much.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was not your suggestion. It was already done.

MS. BROWN:

The other thing I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is to thank her for

that very lengthy response and to ask her if she would table it in the

House. Also I'd like to bring to her attention the fact that Pharmacare

is under her ministry, and if she would check with them...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN:

...they would give her the list of 15 names that were submitted to them

when they were told that it had to be submitted in writing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, there are a wide and varied number of rules that dictate

our behaviour in this assembly. If members choose to abuse and

disregard those rules, the actions of your Speaker are limited in

maintaining decorum and orderly debate in this House. When the Speaker

calls for order, particularly when a member is speaking, it is

incumbent upon that member to cease debate and discussion and return to

his or her seat and listen to the rules that are brought down.

Discussions will come to an end. All members should bear that in mind

if we are to maintain any kind of order and decorum at all in

parliamentary debate in this chamber. I would ask all members to bear

that in mind.

[ Page 2212 ]

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

On a point of order, I wonder if I might seek your guidance, Mr.

Speaker. Could you tell me why in this Legislature, where we have a

variety of quality of debate, we can see the hon. Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) debate with the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

or we can see the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) debate with the

member for...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member come to the point of order which she is raising?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

...and not hear any comments from the gallery, but when we witness

really — regardless of the opinions — a brilliant debate between two

hon. lady members of this House...

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must ask you to come to the point of order.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'm seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

...we

hear such a childish sound and side comment as we just heard? I would

commend — whether I agree with their positions or not — the two ladies

for a rather brilliant and well-executed debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, again, points of order are in fact to be points of order.

The Chair is bound by the rules contained in our standing orders. It

might be an exercise in consideration for all members to read this book

and to return to parliamentary traditions, which are really fast

disappearing in this chamber.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker,

on a point of order with respect to question period, ministers have

never been denied leave of the House to proceed with a statement

immediately after question period. When they have a long statement to

make, to keep the House at its best tone in terms of temper, the

minister, instead of taking up a very long portion of a very short

question period, could very well do that. And then the opposition

doesn't lose its temper and everybody gets on with the business, and I

think that's the way it should be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

The point of order I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, has to do with what I

thought was your ruling, or part of your ruling, with respect to the

earlier point of order I raised about the length of the minister's

statement — namely, that the time taken up by the minister's statement

would not infringe upon the 15-minute question period and that the time

would be extended accordingly. I tried to keep my eye on the clock. I

couldn't do it as efficiently as the timekeepers can, but it seems to

me that that time was not appropriately extended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. I believe the extension was approximately five

minutes, and that represents the length of time taken up in debate. The

time for question period thus came to an end, and an extension was

granted, hon. member.

MR. RITCHIE: I thought this might be a very good time to ask leave of the House to introduce two guests whom I overlooked earlier.

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE:

I am very pleased and proud to introduce a couple of very old friends

of mine from my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. McInroy. I just want them to

be assured that this is not a normal day in this House. Would you all

please welcome Mr. and Mrs. McInroy.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Speaker, just for further guidance in terms of the ruling that the

member requested, I would ask you to advise the House whether question

period is extended only to the limit of the time of the minister's

statement, rather than extended beyond the time taken up by the

minister's statement. I would welcome your ruling on that as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'm very pleased to be able to take this opportunity to comment on my

estimates and my ministry early in the session. I will be having some

of my staff people arrive.... They're here now, I guess. Maybe they

could sit over here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few

brief remarks. I will, as always, be very pleased to answer any

questions that are raised by members of this assembly. In my opinion,

agriculture is the number one industry in this province. Although it

doesn't generate the revenue of forestry or energy and mines, it does

touch everybody in the province of British Columbia, as the supply of

food is most important to our well-being.

The agricultural

industry in this province is a growth industry. I'm pleased to be

associated with that industry, and with the people who really are close

to the soil in this province and provide us with many of the

commodities that we use in our everyday life.

I say it's a

growth industry, and I'd like to give some statistics, if I may, before

making further comments — just to look at the key economic indicators

in agriculture over the last four years, and relate them to the one

statistic I think we can all relate to, that of population. Our

population in British Columbia has increased by 4 percent since 1976.

In that same period of time the number of farms in British Columbia has

increased by 6 percent; the cultivated farmland has increased by 5

percent; the number of farmers has increased by 6 percent; and farm

cash receipts have increased by 34 percent.

All commodities

in this province have seen substantial increases. I'd just like to

touch on a few. Our milk production has increased by 9 percent in that

four-year period; poultry meat production is up 34 percent; egg

production is up 23 percent; tree-fruit receipts are up 80 percent;

vegetable re-

[ Page 2213 ]

ceipts

are up 32 percent; floriculture and nursery activity is up 52 percent;

honey production is up 100 percent. Cattle numbers in this province are

up 3 percent over the past four years — which isn't a very substantial

increase, but when you compare it with the rest of Canada, where

they've had a reduction of 10 percent, we have come through a serious

downturn in the beef industry a few years ago very well. In our hog

industry the number of hogs has increased by 72 percent. Sheep numbers

are up 37 percent. Wheat and rapeseed production is up considerably.

The only down indicator in all of that is our barley production, which

is down 30 percent. However, in many cases that crop hasn't been

planted; another crop has been planted in its place.

With

regard to the ministry, Mr. Chairman, our total budget has increased

from $55 million in the 1979-80 budget to $71 million. This is

approximately a 30 percent increase over budgetary allotments from last

year to this year. The bulk of that increase has been devoted to our

financial services, as approximately $13 million has gone to our

Agricultural Credit Program, which is direct assistance to the farmers.

The main feature of the ministry's budget estimates is a shifting of

funds in line with the planned reorganization of the ministry. A

relocation of staff in new positions is reflected in the reallocation

of salary.

Under the ministry reorganization, Mr. Chairman,

a short- and long-term agricultural plan will be developed for each of

the five agricultural regions in this province, and they will be

coordinated by a regional director. This will allow for a more

immediate response to the expressed needs of the region in question and

will result in fast action, frontline delivery of service and quick

evaluation of the results of those services in getting prompt feedback

from the agricultural community. We can adjust in order that our

services to the agricultural region is well thought out, efficient and

serves the needs of the particular agricultural commodities grown or

produced in that region. The reorganization will involve the

appointment of five regional directors who will serve as the senior

ministry spokesmen in their regions. They will coordinate all regional

program planning, in consultation with our specialist service staff,

with the commodity groups in those regions and, of course, the

agricultural organizations in the regions as well.

The

regionalization has resulted in a new vote, totalling $9.8 million.

It's called field operation, which consolidates all field extension

activity. Horticulturalists, animal scientists, entomologists,

engineers and crop specialists will become involved in a dynamic,

finely coordinated program of services. An important priority has been

identified and embodied in a new division called economics and

marketing services, and $1.2 million has been devoted to good marketing

and farm financial management. An expanded marketing services branch

will strengthen market development, research and information service.

It will also improve marketing board liaison and grade regulation. It

will increase food promotion in this province.

Our farm

economics branch will improve farm financial management and regional

economics as well as providing statistics, data processing services and

specialists in production and resource economics. In our financial

assistance

section of the budget, as I mentioned earlier, there is a

$13 million increase which primarily is directed to the Agricultural

Credit Program and the interest reimbursement program, covering costs

incurred in 1979 due to high increases in interest rates. We have

announced a program which will take place in 1980. Our limit for '79

was maintained at 9 percent, even with the high interest rate

increases. In 1980 we have stated that the plan would be that interest

reimbursement will be down to a level of 2 percent below the average

bank prime rate and in 1981 the interest costs will be reimbursed down

to I percent below the average prime rate. It will become an ongoing

program at that level.

I think the most important point I'd

like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the establishment of an ongoing

policy, rather than one subject to annual determination and declaration

by the minister, will enable the lenders and the farmers to make

long-term financial plans. We also can see in the budget that the

allocation to our Farm Income Assurance Program has been reduced by

over $3 million. That reduction, I know, can be attributed to the fact

that market returns have been much improved over the past few years for

B.C. agriculture. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the farmer in

this province would much prefer to get his returns from the marketplace

as opposed to government stabilization programs. However, we have to

recognize that we have to support our agricultural industry in times

when the marketplace is depressed. We have to support our agricultural

industry against low-cost imported product. Programs we have in place

in the province of British Columbia go a long way to giving assistance

to, as I say, our most important industry.

We now are in our

third year of the ARDSA program and it will continue to work at an

accelerated pace. This year we have budgeted $10.4 million for that

program. This has been our main channel of development funding. So far

we have committed $25.8 million of the five-year $60 million program

and it is proving to be more and more popular. We have had 588

applications to the ARDSA program received to date. A wide range of

projects, Mr. Chairman, in B.C. agriculture are eligible for

assistance, including range improvement, food processing, rural

electrification and research. In my opinion, as the minister who signed

ARDSA in 1977, this is the one area where we as a ministry can truly

support the agriculture industry in this province, by giving assistance

in development of the agriculture industry at the farm level or at the

value-added level. We can also be of assistance in bringing services to

rural communities in this province.

A new responsibility for

the Minister of Agriculture this year, of course, is the Agricultural

Land Commission. I'm sure I can say very frankly that the farm

community is pleased that the Land Commission is now the responsibility

of the Minister of Agriculture. We have appointed two new members to

the commission, increasing the number to seven. We have appointed a new

chairman, Dr. Mills Clarke, who is well known and well respected in the

agricultural community of this province. I hope in a short period of

time to name a full-time general manager who will be responsible for

the day-to-day operation. This should improve the efficiency of the

commission and relieve some of the pressure that has been placed on the

commission in processing applications and appeals.

I'm sure

the members will be pleased to hear of the allocation this year of

$384,000 for fine-tuning of agricultural land reserves. This is the

first part of a four-year program to identify and correct problems with

agricultural land reserve mappings, land-use conflict and parcel sizes.

I think it is a move in the right direction. I hope it will help

resolve some conflicts of whether land in the agricultural land reserve

in effect has an agricultural capability. I also hope it

[ Page 2214 ]

will

help identify those lands that in the first instance were overlooked,

that have a good agricultural capability but were not placed in the

agricultural land reserve. I am very pleased to say to the members of

the assembly that this is our first step in a four-year program to

improve mapping of the agricultural land reserve.

Before I

sit down I would just like to comment that in my opinion B.C.

agriculture has a tremendous potential in the 1980s. In this province

we have some things going for us. We certainly have in the short term

some possible conflicts or problems, but in the long term, for the

decade of the eighties....

Our energy costs are considerably

lower than elsewhere in the world, particularly the United States.

Also, we have a Canadian dollar at 85 percent of the American dollar.

This means our exports of agricultural products can be more competitive

in the marketplace. Even though some of our production costs are

higher, the relationship of the Canadian and American dollars allows

our exports to be more competitive in the marketplace. At the same

time, the U.S. import into British Columbia has to pay that premium

when it is converted to Canadian dollars. As a result, we have good

opportunities there for B.C. agriculture.

Also, we have a

fast-growing province. B.C. will continue to be one of the

fastest-growing provinces in Canada. That growth in population will

give new markets to our farm commodity groups.

Last in those

areas where I feel we have a competitive advantage are the

transportation costs of moving products to the market. Those costs will

continue to increase. I believe we have an opportunity in B.C.

agriculture to produce our products, our beef and some vegetable

products for example, close to the marketplace, to the lower mainland

and Vancouver, as opposed to constantly having to meet a low-cost

imported product. With the increased costs of transportation, those

products coming across the border will be higher priced, giving our

farmers a better return for their own products in the marketplace. By

getting that return, they will not have to rely on stabilization

programs to the extent that some of the commodity groups have had to in

the past.

I would like to make just a few other comments in

regard to the problems I see in the agricultural community in the

eighties. First of all is the cost-price squeeze. I mentioned that we

have had a substantial increase in farm cash receipts. In the last four

years the farm cash receipts have gone up by 34 percent. I should

mention that farm operating expenses have gone up 41 percent. In many

cases, the farmer will tell you, it seems he always has to buy retail

and sell wholesale, at the same time competing with low-cost imported

products. So they will have a problem and it is my ministry's

responsibility to give assistance and support to the agricultural

community to improve the efficiency of the farm operation and cut down

costs wherever we can look at new technology and new techniques. That

is, of course, what we will certainly continue to do. With our

reorganization, I think we can accomplish a great deal.

The

farmer also has a problem with urban encroachment. There are many

instances in this province today where, although people want to protect

the farmland and see B.C. agriculture grow and prosper, they don't want

to see a piggery anywhere within two or three miles of an urban

development, and they don't want to see a feedlot. Where we do have

existing farm operations, they're quite prepared to build the

residential areas up to the border of the agricultural operation and

then they complain because they don't like the feathers or the smell.

As a ministry, I think we have to speak out on behalf of the

agricultural community in this province and indicate to people that

agriculture is our number one industry. We are not going to take a back

seat and be pushed around in regard to local zoning matters; we are

going to have to take a position which supports the agriculture

industry.

We also have another problem with environmental

conflicts. There is a question regarding pesticide sprays, where the

farm community, as I've often mentioned, has to use certain sprays,

certain pesticides, to ensure that they have good quality food for the

tables of the consumers of British Columbia. We run into situations

where they're accused of being anti-environmentalist. I would suggest

to you that the farmer has the greatest stake in the environment in

this province; he's the best environmentalist we'll ever have in this

province and he's the best spokesman for the environment.

Those

are areas where we're going to have to, as a ministry, I think, speak

out in coordination with the agricultural community to ensure that the

future of agriculture in this province is not jeopardized because of

some of the "anti" groups which become very vocal and don't recognize

the value of the agriculture industry in this province. As I have said,

our 1980-81 budget has increased substantially. We have a

reorganization underway and this reorganization is designed to assist

the agricultural community and to help the industry meet the short-term

challenges which face it and, at the same time, to assist in obtaining

the long-term goals that we've set for agriculture in this province.

Mr.

Chairman, I have with me my deputy minister, Mr. Sig Peterson, and Mr.

John Newman, head of administration of my ministry. We would be very

pleased to answer any questions the members may have.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE:

I would like to thank the minister for his remarks outlining his

thoughts and ideas about agriculture in British Columbia during the

coming year or ten years. I was particularly interested in hearing him

say that as far as he was concerned agriculture was the number one

industry in British Columbia. I'm particularly pleased to hear him say

that, because last year, as you may recall — and as, I'm sure, the

minister recalls — he was holding a joint portfolio. I think at the

time his estimates came up for discussion there was no doubt in his

mind and certainly no doubt in my mind that he was not long for the

Ministry of Agriculture. Well, that didn't happen and here he is now as

Minister of Agriculture.

Incidentally, I would just like to

tell the minister, for his information — and give him perhaps the

courtesy of a little more advance notice than I had that these

estimates were coming up today — that the opposition intends to deal

with the estimates by first dealing with your responsibility for

agriculture, secondly dealing with the Agricultural Land Commission and

thirdly dealing with ICBC, which you didn't mention. So you may know,

Mr. Minister, this will be the order of debate from this side of the

House.

Regarding the idea that he is now the full-time

Minister of Agriculture, I can't resist just reminding the minister of

a remark he made very shortly after he lost the Energy portfolio, when

he appeared at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and he was speaking

to the federation as Minister of Agriculture. I think it was probably a

slip of the tongue, but

[ Page 2215 ]

during

the question period he was being pressured quite heavily, and he said:

"Hey, you guys. Go easy on me. After all, I've only had this for a

couple of days."

Well, I think if anything justified the

stance that the opposition took during the last discussion of estimates

— that there was no point in discussing agriculture with that minister

at that time — it was that remark, because if he didn't have charge of

agriculture for those preceding months and, in fact, for all the period

except a very, very short time when Mr. Shelford was Minister of

Agriculture, certainly I don't know who did have that responsibility.

It was rather revealing that the minister did indicate that he really

hadn't been concerned about agriculture prior to that time. So I was

very pleased to see him stand in his place today and talk about

agriculture being the number one industry in B.C.

I was also

very pleased that he read from his green sheet which I followed along

word for word as he read it here, telling about all the glowing things

that have happened in agriculture under his guidance. It was the

minister who stood in this House and, quoting some figures, quoted the

old cliché that figures don't lie but liars figure. Perhaps that was

what prompted me to make a few calculations based on this particular

piece of information which he circulated. Using his own figures, in

1977 the cash receipts to the farmer were $515.7 million. However, the

net return in 1977 was $103.4 million. In 1978, while it's true that

the cash receipts increased to $582.2 million, the net return for 1978

decreased to $97.4 million. This is taking figures right off the green

sheet from the minister. In 1979 the gross cash receipts increased to

$641.9 million. The net income was $87.9 million.

I went a

little further than that and I took the number of farmers shown on this

green sheet and I divided it into the total income received per farm

family for a given year. In 1977 the average farm income in British

Columbia for the average farm family was $5,222. In 1978 that decreased

to $4,822, and in 1979 it was down to $4,267. That's using the

minister's figures, with just a slightly different calculation.

think that to indicate the farm family is doing very well in B.C.

doesn't really give the entire picture. Certainly if you look at the

publication put out by Agriculture Canada, Canadian Farm Economics —

and this is the October 1979 issue — on page 21 there's a table dealing

by province with the number of farm tax-filing families and their

dependents in Canada. You find that there are 3,165 full-time farm

families in British Columbia who are classified as low-income. That's

44.5 percent of the total farm population in British Columbia, and it's

the highest percentage of low-income farm families in all of Canada.

That's taken from the federal publication, Canadian Farm Economics. On

the next page it gives some more specifies, and it talks about net

income of full-time and part-time farm families. B.C. has the lowest

record for farm families in Canada. The average net income is minus

$2,448 for full-time farm families in the low-income bracket, and for

the part-time ones it's minus $2,101. It's the worst record of any

province in Canada as far as net returns to the farmer are concerned.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a note from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), who would like me to yield the floor to him for just a

moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it will be brief, as I understand it. Thank you very much, hon. member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you to the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

I wonder if I could ask leave of the House to introduce a group of students.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I wonder if you would join me in welcoming a group of school students

who have just arrived from Kumsheen Secondary School in Lytton. They're

accompanied by three of their teachers, Mr. Art Nicholson, Mrs. Sharon

Spinks, who is the home and school coordinator, and Mr. Graham Everett.

They are down here to visit Victoria and the Legislature today. Would

those few members still remaining in the assembly room please make them

welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to join the

Minister of Forests in welcoming the young people from Lytton. I'm sure

that they're interested in agriculture, perhaps more interested than

some of the members of this Legislature. I hope they enjoy the debate.

So,

Mr. Chairman, I rest my case that we're not doing so well financially

in agriculture, according to the minister's own statistics and to the

statistics put out by the federal Department of Agriculture. Of course

this leads one to wonder why. Why aren't we doing so well here in

British Columbia? What are some of the reasons?

Well, I

think one of the reasons very much in the forefront lately is just who

you allow to become involved in agriculture in British Columbia. Do you

keep agriculture in the control of British Columbians? Do you keep

agriculture as an operation which emphasizes the small viable family

farm, or do you move away from that into the corporate concentration

area where history has been that the producer becomes merely a

share-cropper? This has happened in Ontario to a degree with the milk

industry, it's happened in Manitoba to quite a degree in the hog

industry, and it's happening under this ministry and this government in

British Columbia in the poultry industry.

We've had some

discussions on the floor of this Legislature before, relative to

Cargill. The minister persisted in getting rid of Panco Poultry,

because it was a no-no, because the New Democratic Party had bought it,

and therefore he couldn't keep it. He had to get rid of it.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, it was making money. It was doing a job for the poultry producers

of British Columbia. But no, he had to get rid of it. Who did he sell

it to? Cargill — a notorious, international corporation, a private

company that deals mostly in grain, but particularly in food-related

products.

He stood on the floor of this Legislature and he

told us that it was a great deal, Mind you, he made $8 million from the

deal — the difference between what the NDP paid for it and what he got

out of it. He sold it to Cargill. He told us it was a great deal. He

told us that Cargill was going to spend $4 million upgrading the plant

and putting it in shape. It was a great thing for the poultry industry.

It was a great day for farming in British Columbia. Well, we didn't

agree.

I'm surprised; I assumed that that minister had a good business background. He'd been an accountant at a credit

[ Page 2216 ]

union

for a long time. He should have been very knowledgeable about how to

operate in the business world. I just assumed that when he stood in

this Legislature and told us that Cargill were going to put $4 million

worth of improvements into that plant, that they were going to do it,

that they had to do it, because that was part of the agreement. But you

know, Mr. Chairman, he just did it with a shake of the hand. There was

no provision that those improvements had to be made. Nothing! No

assurance that that $4 million would be spent. Sure, there were lots of

fine statements from the people that managed Cargill. The new owner of

Panco Poultry, Cargill Grain of Winnipeg, announced a three-year

improvement plan. They said $3 million; the minister told us $4

million. We should have suspected something right then.

Roger

Murray said the plan involves installing modern equipment, using labour

and materials. He also said the plan will stabilize the long-term

future of the 350 persons already employed. "Aggressive marketing

programs will ensure that Panco Products retain existing markets as

well as build new ones, " said Murray. "New products will be developed

to meet consumer demand."

Well, it didn't happen. Cargill

did nothing except carry on the way Panco had carried on the same

amount of business. Then the next thing we know, Cargill is trying to

buy Maplewood Poultry Processors. It seems the minister had had a

slight change of heart, but I'm not sure whether he had a change of

heart or whether his heart was changed for him. Because certainly, if

you listen to the owner of Maplewood, if you listen to Cargill itself,

you hear that the minister had written to Ottawa saying he had no

objections to Cargill taking....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, if it's not true, he can tell us later. But certainly that's what

the owner of Maplewood is saying. That's what Cargill has said. I don't

know how the pieces fit into place if that isn't what happened. But

there is some indication that the minister was not opposed to the

takeover last November or December.

The minister will recall

that I finally became so concerned — nothing was happening apparently —

that I had protested to FIRA. It seemed that FIRA had no indication of

opposition from the government. I raised the question on the floor of

the House, and the minister at that time said it was under review. I

give him credit. Later — the next day in fact — he came into this House

and he indicated that he'd changed his mind. Well, no, he didn't say

that. But I'm assuming that he changed his mind.

Anyway, he

came into the House and he told us that the government was going to

interfere. They were going to intercede with FIRA and the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development was going to do that.

Several

days later we still hadn't seemed to hear anything. We asked the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and he said yes,

he had interceded. We asked him to table the document in the House, but

he decided he wouldn't do that, for various reasons.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, he refused. Yes, that's right. Thank you, Mr. Minister. He refused to file the document.

can surmise the reasons. Anyway, he didn't file the document. However,

they did intervene, and I'm surprised how influenced FIRA could be.

It's supposed to be an independent agency that makes a decision based

on the corporate concentration, and its assessment of that, under the

terms of the federal legislation. But somehow they are very easily

influenced by the stance of a provincial government. There are a lot of

pros and cons about whether that should be, but apparently it is.

Anyway, FIRA then came down — once the intervention had come through from the

provincial government — and said: "No, Maplewood cannot be sold to Cargill."

AN HON. MEMBER: You agree with that?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I agreed with that. Sure, absolutely.

But

the thing is, Mr. Chairman, that having taken that one step, having

gone the route of opposing the corporate takeover by Cargill, then the

minister, whether he likes it or not, and the government, whether they

like it or not, have intervened in the marketplace and have a

responsibility to ensure that the poultry industry continues to have

the facility, the jobs and the opportunity to continue to function.

That is where the minister has seemed to fall short, because that

hasn't happened. He made some eleventh-hour, deathbed repentance offer

to pick up half the tab, which the owner of Maplewood didn't accept,

and perhaps rightly so. Perhaps he is forcing the issue by not doing

that, I don't know. But that doesn't help those 135 people that are out

of jobs.

I think the most interesting development of all was

the sour grapes attitude displayed by Cargill once this was turned

down. They said, "Okay, that one's down today; in three months we're

going to phase out the turkey operation in our Panco operation" — the

part of the plant they already own. No more talk about a $3 million

expansion, no more talk about all these wonderful things they were

going to do for the poultry industry in British Columbia. They didn't

get Maplewood, so they were going to take their marbles and go home,

more or less. They were going to phase out the turkey operation.

Well,

does that sound like a good corporate citizen? Does that sound like the

type of attitude that should be displayed by a good corporate citizen

in British Columbia? It doesn't sound like that to me, Mr. Chairman,

and it certainly increases my concerns about what Cargill's intentions

really are here. I believe that Cargill is no different in B.C. than in

any other area where it chooses to operate. It wants control. It wants

control of the industry. It is already in pigs here in B.C. It was very

big in turkeys and chicken. It was already saying that the Panco plant

would not process birds if the eggs and poults were not purchased from

Pankell. It was already starting to throw its weight around.

it had taken over Maplewood I guess two things could have happened.

Either they would have completely taken over control of the poultry

industry here in British Columbia, probably moving into feed very

shortly, or they would have simply shot it down and imported the

product. Because that is the history of Cargill, and that minister

should have been aware when he made the deal with Cargill that he was

dealing with that kind of company. That very attitude is one of the

reasons that agriculture is in such an unhealthy position in British

Columbia. That is one of the reasons why the economic indicators, as

published by the ministry itself and by the

[ Page 2217 ]

federal ministry, indicate that we are not in good shape in agriculture here in British Columbia.

Now,

I could retrace the history of Cargill, some of its background, but

that's been gone over many times here in this Legislature, and I'm sure

that it will be gone into by many other speakers in this debate,

because this is a very important thing to those of us in the New

Democratic Party caucus. Cargill has become a symbol of the direction

in which you go. Do you go in the direction of allowing a large

corporation to control the production, processing and distribution of

your food, or do you ensure through some government intervention that

that does not happen, that the small family farm, the co-op or locally

owned concern, continues to have an ability to operate? We don't want

our farmers in British Columbia to be share-croppers, simply growing a

product on a commission basis or on a take-what-we-offer type of

arrangement, as is done with poultry producers in some of the southern

states. We don't want that to happen in our hog industry, as it is

happening in Manitoba. We don't want that to happen with any farm

industries in British Columbia.

I don't really believe that

the members on the other side of the House want that to happen but the

problem is that their philosophy seems to be such that they don't know

how to prevent it from happening. They move ahead, allowing people like

Cargill to come in and take over; allowing them on the shake of a hand

and a promise that they are going to do something, to buy a plant at a

bargain-basement price, actually. Then, at the eleventh hour, for

whatever reason I'm not sure.... I have an idea that perhaps the

minister found that other members of the cabinet felt that they were

getting so much pressure against Cargill they had to take the stand

they did. I sometimes wonder if it wasn't taken over the head of this

particular minister. But having done it, they should have carried on

with the next step to ensure that the poultry industry was secure in

the province of British Columbia, that there was the opportunity. The

offers that they have made, the negotiations that they are carrying on

seem to have ground to a halt. There is very little activity. I hope

that's not true. I hope that they can proceed to ensure that the local

farmer has an opportunity to participate there.

But, you

know, this is a problem of their own making, Mr. Chairman. It's a

problem that resulted from allowing a concern like Cargill to come into

the province in the first place, not only to come into the province in

this way, but I think one of the more shocking things that has come out

was the fact that under this government they managed to be pressured

into paying farm income assurance to Cargill in their swine scheme. The

minister said: "Well, it was a small amount. It was only one unit; it

wasn't on all of them." But the fact remains that Cargill really

doesn't need that kind of assistance. Taxpayers' dollars shouldn't be

being paid to an outfit of that magnitude. The minister said: "Well,

it's difficult; you wouldn't want to disfranchise the small corporate

farm." And no, of course, I wouldn't. But it didn't happen with the

former government. I think it's very indicative of this particular

government's attitude that it has happened with this government.

have concerns about the true direction that this ministry is taking

agriculture in the province of British Columbia. As I say, I'm very

pleased to hear the minister say that he believes agriculture is the

number one industry. I hope he really does believe that. If he really

does believe that, then I hope he is prepared to go to cabinet and

fight for that industry and to win a few of those battles, because that

doesn't seem to have been happening, Mr. Chairman.

They talk

about reorganization and food coming under agriculture; that's

mentioned in the throne speech. When we look at the estimates, sure,

there is extra money in the marketing end of it, but that isn't really

food. That's not really getting into the whole problem of

farm-gate-to-dinner-plate kind of arrangement. That's not happening, as

far as I can see from the figures shown in the estimates here. So

that's something we will want to talk about a great deal at a later

time.

But at this particular point in time, I think the

minister owes it to this House to make some explanations to the members

of this assembly regarding the sale to Cargill in the first place, the

lack of guarantee in the contract that any expansions would take place,

that those $3 million or $4 million would be expended to upgrade the

plant. Perhaps he should tell us the whole story behind the decision to

intervene with FIRA, why he was on the mainland talking to the poultry

growers and to the boards, particularly to the growers. In fact, my

information is that he asked the growers to change their position, even

though he had then officially changed to opposing the takeover. I think

those things should be told to this Legislature.

Then, I

think, having agreed and established the direction that he is opposing

the takeover, he should tell us what he is going to do to ensure that

the poultry industry is able to continue to function, what he is going

to do to ensure that Cargill does not still wield too much influence

and, in fact, whether or not he has any intention of involving himself

in this matter as a minister to support that particular facet of the

agricultural sector, or if he is just going to sit back and let it

ferret out its own answers as best it can. Is the minister prepared to

deal with any of those questions?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In

regard to the Cargill acquisition of Panco and the position of the

government concerning their desire to purchase Maplewood, first of all,

Panco Poultry was purchased by the former administration. It's very

well known throughout British Columbia that we didn't want to be in the

chicken business when we were elected in 1975. We didn't think that was

a role of government, and as a result we put the plant up for sale. It

wasn't just the processing plant; it was seven turkey farms, I believe,

four chicken farms and a feed mill. The government was in a vertically

integrated chicken business, right from the hatching of the eggs and

supplying the feed to the farms and farmers who were share-croppers and

to the processing plant. I hope I made it perfectly clear, Mr. Member,

that it was the NDP government.

I can tell you that when we

came into government the poultry industry was very concerned about the

plant and about the fact that government was involved in the production

and processing of turkeys and chickens. We sold it after a good

discussion with the poultry industry, I think, over a period of time.

When we went to sell the plant, we separated those farms from the Panco

Poultry holdings. We sold seven individual turkey farms and four

individual broiler farms to single-farm operators. We took it out of

government ownership and management share-croppers — if the member for

Cowichan-Malahat wants to use that term — and sold them back to where

they could be operated by an owner as a single-farm unit.

We then sold the feed mill to a small B.C. company from the Fraser Valley. We placed the poultry processing plant up

[ Page 2218 ]

for

sale. We had a number of offers, and all offers were fully analyzed.

The sale was completed to Cargill with the full understanding and

support, I might add, of both the broiler and turkey producers of this

province.

When we move into the Maplewood situation which

has come to light recently, where Cargill made its offer, our concern

was that they were moving to a more dominant position in the turkey and

broiler processing operations in this province. Up to this point we

basically had Scott's, Maplewood and Panco as the three major

operations in the poultry processing industry. With the loss of

Maplewood, if it was acquired by Cargill, we would have then had two,

and the Cargill operation would have control of in excess of 80 percent

of the turkey processing and in excess, I believe, of 45 percent of the

broiler processing, plus they would have been supplying 100 percent of

the turkey poults in this province. We felt that possibly was too

dominant a position for one major agribusiness to have in this

province. That's basically why we stated our case in Ottawa to the

Foreign Investment Review Agency.

I'm not sure that answers

all the questions that the member raised, but that specifically deals

with the Panco and Cargill situation.

MRS. WALLACE:

Why did it take so long to reach that decision? Why was it just at the

eleventh hour that the ministry finally got involved? And once having

taken that decision, what are you prepared to do now? One step is no

good without the other. You have to follow through, Mr. Minister. What

are you prepared to do at this point? First, why did it take so long to

reach that decision? Secondly, what are you going to do now?

MR. RITCHIE:

I will be very brief. I'm compelled to enter this debate only because I

was one of those unfortunate souls that suffered at the hands of the

NDP government when they were in power, and particularly at the hands

of that member when she was a member of the then known superboard. They

really threw their weight around in attempting to make the farmers of

British Columbia truly crop-sharing farmers.

I'm not sure

whether that member is totally confused, whether she's absent-minded or

whether, as usual, she's playing political games just to make political

points. But I think it would be fair for me to say here today, as close

as I am to the farming community, that they're not all listening to the

things that she's saying in this House, because they're misleading. I

have some clippings here that will prove to this House, to the gallery

and to the people out there, and particularly those people who are out

of jobs today.... I'm not allowed in this House to say that she's

hypocritical; that's not allowed. I don't know what to call it.

I'm going to read a couple of articles here that appeared in the newspapers on February 26, 1975:

Victoria-based poultry-processing firm has asked the provincial

government to back its bid to purchase a recently closed Abbotsford

plant. Agriculture minister Dave Stupich said Monday Maplewood

Processors has asked the government for a loan guarantee under the Farm

Products Industry Improvement Act to acquire the Willows Poultry

processing plant at Abbotsford. "

It was a straight request.

Then in the same newspaper August 19, 1975: "Government Accused of Delaying Loan to Reopen Chicken Plant."

Do you recall?

"The provincial government is dragging its heels

on a poultry-processing plant deal that would help egg farmers get rid

of their surplus chickens, a leading processor said here Monday. Brian

Hambley, head of Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., said his company is

still trying to negotiate with the Department of Agriculture for a $1.5

million loan that would help renovate and reopen the former Willows

processing plant in Abbotsford."

We started in February and

this is August; they're still trying. Then we get on to October. I'll

wait until the member's listening. This is quite important, because it

could be very embarrassing for you when you get out there to speak in

public.

MRS. WALLACE: You've never embarrassed me yet, Bill.

MR. RITCHIE: No sense, no feeling.

"Valley Poultry Plant to Reopen. The Willows Poultry processing

plant, which is now known as Maplewood, closed earlier this year, has been sold

and will reopen in time to handle Christmas turkeys. Bryan Hambley, owner of

the Maplewood Poultry plant near Victoria, confirmed Friday that he bought the

Abbotsford operation from Canada Packers for more than $500,000. When reopened

in early December the Willows plant will compete with the government-owned Panco

Poultry Ltd. and William Scott, 40 percent owned by the provincial government."

A private individual was going to gamble his money and get in and compete with the two majors owned by the government. "

"Hambley said Willows will rehire 110 Canadian Food and

Allied Workers union members under the same contract they had when the plant

closed ten months ago. Hambley said the plant will undergo more than $300,000

in renovations and be reopened. He added that the reopening comes in spite of

the provincial government's apparent desire to see no competition for its

two plants."

It's

not good enough for Cargill but it was fine for the socialist

government to hold the position that you didn't want this other company

to own.

"Earlier this year Hambley twice

applied and was refused a government-guaranteed loan under the

NDP-created Farm Products Improvement Act for secondary farm industry."

Who

are you kidding? You're not kidding me; you're not kidding the farmers;

and you're not kidding the people out there on the street, because they

know what's going on.

I would like to go on a little bit

further here, Mr. Chairman. I believe I mentioned this in this House

before, but here we have a member who, I believe, about a week or so

ago stood up in this House and said that this government refused Pan

Ready the financial support necessary in order to purchase this plant.

You said that. It's in the Blues. And you will find out if you check

that the Pan Ready organization did look at the operation and decided

against it.

[ Page 2219 ]

MR. LEGGATT: They didn't get the information to make the bid. That's the reality.

MR. RITCHIE:

The information is there. Don't try to make excuses. They decided on

good business judgment not to proceed with the purchase of that plant.

If you want to check out the details you will find that that is correct.

But

what I am really upset about and am quite concerned about is the fact

that we can have a member stand up in this House and say the things

that are being said that are really very deceiving and misleading to

the public, and the farmers don't like it one bit. That's not being

critical of the Minister of Agriculture, in my opinion; that's riding

on the backs of those farmers who really don't need this sort of

representation at all. They want good, sound, honest, commonsense,

practical representation or criticism, if that's what it must be. They

don't need this misleading stuff.

Do you recall the days

when the government overrode the producers in the purchase of Panco? I

believe it was the leader of your party who very quickly stepped into

the breach and said, "No, we want it, " offered and paid more money for

it and got it. Do you recall the day, Madam Member, when the board of

the day said that that was fine? But the regulations, as they apply to

everyone else, also apply to the government. At that time, Mr.

Chairman, they said that whenever a farm of this magnitude changes

hands, the production quota will be adjusted down to that which is

allowed everyone else.

Mr. Chairman, in that day the board, in order to be fair to the government

and not allow the government to waste any more tax dollars than were being lost,

said that we would do this on a graduated basis. They said: "We will reduce

your quota to the maximum allowed to anyone else, the balance we will put on

permit, and we will phase you out over a period of years." Very, very fair

indeed. But, Mr. Chairman, that was not satisfactory for that member and for

the other government-of-the-day appointed members, because they said: "No,

we're not going to stand for that, because we are government and you're

going to do it our way." Do you recall those days?

MRS. WALLACE: Not the way you do.

MR. RITCHIE: You can't remember?

MRS. WALLACE: I recall those days, but not the way you do.

MR. RITCHIE:

Well, I am prepared to stand up on any platform inside or outside this

House and tell it, because it's a fact. It's a fact of life, and all of

the turkey producers of this province are witness to the fact that you,

Madam Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, did in fact attend a meeting

where you said: "We know better what's good for you."

Do you

recall the day when you called the marketing board chairman into a

special meeting? By the way, I have since attempted to get the minutes

of that meeting but apparently they didn't keep minutes for that

particular one. But at that particular meeting, Mr. Chairman, the

chairman of the marketing board was told: "You will do what we instruct

you to do or we will throw you out of office and we will disband the

board if necessary." Isn't that right? Do you remember that? You were

there.

Do you remember? It was Dr. George Winner, who was

the chairman, who chaired the meeting that day, and I believe you had

your legal adviser — Mr. Moscop, was it? You remember that day. You

recall when the chairman said: "I would suggest you don't take such

dramatic action, because it'll only backfire and create a terrible

turmoil in the industry. It's not going to do anyone any good." The

chairman suggested that rather than do that we call all the producers

together and we ask them: "What would you like to do? Do you want the

government to maintain control of such a major portion of the

turkey-producing industry or do you want your board to proceed with the

plans that they have, which are plans that apply to every other

producer in this province? What would you like the board to do?" We had

a vote and it was unanimous. They said: "We want the board to stand

firm and do on this particular case as they do with any other — treat

the government as you would treat any other individual. You can't be

fairer than that. " And we had the vote and all voted in favour of that

position.

That member for Cowichan-Malahat very proudly

stepped to the podium with this agreement, which, in my opinion, was an

illegal agreement — all prepared and not signed by the board chairman.

You stepped forward to the podium and told the people there: "I am

sorry, but we know better what is good for you than you do." And you

signed it right there. The growers remember it. The industry suffered

very, very badly as a result of it. Madam Member, do you recall the

time when the government-owned plants said: "We disagree with you

producers on your pricing. We're not prepared to pay that price on

those grades, etc. Unless you do something about it, we're going to

stop taking your product". Do you recall those days?

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE:

You remember them. I'm glad you do, because the government-owned plants

said no, and we had real hardship in the field. We had families out

there who were really concerned and worried because not only had they

put their own funds into producing these birds, but they had a lot of

borrowed money in them as well. They could see this thing going down

the drain, and it was costing them more and more dollars per day.

I'm

going to wait until the member is paying attention, Mr. Chairman,

because I would like this to be particularly for her benefit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have the Chair's attention.

Interjection.

MR. RITCHIE: Well, that's fine, Mr. House Leader, if that's the sort of stuff.... You carry right on, but I'm telling the truth here.

would like to tell the House that those producers were very, very

worried, only because the government said: "No, we're not going to take

your product until you do what we want done." Eventually they had to

give in, because it was going to be a terrible political embarrassment.

Mr.

Chairman, I didn't really think that it was necessary for me to get

into this debate, because I'm sure that our Minister of Agriculture can

do a very able job of defending his own estimates. But I just can't sit

idly by and witness some of the statements that are being made without

putting this information on record. I would ask the member that she

[ Page 2220 ]

very careful about some of these comments. It just seems to me that

it's not a question of "Do what's right," but rather, "Don't do as we

do; do as we say." I don't think that's right at all.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the member for Central Fraser Valley has some great

recollections of the days when I was on the "superboard," but the thing

that he doesn't tell this House is that the "superboard" was called in

to get the turkey industry moving again when he was chairman and ground

it right into the ground. We got it moving by instituting a two-price

system, which is still in existence.

It is not my estimates

which are up here today, and we're not discussing the "superboard"

specifically; we're discussing this minister's actions and we're

discussing his actions relative to Cargill. I have asked a couple of

questions and I think the minister has them, but I will repeat them. I

want to know why he delayed so long in making his decision relative to

interceding with FIRA. And, having made that decision, what is he

prepared to do to ensure that the poultry industry in the valley

continues to be a viable operation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In order that debate may reciprocate, the Chair will recognize the member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, there's a very, very serious matter at the present time

in the Fraser Valley. I'd like to ask the minister a direct question

regarding the Maplewood Poultry Processing plant. With its closure,

many turkey producers are very concerned. I wonder if the minister has

an answer for this. I won't lengthen my remarks any further, because I

think it's important enough to get an answer immediately. I would

appreciate it very much, if he sees his way clear to do that.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I will answer the member for Dewdney's question; but

first of all to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace): I don't

consider there was any delay in deciding on the matter of Cargill's

offer to purchase Maplewood and the matter of the Foreign Investment

Review Agency. I believe that when the member asked the question of me

in this House, I said that the matter was under review. Shortly

thereafter, I also stood in this House, I believe, and advised the

member what the decision was and of the fact that we had communicated

that decision to Ottawa, saying that we could not support the purchase

of Maplewood by Cargill.

To the member for Dewdney — and I

guess to a certain extent to the member for Cowichan-Malahat who, I

believe, wanted to know what the action was for the turkey producers

out in the Fraser Valley — I can tell you, Mr. Member, that a little

more than a week ago we had a meeting in Richmond with the turkey

producers, the turkey board, members of my staff, myself and a

representative of Woods, Gordon, management consultants, and we set up

a task force to attempt to put the figures on paper as to what the

costs were going to be in regard to the acquisition of Maplewood.

Approximately

three or four days ago, I believe, I was presented with the

consultants' report, which basically just dealt with figures. I sent it

away because it didn't give me what I wanted, which was a proposal on

how we could assist in the turkey producers acquiring the Maplewood

plant. The task force, as I understand it, have been working on this

matter. As recently as yesterday morning there was a meeting with the

turkey producers. There will be a meeting with my senior staff on

Friday — tomorrow — and I am hopeful that a proposal will be in front

of me, basically saying how it can be done and what producer

participation there will be; possibly what employee participation there

might be; what involvement the programs under the Ministry of

Agriculture will have — for example, the ARDSA program or the

Agricultural Credit Program; and whether or not we look at financing

through the B.C. Development Corporation or other lenders. I hope to

have that material in front of me the first part of next week, in order

that I can make a decision or a recommendation to my cabinet colleagues

as to whether or not we can assist to the extent required — which will

make this plant viable, which will reopen it and provide employment for

130 to 140 employees, and which will provide for the processing of

those turkeys of the turkey producers in that area, who are greatly

concerned, because they're having to hold turkeys and continue to feed

them beyond their prime market time.

We all recognize that,

first of all, the plant closed back in 1975. I believe it was owned by

Canada Packers at the time. At that time, Mr. Hambley purchased it and

opened it and operated it. He determined to close it or to sell it to

Cargill, and the rationale behind those moves was the economics of the

plant — the fact that turkey inventories were high; the fact that the

market price for turkey was low; the costs of processing were high,

which meant running it at a loss continually.

The question

that has to be answered is: what is a realistic price for the plant?

What is a realistic method of acquiring the plant and of financing the

plant to make it viable? We have to address ourselves to the question

as to whether or not, if it cannot proven to be a viable operation — in

the long term even — should we then be moving in to prop a plant up. I

would suggest that that would open many doors to many industries in

British Columbia, who would say, "If Maplewood, why not us?", because

there are many industries today that, if for no other reason than

interest rates, are getting into some serious cash-flow positions.

I can tell you, Mr. Member for Dewdney, that I'm hopeful that in the

first part of next week I'll have that proposal on my desk — the one I

want; the one that will say: "Mr. Minister, here is how we feel it will

work. " Then I can indicate to Treasury Board or to my cabinet

colleagues what government's involvement or assistance will be, taking

the position that if we make these moves, we will have — in the long

term — a viable turkey processing plant in the Fraser Valley.

MRS. WALLACE:

I thank the minister for bringing us up to date on what's going on with

the Maplewood plant. For his guidance when he's reviewing the report

from Woods, Gordon and when he's talking to cabinet relative to this

matter, I would like to suggest that he consider some of the criteria

used by other credit-granting agencies in this province to other

organizations that are non-agricultural. For example, TIDSA sets a

maximum of $600,000 at half of prime; now that's a long way below the

one or two below prime that he's talking about for farmers. So I think

he should consider that. Other groups in this province, in other areas,

are getting money at half of prime. On top of that, they are getting 25

percent of the total amount on one of those "non-interest-bearing

forgivable loans," i.e. a grant. I hope the minister will bear that in

mind, because certainly the agriculture industry deserves at least the

same kind of treatment as the tourist industry in this province and, I

would say, probably a darn sight more.

[ Page 2221 ]

tells me that he told me they were reviewing the matter — the

intervention to FIRA — and that the next day he announced they had

intervened. Had the minister, or cabinet, made any contact with FIRA in

any way, shape or form, prior to that time, suggesting any position

that this provincial government was taking or proposing to take

relative to the takeover by Cargill?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In response to the question regarding TIDSA and the maximum advance

under the TIDSA program, which for the members of the gallery is the

Travel Industry Development Subsidiary Agreement, they have a maximum

of $600,000 non-interest-bearing loan, which is forgivable if they show

performance. In 1977 we signed ARDSA, which I think is the greatest

achievement in the Ministry of Agriculture in the history of this

province: $60 million, $30 million by the provincial government and $30

million by the federal government, a five-year program to assist the

agricultural industry in its growth in this province. Part of that

program deals with non-interest-bearing forgivable loans. The maximum

amount under ARDSA is $750,000. I have an agricultural critic who is

quick to criticize, yet doesn't even recognize the biggest program that

this ministry has put into place, a tremendous program. That $750,000,

if we can meet the guidelines of the ARDSA program, will go to the

turkey producers of this province to put Maplewood back into operation,

and to save those jobs.

So I would suggest that we've done a

great deal. We're there, and we're ready, and if we can fit in the

guidelines in that program, we'll get that plant in operation. But we

have to reach certain criteria first. You can't say to my federal

counterpart: "Let's put this money in, but even with this money it

won't work. " I can't do that. We have to design the strategy and

provide the information to determine that with that assistance it will

work.

That would be my only comment. I responded quickly to

that; I'll let the member ask me the other question because I've

forgotten it, I was so excited about that answer.

MRS. WALLACE:

You know and I know that ARDSA, as it presently stands, is not the kind

of program that can provide that kind of processing facility. If you

can get the federal government to agree, that's great, but certainly

ARDSA, as it has been used in the past, has been for something quite

different than the processing industry.

The other question

was: had you or any other minister made any communication with FIRA or

the federal government, prior to the statement that you announced in

the Legislature, relative to the government's position on the takeover

of Maplewood?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The communication with

FIRA does not fall under my ministry. That's the only comment I would

make, other than to mention this, going back to ARDSA. This program has

been in place and has assisted many of the processing plants in this

province since 1977. Don't say whether the federal agreement.... The

program's there, the guidelines are there, and it's available to

Maplewood. However, it must meet the criteria and guidelines of ARDSA

agreement, which any other processing plant in this province has to

reach.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a

few comments first of all about the remarks from the member for Central

Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). I am sorry he is not in the House. I got

the distinct impression that we were here debating the estimates of the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). It seems that she has been

placed in the position of answering questions for the ministry,

providing information in terms of agriculture. I just wanted to tell

the member for Central Fraser Valley, who is obviously the

minister-of-agriculture-in-waiting, that he is in for a long wait. The

next minister could very well be the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

terms of the problems that we have surrounding the Cargill and the

Maplewood questions, the difficulty is, I think, a lack of policy

direction on the part of the government. The government took a position

some time ago against vertical integration. That position led them to a

justification for the sale of the Panco operation originally. I have a

little bit of understanding of what their concerns are in vertical

integration. In the process of that sale of Panco, a government

operation which had only very mild vertical integration — but it had

some; we will have to agree that there were some farms around that

particular processing owned by the same operation. Their answer to

vertical integration was to sell that operation to the greatest

vertical integrator in the world, which is Cargill Grain. So don't, Mr.

Minister, with the greatest respect, justify the sale of that

government operation in terms of your opposition to vertical

integration, when what clearly is happening in the industry now, as a

direct result of that sale to that giant multinational, is the pressure

toward vertical integration which the government has a great deal of

trouble resisting.

Now I admit we see from the evidence that

there has been a kind of deathbed repentance. I see the minister

smiling, but I'm sure he agrees. He is now saying: "Look what we've

done now. Darn it, we've got this Cargill group in here. Well, let's

stop that anyway." You know, the baby was thrown out with the bath

water when the minister decided on the initial move in regard to Panco.

There's where the problem really lies. You invited the devil in, and

you are never going to get rid of him now. He's here and he's in the

process of vertically integrating that industry for the benefit of that

multinational.

It becomes a kind of debate over where we

want to go in agricultural policy. Do we want California as our model

for agricultural production? We have to admit that it's efficient and

that it produces low-cost food, but it provides a lifestyle that the

people of British Columbia reject for very good reason. In saying that,

Mr. Minister, I appreciate the fact that we may be facing higher food

costs. I don't think we can have the best of both worlds in every

instance. I think we have to be straight and honest about this and

admit that there are elements in a farm policy which protects the

lifestyle of the family farm which could result in higher farm product

costs. But the people of British Columbia, I say, have been willing to

accept that sacrifice all along.

This government hasn't

understood that that's what the people in the farming industry really

want. They want to protect their industry and their lifestyle. By

bringing in Cargill Grain you began the real process of vertical

integration. The very modest vertical integration, through decisions

taken out of sheer necessity by the New Democratic government in the

Panco situation, is peanuts compared to what the minister's now facing.

Ask the farmers how much they welcome Cargill into the province of

British Columbia.

[ Page 2222 ]

listened to my friend from Central Fraser Valley telling me about this

horrible thing that the government did around Panco. He said that there

were private individuals willing to put up money to compete. Remember

that he said that? Let's go back to the question of that acquisition

for just a minute.

I want to remind the member who knows so

much about Pan Ready Poultry: Scott Pan Ready wanted the Panco

operation. The reason Cargill got that operation was that they were

only slightly below the Cargill bid — and they put in a bid. Where was

the member for Central Fraser Valley? Why wasn't he up screaming about

the fact that Cargill acquired Panco in competition with good, native

British Columbia operations? I didn't hear him say anything about it.

That's a case of a private individual having been oppressed by the

government of the province at the time. Ask the directors of Pan Ready.

The member for Central Fraser Valley likes to have attention; I want to

have his attention for a minute. I want you to go to the board of

directors of Pan Ready Poultry and ask them how they feel about

Cargill's purchase of Panco, and their failure to acquire it. Was it a

business judgment on their part to withdraw, or was it the fact that

they were outbid by Cargill? They were outbid by Cargill by a very

modest amount. Just check his facts, that's all I'm asking. I'll be

happy to provide him with the correspondence I have in my file.

You

see, the member for Central Fraser Valley gets up and argues about how

the little guy in British Columbia got hit by this government's

decisions around the Panco operation. Well, they were hit even harder

by the decision of this government to sell Panco to Cargill. That's

where vertical integration is coming to the province. That's where our

problems lie, in now trying to resist real vertical integration from

the professionals at vertical integration.

MR. RITCHIE: Do you want me to respond with the facts now?

MR. LEGGATT:

You'll be able to respond if you like when you have a chance to get

facts. I don't mind him getting up and saying something. Go ahead, as

long as I don't lose the floor, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be entirely up to the floor.

MR. RITCHIE:

Very briefly, so that it's done when the iron's hot, the transaction

the member is speaking about.... I was quite actively involved in

assisting that group at that time, and the decision then was that they

did not have the capital nor did they have the full membership support

in order to purchase the Panco assets.

MR. LEGGATT: The member didn't comment on one other aspect: whether they had sufficient information to make an intelligent bid.

MR. RITCHIE:

Yes, I'd be very happy to. Yes, they did. I personally was involved

with the people who had the information, and the information was made

available to the group, which I was active in. It was based on that

information, finances available and total cooperation of all the

members that they decided against the purchase.

MR. LEGGATT: Did they withdraw their bid?

The

reality is that if you want to look at how small operators in British

Columbia are dealt with by either government or business, I can tell

you now that they're far better to be at the tender mercies of the

government than they are at the mercy of the Cargill Grain Company.

That's what the principle was all about, and that's something that this

government has failed to keep in mind when it tries to develop some

kind of agricultural policy.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

won't read the riot act again around Cargill Grain other than to say

that as a world corporate citizen they leave a great deal to be

desired. They are short weighting grain to India — 106 charges by the

Wheat Board of Canada, etc., etc. That's the kind of agricultural

policy we've had from that government, and from that particular

minister.

I want to say something, though, about the

agricultural land reserve, and this government's incapacity to protect

that particular reserve.

One of the realities is that in a

small community like Langley or the community that the member for

Central Fraser Valley represents, the pressures upon the local council

to remove agricultural land from the reserve is very high. There are

financial reasons for that. I think all of us in this chamber should

have some sympathy for those councils who are faced with the constant

pressure of trying to get industry to locate in their particular

community.

I represent a community which has a substantial

amount of industry and would like more. It has a substantial amount of

industrially zoned land. I've long been of the view that we have to

change some of the structure in terms of the industry tax support for

the small farm community. We need good legislative protection to

farmland, which we received under the New Democratic Party government

and, incidentally, has been weakened as a result of the appeal

procedure. But I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that the minister is now going

to consider changes in that procedure and go back to what we had, which

was a good way to protect farmland.

But the second point I

want the minister to think of very carefully. Not only do you need the

legislation which protects farmland, but we need some equalization

formula for those municipalities that are under the gun constantly to

remove their agricultural land from that reserve. This means we need

some form of equalization formula for the province. Those communities

that are very wealthy in terms of industry should be given some

obligation to help with the operating costs of the small farm community

that simply doesn't have a chance at the same kinds of local revenues.

wouldn't be forward enough to try to suggest any kind of formula to the

minister, but there is within that concept some very real progress that

can be made to help those communities like Langley, and like the

community of the member for Central Fraser Valley which need some help

in terms of resisting the pressure for industry and have a genuine

desire to protect their farmland in that particular area. It's the

financial pressures there, not only the speculative pressures but the

financial pressures on the local council which also need to be

addressed, and I don't think they've been addressed by this government

or by the last one. It's still, it seems to me, a problem that has to

be dealt with.

If we're going to talk in terms of the cost of food, there is no question

in my mind that people in this province do not wish to buy cheap food on the

backs of farm labour that is

[ Page 2223 ]

underpaid

and overworked and mistreated. If we say that we're in favour of a farm

union, I think we also have to say that we have to pay the cost. There

may be some price to pay in terms of this. There's no free lunch in

terms of the cost of food. I think those of us who avidly support the

formation of a farm union — and we do — also have to be consistent and

be prepared to say that the cost of food in British Columbia may not be

able to be as low as it is in California, Washington or Oregon, because

we have different kinds of conditions. We're trying to protect the

family farm. We have a province with very little agricultural land,

land that must be protected, a lifestyle that must be protected. When

you put all those into the great hopper, you have to come to the

conclusion that we must be willing to pay a little more for our

products. I speak as one who represents consumers, largely, and a

community which is only to a small extent agricultural.

want to also tell you, Mr. Chairman, about a particular piece of land

in our community which had been a reserve for industrial purposes. It's

a very large piece of land. A number of people farm on that land and

near it, and a change in the zoning will result in a great deal more

value for their land. The community is now debating very seriously

whether that land should be completely removed from any chance of being

in the agricultural land reserve. I want to say how proud I am of some

of my constituents who are farmers who have come forward and have

opposed that change, even though it's a financial disadvantage to them

to do so, even though it would clearly be to their advantage to see the

change in zoning which would result, perhaps, in a large capital gain

for them. Many people who live in that area have come to the councilmen

and said: "Look, we know it's to our financial advantage. But we want

farmland and we want to be farmers. We want that farmland protected."

It's those kinds of people that really inspired the beginning of the

agricultural land reserve. It's those kinds of people who see something

in the lifestyle of farming beyond the almighty dollar. Those kinds of

people really brought forward the policy of the New Democratic Party

and brought forward the agricultural land reserve.

I don't

believe people in this province want the California-style agribusiness

to run the agriculture of the province. As long as the policy of this

government is to bring in Cargill Grains, to bring in the Krafts and

the multinationals, then that kind of family-farm philosophy is going

to die. It will be a sad day. I believe the consequences of that policy

will be reflected in the polls. I believe that the philosophy of

farming still has to design itself in terms of farming of reasonable

scale. I'm ready and prepared to say, Mr. Chairman, that that may not

be the most efficient way to deliver the product. But when we lose

that, we'll never regain it.

I wanted to make one other

comment. The minister had something quite interesting to say about the

problems of urban development taking place right next to farm

development. Again, I come from a community which has a small amount of

farms that are all under pressure in terms of development. We have

subdivisions and we have the piggery problem in our community. Of

course, if you take it on the basis of the numbers of residents who

came out to have that sweet air and their subdivision, they're bound to

complain about the operation of that farm.

I want the

minister to give some consideration to a policy around the whole

province in which there are standards for farmers so that they have

some protection when they're outnumbered by the community. There have

to be standards and I think the farmers that I know are willing to

comply with those standards. But if we're going to protect the family

farm, we have to have some legislative backup so that they can't be

outnumbered at a municipal council — as long as they're complying with

reasonable agricultural standards. The last thing is to provide some

greenbelt space between those farms which operate in an urban setting.

But

to get back to the major question of where we're going in agricultural

policy, to invite the multinational villains of the farm world to

dominate the agricultural industry of British Columbia will mean the

death of the agricultural industry in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman,

and this government has to take that responsibility.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) talked about

assistance to those municipalities that are somewhat restricted in

their development through the agricultural land reserve. We all know

that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does have revenue-sharing

programs — I would suggest probably the best type of programs to assist

municipalities anywhere in Canada. However, at the same time I also

understand that even with those revenue-sharing programs sometimes the

tax base, because of large blocks of agricultural land which can't be

developed into multiple-dwelling developments or can't be developed

into commercial or industrial endeavours, does cause a hardship on a

rural municipality. The only comment I can make is that type of debate

in regard to assistance to those types of municipalities may well be

something that could be brought up under the Minister of Municipal

Affairs' estimates, Mr. Chairman.

In regard to our farm

labour rates in the province of British Columbia. I'm advised by my

staff that, although they may not be adequate to many people, in

British Columbia we pay or we have the highest farm labour rates in

Canada. I'm not sure whether that makes our rates totally acceptable,

but we do pay higher than most other provinces in Canada. The farmers

of this province are deeply concerned — and I'm deeply concerned —

about farm labour unions. I think the reaction that has taken place to

have farm workers unionized is because of the impact of the somewhat

unscrupulous activities of farm labour contractors who have created the

problem. In most cases I would suggest to you it's not the farmer who

hires people but the farm labour contractor.

The concern I

have, and the concern the farm community has, is that if we do have

organized labour on the farm, the impact work stoppage could have at

harvest time would be substantial. We are dealing with a perishable

product and it has to be harvested. It's not quite the same as stopping

an industry through a lockout or a strike; it means that the whole crop

could be jeopardized. I've expressed that concern to the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and I would hope that with any organized

farm labour group consideration would certainly be given to the farm

operation so that at no time would labour be withdrawn when a crop was

ready for harvest.

To the member for Coquitlam-Moody, I've

stated many times that I am fully in support of the family farm

concept. It is the backbone. I think, of our rural areas in this

province, and it's a way of life. Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, it's not a

lucrative way of life — you don't make any great profits — but it is a

way of life that I think we would not want to lose or jeopardize. I can

assure the member that I totally support the family farm concept.

With regard to the impact of urban encroachment on

[ Page 2224 ]

agriculture,

we have in the past few years, first of all, set up a green-zone

committee that has worked very well with regional districts and

municipalities in trying to design proper zoning bylaws that will

consider farm building setbacks, buffer zones and greenbelt areas so

that the urbanization doesn't totally come up to the farm-gate, but we

do have some setbacks that protect the farmer from the complaints of

the urban dweller once he moves out into the countryside to smell that

clean, fresh air, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned.

So,

Mr. Chairman, these were the issues raised by that member. I just go

back to the Panco Poultry, however, because I recall in his first

remarks he was talking about the vertically integrated company and the

fact that the government was finding itself in some difficulty in not

supporting vertically integrated companies and then selling to Panco.

Two things that I'd mention: it was the government-owned,

vertically-integrated company we weren't happy with, and I stress

"government-owned." We never felt that government should be in the

chicken business.

In regard to the sale of Maplewood — to

show them that I'm not totally opposed of vertical integration, or some

of it — if the turkey growers are successful in acquiring this to an

extent, Mr. Chairman, that will be somewhat a vertical integration,

because they will produce the birds and they will own the facility that

processes those birds. My main concern is to get that plant operating

to provide a facility for our growers and also to make sure the people

out in that area have employment.

MR. LEVI: It is a

very pleasant debate this afternoon. Having a quiet and somewhat

responsive minister is a bit of a change from the last 19 days.

The

minister finished up his remarks by giving us his impression of

vertical integration, and he said that was the major concern that the

government had in respect to Panco. It would be interesting if he would

enlarge on what his fear was about the government ownership.... And, of

course, it also had another company.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

the same time, perhaps later on in the debate, we might say to him:

"Well, perhaps you'll give us your views on vertical integration in

respect to ICBC." Because if you have one set of criteria for your

concerns about vertical integration vis-à-vis Panco and the previous

government, you might explain to us whether you don't have the same

fears in respect to ICBC.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Talk to him; don't talk to me.

MR. LEVI: No, no. You're the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Talk to your seat partner.

MR. LEVI:

I'm talking to you, because you're the one who just made the remark

about vertical integration and the government's concern. You answered

the question by saying that this government's concern was the former

government's involvement in vertical integration in the poultry and

turkey industry. You might want to comment later on whether you have

any concerns vis-à-vis ICBC. They both happen to come under.... You are

the reporting minister. You want it one way in respect to insurance and

you want it another way in respect to the poultry industry. But for you

to suggest in any way that there's a comparison — even if there was,

and I don't agree with your views on this — between what the previous

government did in terms of Panco and vertical integration as

demonstrated and exemplified by Panco.... Well, that's ridiculous.

Cargill is the largest agribusiness in the world. They have sales

approaching $20 billion. Cargill is an incredibly large multinational

kingpin of the agricultural business.

The irony of the

discussion we're having vis-à-vis the broiler industry and the turkey

market industry is.... We talk about Panco and the sale of Panco, and

now we're looking at the problems of Maplewood and we're talking again

about Panco. I would be interested in knowing the basic reasons the

minister gave for the objection to FIRA. He gave us some answers in the

question period. When the purchase of Panco was announced in respect to

Cargill.... He was not the minister then. The then minister, Mr.

Shelford, said: "Cargill will purchase the land, building, machinery

and equipment used in the processing and hatchery operations. It will

also purchase Panco's inventory and accounts receivable." Then, because

it was a joint release with Mr. Veitch, who was the Minister of Small

Business and who is now not a member, Mr. Veitch said: "Cargill intends

to implement a substantial investment program in new production,

development, promotion and expansion in both the British Columbian and

Canadian poultry markets. They have emphasized their willingness to

work with all aspects of the B.C. poultry industry in promoting and

marketing B.C. poultry products."

That was what they said

they were going to do. At that stage of the game the then minister

really didn't have too many anxieties about the behaviour of Cargill.

The present minister has expressed the same lack of anxieties prior to

November of last year. We've had the debate around Panco for quite some

time in this House. The minister was quite prepared to defend the

government's action in terms of the sale of Panco to Cargill, but

something has changed the minister's mind. The minister should remember

that the original purchase of Panco by the previous government was done

really at the behest of the Federal Industries people. The government

didn't go to Federal Industries and say: "Do you want to flog your

operation?" They came to the government. They've been trying to sell it

for quite some time, because they were in trouble. So they came to the

government.

We always looked at two things. You look at one

thing. You look at the dollars and cents, and that's it. When we were

the government we looked at two things: dollars and cents and social

responsibility. The reason for the purchase of that plant, having done

a number of assessments of it — they didn't just walk in and say,

"We'll buy it" — was the consideration of 480 employees who could have

lost their jobs. That was the real consideration. It was

an act of a

government, in terms of social responsibility, to all those people.

now have the same particular situation related to Maplewood, except the

people of Maplewood are not working. This question came up last

November — the whole business of the problem, sale and involvement of

Panco. Yet here we are at the end of April where the minister tells us

that sometime in April they put together a task force and he has a

report in respect to what might be done to finance operation. I'm

curious as to what was going on for the previous four months.

[ Page 2225 ]

know there was a change of heart by the government. We know that

initially there seemed to be no real concern by the government that

Cargill should not get involved in this purchase. My colleague, the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), asked a number of questions

in the House, and presumably those questions had an influence on the

change of heart of the government. Even so, the government was still

dragging its feet. They must have known that if they were finally going

to reverse their decision on Cargill...who was going to buy it? But it

appears that no consideration was given to where the financing would

come from for the one or two companies that were interested in

purchasing it. All of this has taken place right at the end of April

when 124 people are out of work, when the owner of the plant is losing

$20,000 to $40,000 a month because he can't operate — plus the fact

that there's a problem in terms of the whole maintenance of the

operation.

We have an opportunity — because we're into this

aspect of the minister's estimates — to discuss the whole business of

government ownership, or government involvement, in support of

business, in purchasing companies that exist. We know where the

government stands in respect to purchasing businesses. They don't

believe in it. However, the government is now attempting — I hope,

breaking its neck — to come up with a solution in respect to assisting

in the purchase of this. Now the minister has told us about certain

cost-shared programs. But there's a ceiling on how much money can go

into it. Inevitably it would seem to me that if the government is

serious about maintaining that particular company, the government,

either through the minister by direct grant, or through BCDC, is going

to have to get involved in supporting whoever wants to purchase it —

(

a) for the purpose of maintaining a viable operation, (

b) for the

continued provision of employment. At the moment we've got unemployment.

The

minister should be candid with us about what the government is thinking

about. We know that it changed its mind. We know, for instance, what

this particular government's attitude to FIRA was in 1978, because it

was in one of its constitutional papers. When they tabled a number of

constitutional papers in 1978, they had some remarks to make about

FIRA. It's true that their remarks seem to be directed towards resource

industries. What they were really saying in that paper was that the

operation of FIRA isn't really a very good one and it should keep its

nose out of the whole business of acquisition. They were making

reference to the whole business of our natural resources. What they

were saying was, "Let's continue with the same theme that we've always

had in this province, that we'll be the hewers of wood and the drawers

of water and let the companies come in and make their investments."

They didn't want to see FIRA operating. They said that right in their

documents. I don't hold a great brief for FIRA, but I can say that it

does act in the first instance as something of a brake. It's an

attention getting mechanism, albeit in many cases much too late.

Certainly we need a mechanism which warns the people of Canada that

companies from the outside are coming in and are going to take over.

There's

evidently been a change of heart by the government, Mr. Chairman.

Government is now concerned about foreign acquisition. The minister has

expressed a great deal of concern about the acquisition by Cargill of

the company. He's concerned about it, and he should be concerned. You

could fill three filing cabinets with the kind of information that is

available on Cargill, albeit the most secret company in the world. They

don't even have to report to anybody. We're fortunate in Canada that we

have a law which requires that any company that has sales of more than

$5 million report to the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs. And we can write and get facts and figures on their operation

— not necessarily on their operation in the United States, only the one

in Canada. You should know the kind of problems that existed before

various United States Senate committees, Mr. Chairman, in trying to get

Cargill to produce information. Cargill weren't as reticent about

providing information about their company as CPR was about saying how

much their president, Mr. Sinclair, got.

We obviously have

to question that kind of an operation. It's secretive, and it's

transactional. It operates in 40 countries around the world. We warned

two years ago, at the time of the acquisition of Panco by Cargill, that

they were in it because they have to make money; they have no basic

social responsibility to the countries that they operate in. That's

been demonstrated time and time again, throughout their various

operations and by the criticisms of the governments of the countries

that they operate in, including their home country, the United States.

Particularly in places like India and in Great Britain, where they've

had some problems with them — and in the other countries. All right, so

we invited them in. At the time, the then minister — even the present

minister — felt that we were being somewhat hysterical in our concerns

about Cargill. We're not being hysterical about it. It's a terrible,

terrible thing to say but the chickens have come home to roost. I don't

want to say that in the middle of this debate. After all, we're dealing

with chickens and turkeys and God knows what.

Let me ask the

minister if he would do this for us. In November when FIRA was looking

at this thing, as we understand it there was no recommendation from the

government at that time. Subsequent to that, because of the questions

by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, there started to be some

consideration by the government. When did the minister advise FIRA of

his concern, and if he did do that, when did he advise them that they

intended to oppose the acquisition? What were the reasons? He did say

that they had some concern about the kind of control that Cargill could

exercise in the industry. If that's the case, is that because he's

concerned about the issue of vertical integration just in this little

industry or is he generally concerned about it? If he is concerned

about it, then he's at one with us over here, because we are concerned

about the vertical integration that is practised by a corporation like

Cargill.

If Cargill is the only option for sale and we have

people in the province who want to buy it, then the government has to

look realistically at where they can help. It's no good saying that the

private sector will look after itself. It's remarkable, but the private

sector to a large extent does not look after itself. The government of

Canada in 1979 produced a booklet, and in this booklet it talked about

corporations. In 1978 — it was published in '79 — over $7.5 billion was

other interesting fact was that at that particular time the

corporations only paid $6.7 billion in taxes. They were ahead of the

game by almost three-quarters of a billion dollars. It's nothing new.

You can't tell us that the basic tenet of free enterprise is

[ Page 2226 ]

that

the government mustn’t get involved in assisting. It happens every day.

We've got the minister, Herb Gray, worrying over the future of the free

enterprise system because he's got to go help Chrysler. We're not

dealing with Chrysler out here. We're not talking about assistance —

$350 million in Canada and $4 billion in the United States. We're

talking about finding a reasonable amount of money which is well within

the possibility of this government. After all, we're constantly dealing

with bills about surplus funds in this House. Here the minister and the

government have an opportunity to strike two blows, to keep a company

Canadian and create employment. Those are two very worthwhile social

endeavours; they're not just peculiar to free enterprise governments.

If you were wrong in the beginning, as you were, because you were upset

about the involvement of the government in Panco.... We now know that

Cargill is not prepared to live up to the expectations that his

predecessor and the previous Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development had. One of the things that's going to happen....

Oh,

I just want to pause for a minute. I see a former member of the

Legislature, Mr. Strongman. I'd like everybody to say hello to him.

Welcome, Mr. Strongman. The only reason I introduced him is he used to

represent Vancouver South and I used to represent it as well. Of

course, my friend, Mr. Hyndman, does too now.

Let's continue

the debate around the issue of Cargill, Panco and Maplewood, but let's

do it in terms of where you stand philosophically about assisting

Canadian companies. If you want to have the argument about the free

enterprise system, I've given you some facts about how free and

enterprising the system is. It requires $7.5 billion of government

money, taxpayers' money — it goes up every year; $7.5 billion in 1978 —

to assist it in business. Then your version of the free enterprise

system, of course, is not quite correct. It's out of kilter with the

whole of the rest of Canada. I suppose what we have to say is that

everybody has to walk to the same drumbeat as what goes on in British

Columbia. Well, that's not terribly practical at all.

Just

to recap so that we can go on with what is an exceptionally good

debate, in November the first notice was given about the possible

acquisition by Cargill. At that time, as I understand it, the

government made no intervention, but subsequent to that an intervention

was made. It would assist us if the minister would tell us on what

basis the intervention was made. Was it made because of having reviewed

the performance of Cargill in respect to the purchase of Panco and what

it said it would do? Did he have some fears that these people would not

live up to it? The other question is: did he finally arrive at a

realization that integration by a company like Cargill could only be

deleterious to an industry like the poultry and the turkey one? If he

arrived at that then he should tell us. Then, presumably having made

those decisions, the logical thing for him to do now is to move as

quickly as possible to assist the company that's now not operating, and

the some 125 people who are out of work.

I understood him to

say that he had hired a management consultant firm, and what he wanted

was the report to be on his desk which would tell him how not to do it.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

That's not what you said? Fine. So I would appreciate it if I could

hear from the minister what the genealogy of the events was in respect

of the decision-making to oppose the acquisition by Cargill.

MR. HYNDMAN:

May I associate myself with the remarks of welcome for Mr. Gerry

Strongman. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) and Mr.

Strongman and myself belong to an exclusive club of those who have

represented or represent Vancouver South. Mr. Strongman continues his

active interest in public affairs, and is now serving as vice-president

of the B.C. Social Credit Party. I join in welcoming him today to the

galleries.

As the previous speaker, the member for

Maillardville Coquitlam, suggested, I think accurately, so far the

estimates of the Minister of Agriculture are off to a thoroughly

productive and interesting start. Speaking individually, I hope that

tone and course may continue through these par