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)

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2501 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Liquor distribution branch personnel changes. Mr. Macdonald –– 2501

BCBC hiring practices. Ms. Sanford –– 2502

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Maplewood Poultry Producers

Deputy Speaker –– 2503

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Howard –– 2504

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2506

Division on vote 9 –– 2507

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2507

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2508

Mr. King –– 2509

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2509

Mr. Nicolson –– 2516

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2517

Mrs. Wallace –– 2517

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2518

Mrs. Dailly –– 2518

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2520

Mr. Levi –– 2521

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2523

Appendix –– 2524

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens on Sunday

morning has had a widespread and most harmful effect on our neighbours

to the south in the state of Washington and on the residents of a large

number of other states of the United States, who have sustained not

just inconvenience but in many cases severe damage. Lives have been

lost and the lives of many are endangered. I am sure that all members

of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia will join me in

expressing to all who have been so drastically affected our sincere

concern and sympathy in this emergency.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty today to ask the Legislature to

welcome Mr. Tom Unwin and his class of students from Port Moody Senior

Secondary School.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I

understand we have some members of the Welsh Rugby Union visiting us in

the gallery today. They are here on the occasion of their centenary and

will be playing at Royal Athletic Park tonight. In the gallery we have:

Gwyn Roblin, president; Rod Morgan, tour manager; Cliff Jones,

president-elect; and Myrddin Jones, senior administrator. I would ask

the members to welcome them.

MR. BARRETT: Considering the scores on the rugby team's tour, I'd ask that they have some sympathy for the Vancouver Island team.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

We are very fortunate today to have two very attractive young ladies

visiting us from Hope in my constituency. These girls have shown a very

keen interest in the political system in British Columbia, and with

young people like this showing such an interest in the democratic

system I can say there really is hope for British Columbia. Would the

House please welcome Terry Feser and Tammy Smith.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I ask the House to welcome a leading family from Maple Ridge, Mr.

Walter Hayes, his wife Suzanne, their children Patrick, Lynda and

Jennifer, and also Mrs. Hayes' mother, Frances Neubauer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, on Saturday afternoon I had occasion to spend a good two

hours with the Hon. Speaker Schroeder, and he conveys through me his

very best wishes and greetings to all.

Oral Questions

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH

PERSONNEL CHANGES

MR. MACDONALD: I have an oral question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, who met last fall — I think it was in October — with

representatives of distilleries: Seagram, Potter, Hiram Walker and one other.

Did the subject of Mr. Nick Clark, who was then the director of purchasing for

the liquor distribution branch, come up and was it discussed at the meeting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, it was, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

A further question. Did the representatives of the distillers indicate

they wanted Mr. Clark removed or given a lateral transfer or an upward

demotion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't

intend to discuss matters involving one person within the branch. Yes,

the matter of Mr. Clark was discussed at that meeting.

MR. MACDONALD:

I repeat my question. Did not the distillers indicate they wanted him

removed from that position of director of purchasing? Secondly, didn't

you do so following that meeting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I have no desire at this moment to respond to the first

question. What was discussed was private. That which involves Mr. Clark

as an employee of the liquor distribution branch is something that

obviously affects Mr. Clark. I have had no suggestions from Mr. Clark

indicating that he wishes the matter to be brought forth. Mr. Clark was

transferred to a different position within the ministry and he is

functioning well in that position. Mr. Clark did not appeal the

transfer to the job, and I have not heard from Mr. Clark that he wishes

the matter to be raised in public at this time. If Mr. Clark wishes to

be in touch with me and if he wishes his personal work history within

the ministry to be discussed publicly, then perhaps circumstances would

be somewhat different.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I

want to ask another question, but I want to make it clear that we're

not asking about him as a person. We're asking, on behalf of all of the

people of British Columbia, about him as the director of purchasing.

It's the public who are asking the question. At the time of that

meeting I asked the minister this question also: did he not have a

separate meeting and discussion with the representatives of the

distilleries that I've mentioned without the presence of Peter

Bazowski, the deputy minister, and Bob Wallace, the general manager of

the liquor distribution branch?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Regarding what?

MR. MACDONALD: The campaign funds.

If you're asking me in oral question period what the subject was, I'm telling you. Did you have a separate meeting?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, the member asks if I had a separate meeting with some

people. Would he please identify which people he is speaking of?

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, the people I'm mentioning are David Roche, executive

vice-president of Seagram's; John New, executive vice-president of

Hiram Walker; and senior officials of Potter's and Schenley's. Did you

have a separate meeting with those people, apart from when your

[ Page 2502 ]

deputy

minister and the general manager of the liquor distribution branch were

not present and did you have discussions at that time?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the people referred to in the

article in the Vancouver Sun ,

which the hon. member from Vancouver East so conveniently refers to,

were present at the meeting in Vancouver, which was canvassed earlier.

I'm not aware that I met privately with these gentlemen identified by

the member.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is not aware

of whom he met with. Did you meet and have discussions with any

representatives of the distilleries in a separate meeting about that

time? I'm asking you as minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I'm not quite sure if the member has now altered his question — as to

its being all as a group, separately, on any occasion, about any

matter....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Say so. Campaign funds?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Apparently the Leader of the Opposition wants the floor.

MR. BARRETT: I'm responding to an allegation the Premier made.

BCBC HIRING PRACTICES

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Provincial Secretary in charge of BCBC. In 195

out of the 200 buildings in the Victoria area alone, BCBC has replaced

union employees with non-union workers, who perform maintenance and

janitorial services in those government buildings. Could the minister

explain why the policy exists to reduce the standard of living of

employees performing work at government buildings by hiring non-union

workers at largely minimum wage rates?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

There is no such policy, as the member appreciates. I might say that at

the first stages of the development of the Buildings Corporation, this

government indicated that its policy would be in the direction of

attempting to conduct maintenance work and other work of this kind on a

contract basis.

If the member is referring to recent

concerns of staff members of BCBC who have been involved in the

maintenance work in these buildings, I've met with representatives of

this group, Mr. Speaker, and satisfied them, I believe, that they have

no concern over their future employment. In regard to the matter of

contracts — which may or may not have been entered into by the

Buildings Corporation — involving outside maintenance contractors, some

of whom may be union and some of whom may be non-union, there is no law

in this province which prevents that. I really think that the concern

of the people who appeared before these buildings the other morning is

not valid. Maybe they have some concern that their own jobs will be in

jeopardy down the line. This is not the case. I assured them that the

work they performed on this particular building and other buildings

within the region here is exemplary. I think there is no doubt about

the fact that they do perform a very good and high quality type of

service. This problem has been escalated by virtue of the fact that the

Buildings Corporation has entered into an arrangement to contract work

in the Douglas Building and relocated some of the staff maintenance

workers. There is no such thing as a policy, as you suggest.

MS. SANFORD:

The policy may not be stated but it seems to be quite clear when in 195

out of 200 public buildings the government employees are being replaced

by largely non-union workers working at the minimum wage.

BCBC

net income last year increased by 14 percent, up to over $17 million. I

am wondering whether or not the basic negotiated issues such as

adequate wages and job security and working conditions are not of

concern to an arm of the government such as BCBC. They are not of

concern? No answer.

Well, I would like to pose a question to

the Minister of Labour. Does the Minister of Labour condone the

practice of BCBC to replace union workers with workers who do not enjoy

the benefits of collective bargaining?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Could you explain, Mr. Speaker, why that's out of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, it's not for the Speaker to explain; it is simply to rule.

If you wish to refer to the matter, it is found quite clearly in the

fifth edition of Beauchesne on page 132,

section 359.

MS. SANFORD:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will look that up. In the meantime I have

another question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that

in March of this year BCBC, through a contract, employed non-union

workers to carry out alterations and renovations at the Ministry of

Labour office at Deer Lake?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr.

Speaker, I am aware of that particular contract. Since it has been

raised, perhaps it might be advisable to explain to the House exactly

what occurred.

Some leasehold improvements were required at

Deer Lake Place, particularly within the Ministry of Labour. I might

add at the outset that I was not aware of this particular contract or

that it had been let. I cannot give you full particulars as to the

tender amounts which were submitted. However, approximates, which I'm

about to give you, are reasonably accurate. The low tender was

something in the order of $24,000; the second lowest tender was in the

order of about $38,000; BCBC awarded the contract to the low tender.

The

job was approximately one-half to two-thirds completed, at which time

the matter came before me that the contract had been awarded to a

company which was not certified. A problem subsequently ensued, but

through a lot of discussion the contract was completed by the company

which was not certified, to the best of my knowledge. The differential

of $14,000 was roughly 60 percent more. The problem I was faced with

was that in looking after the treasury and the taxpayers within the

province, I think that it was incumbent upon me to support the contract

which was let until it had been completed.

I might also add, though, that that was rather difficult,

[ Page

2503 ]

particularly

in view of the fact that it was done at Deer Lake Place. As we know,

Deer Lake Place is handling negotiations between companies and unions.

All companies are usually certified. That aspect of it bothered me

greatly, but the fact of the matter is that the low tender had been

awarded and the job was two-thirds completed. It was a subject of

discussion between the building trades and the B.C. Federation of

Labour, but it now seems to have been resolved satisfactorily.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, has the minister decided that in future, when he becomes

aware of situations such as this, BCBC will not be permitted to carry

out non-union contract work at Ministry of Labour buildings?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member. It inquires as to future policy.

The member for Comox has the floor — a new question.

MS. SANFORD:

Has the minister decided that no further contracts of this type will be

carried out at Ministry of Labour offices such as the one at Deer Lake?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, hon. member, the question does deal with future policy.

MS. SANFORD:

Has the minister decided that he will not permit contracts of this type

to be carried out at Labour ministry offices such as the one at Deer

Lake? Has he made that decision?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I appreciate the sensitivity of the problem when, of course, it

involves the Ministry of Labour. However, as a general policy, I do not

think that I'm prepared to make a statement with respect to any

government project. I believe that it's properly covered under the

statute, as I recall — the Public Construction Fair Wages Act. I think

there's a matter of balance in here which we must consider. Remember,

we are responsible to the taxpayers of the province to secure the best

possible contract for them.

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, on Friday last the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) asked leave, pursuant to standing order 35, to move

adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance:

namely, the poultry industry in British Columbia. The hon. member made

a similar application on April 11 last on a specific aspect of the same

subject matter. That application was not in order for the several

reasons later given, based on the prohibition set forth in Sir Erskine

May and other authorities. On this occasion the hon. member is unable

to bring herself within the requirements of standing order 35, in part

for the reasons earlier stated, and additionally because of the

provisions of standing order 35(6)(

c) and because the estimates of the

Ministry of Agriculture are still awaiting further consideration in

Committee of Supply.

Secondly, hon. members, at a previous sitting the hon. Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett) raised a point of order relating to the necessity of tabling documents

which may have been cited or referred to in the course of debate. The rules

on the subject are clearly set forth in the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine

May, page 421, as follows.

For the House to be able to demand that documents should be laid upon

the table, three conditions must be fulfilled. In the first place, the

minister must have quoted from the document. It is not sufficient that

he should have referred to it or even to have summarized or paraphrased

it in part or in whole. Secondly, the document must be a dispatch or

other state paper. The rule cannot be applied to private documents.

Thirdly, the rule cannot be applied to documents which are stated by

the minister to be of such a nature that their disclosure would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

2) A minister of the

Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state

paper not before the House unless he is prepared to lay it on the

table. Also, the rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held

to apply to private letters or memoranda. The rule has been held to

apply to public documents only — Parliamentary Debates ,

1865, 179c. 489. Confidential documents or documents of a private

nature passing between officers of a department and the department are

not necessarily laid on the table of the House, especially if the

minister declares that they are of a confidential nature.

3) Mr. Speaker Pooley, Speakers' Decisions ,

vol. 1, page 86, has said: "There is no rule requiring the production

to the House of any private letters, memoranda or documents which have

been cited or quoted from during debate." In applying these rules, this

House, in its more recent practice, has not always insisted that a

document quoted from be technically a public document before calling

for it to be laid upon the table. It appears, therefore, that the most

important test is whether or not a document has actually been quoted

from, which would, subject to consideration of the public interest, be

required to be tabled; or merely referred to or summarized, which would

not require tabling. According to Beauchesne, fifth edition, page 116:

"A private member has neither the right nor the obligation to table an

official, or any other, document." Usually, however, when called upon

to do so, private members in the House have tabled documents from which

they have quoted in the course of debate.

Hon. members, on

another matter, a point of order was raised by the hon. member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) as to the obligation, if any, of the government

House Leader to advise the House of the business proposed to be

embarked upon at the next ensuing sitting of the House. The hon.

member, with a view to assisting the Chair in considering this matter,

has provided me with precedents of the practice which obtains in the

House of Commons, Ottawa.

With respect to the practice in Ottawa, Beauchesne, fifth edition at page 50 states:

"

(3) The government House Leader discusses with the House Leaders of other

parties the business arrangements for the House and attempts to reach

some compromise on the length of debate on each of the various items of

business.

"

(4) As a matter of practice, since 1968, each Thursday,

following the question period, the government House Leader states, in

reply to a question put by the House Leader of the official opposition,

the projected business of the House for the forthcoming week.

"

(5) The government House Leader also moves

[ Page 2504 ]

housekeeping

motions, allots supply days and generally ensures that the House is

kept busy in as efficient a manner as possible."

From what

Beauchesne says it is self-evident that the statement of the House

Leader as to future business is subject to some understanding or

agreement between the parties in the House as to the length of debate

on the various items of business and subject to unforeseen

circumstances. On the same point the sixteenth edition of May at page

260 states:

"The member of the government who is primarily responsible

to the Prime Minister for the arrangement of government business in the House

of Commons is known as the Leader of the House. He controls the arrangement

of business in that House while the program and details are settled

by the government chief Whip.

"When

each week's program of business has been arranged, the Leader of the

House states the business for the following week in answer to a

question put to him at the end of questions on Thursdays by the Leader

of the Opposition and, whenever necessary, makes further business

statements from time to time. He may also move procedural motions

relating to the business of the House."

Subject to the

contingencies which I have mentioned, such a practice has much to

commend it, providing that party Whips are normally able to reach

agreement as to the length of debate on various items of business.

Perusal of Hansard will show

that this House has not adopted any practice under which the government

House Leader is required to make a statement or committal as to the

future order of calling the items of business set forth in Orders of the Day .

The practice has been that the government House Leader, at the close of

a sitting, may respond to a question or indicate himself the business

proposed to be undertaken at the next sitting. Accordingly, the Chair

may not require a statement of future business to be made until such

time as the House may see fit to adopt a sessional or standing order to

so provide.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, in

responding to your ruling about tabling documents, I want to express to

you the concern I have about the distinction between responsibility of

a private member and that of a minister. Rather than take the time of

the House now, with your concurrence I'd like to relate the specific

details of the ministers' refusal to table documents related to the

second part of your ruling. Perhaps you could clarify that later.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $551,612.

MR. HOWARD:

I was hoping, as you put the motion, that the Premier would have taken

the occasion to rise first and deal with a number of matters that have

been raised by way of questions, virtually since the beginning of the

consideration of the Premier's estimates — questions that have gone

unanswered. We know — and I think I need to say this again — that we

have inherited in this land a system of government identified as

responsible government. It is a system that has evolved over a long

period of time in the United Kingdom as a result of contest and

struggle against the Crown by the common people of that land. It is a

system that evolved and said, as it says today, that government is

responsible to the Legislature, and through the Legislature to the

people in the land. In this case we're talking about the residents in

the province of British Columbia.

In my view the Premier, up

until now in any event, has shown a marked lack of respect for that

time-honoured portion of our institution called responsible government

by reason of his absolute refusal not only to answer questions but in

many instances even to acknowledge the fact that they were posed. The

Premier has been absent for a number of days now, both from the House

and the Committee of Supply, in dealing with his estimates. It would

have been my thought that since the last time the committee considered

those estimates the Premier might have reflected upon the attitude he

has toward the Legislature and the general public. He has an attitude

of denying to them responses and answers to questions posed to him. We

see no evidence of that yet. If it had been there, I'm sure the Premier

would have risen at the beginning of the calling of the estimates today

and dealt with those specific answers. Therefore it seems there are no

regrets on his part about having refused or failed to answer those

questions that were posed to him over the preceding days. Apparently he

has no desire now to deal with them.

Almost in a sad way, I

have to comment, that refusal strikes at the core of our democracy. We

know that a minister can refuse to answer questions. That is resorted

to very rarely and resorted to in its practice because of the delicacy

of something at a particular moment that might be under negotiation

internally within the department or with another government. In those

instances that's respected, but a consistent refusal day after day on

the part of the leader of the government, the first minister, to even

recognize certain questions, let alone give any explanation as to why

he refuses to answer them, is that which strikes at the foundation of

our democracy and responsible government.

The Premier may

gloat about this in private, Mr. Chairman. He may chortle and laugh

with his colleagues about an effective stonewalling with respect to

questions posed to him. He may rejoice with his colleagues about it,

but that doesn't answer the simple question of why the Premier has

taken the stance of thumbing his nose at the general public and saying

to the public: "It isn't any of your business, general public, with

respect to these specific questions." And the public does have the

right to know. When the Premier thumbs his nose at the general public,

it's about time the general public had an opportunity to decide whether

or not he should stay there. That's what should be tested if the

Premier is intent upon this course of flying in the face of our

democratic institutions. He may think it's smart to have provided this

injury to the concept of responsible government. By the Premier so

doing, it reflects, I think, a therapeutic blindness to truth and open

government. It's obvious at this moment that any further attempts on

the part of members of the opposition to re-pose those questions to the

Premier would be fruitless. They've been articulated, enunciated and

asked on a number of occasions, all to no avail. There seems,

therefore, no point in dealing any further with a person who holds a

high office in this land and who has so injured that high office by

refusing to pay attention to respectful ques-

[ Page

2505 ]

tions posed to him about what goes on within his

high office, and what has gone on within it. That denial, on his part,

of respect for this institution, of respect for the right of the

general public to know, is tantamount to an insult to the general

public and should not go unnoticed.

There is no opportunity

in committee to put any motion that says the Premier has to reply to

those questions. But there is an opportunity on another occasion to

deal with it. The only course open at this stage, I think, is to

indicate to the government and to the Premier that it is fruitless to

waste any more time with this person and his estimates — this person

who has such a lack of respect for responsible action in this

Legislature. We therefore need a mechanism — and I think it's offered

to us at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place — to express

a lack of confidence and want of confidence in the Premier,

specifically, individually — in that office and in the person holding

that office. This requires, by rule, a substantive motion in the House

so to say that, and at that appropriate time that will take place —

under notice.

Let me then recite the substance of what such

a motion should be and what it will be. It would be that the

Legislature expresses a lack of confidence in the Premier of this

province by reason of his failure or refusal to answer certain

questions in Committee of Supply, to wit:

a) relating to the

proposed sale of uranium at a meeting which the Premier had with the

Commission of the European Communities in September 1977....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. It is hardly appropriate that the procedure

that a member is going to adopt in the House be pre-reviewed — if I may

put it that way — in Committee of Supply.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm not pre-reviewing it, Mr. Chairman. I want to recite, if I may

then, questions which have been posed in Committee of Supply, which the

Premier has steadfastly, obstinately, arrogantly refused to answer, in

the hopes of providing him at one fell swoop with the opportunity to

answer them. I am reciting them for that purpose.

b) relating to the proposed sale of uranium in Korea in October 1979;

c) whether the Prime Minister of Canada telephoned the Premier with respect to the resignation of Chief Justice Farris;

d) whether the Premier discussed the resignation of Chief Justice Farris with the then Attorney-General of the province;

whether there was a secret Social Credit Party fund or funds handled by

someone paid from public funds, working in the Premier's office;

whether any money paid from public funds as lease fees for ferries

sold, on a lease-back arrangement, by the provincial government to

eastern financial interests was ultimately paid into any secret Social

Credit Party fund or funds handled by someone working in the Premier's

office;

g) whether anyone in the Premier's office was a signing officer for any secret Social Credit Party fund or funds;

whether certain accounts payable by the Social Credit Party were sent

from Social Credit Party offices to the Premier's office for the

attention of and action by Mr. David Brown, and whether the said David

Brown was the same David Brown who was employed as a communications

planning adviser at a salary of $36,432 paid from public funds;

i) what amounts of money, if any, were raised by employees working in the Premier's

office for deposit to any secret Social Credit Party fund or funds;

whether the Premier investigated a public statement by one Mr. Tony

Tozer, an employee in the Premier's office, that a secret fund had been

used to pay the costs of the so-called "dirty-tricks" seminar and, if

so, what action the Premier took to correct the situation;

renegotiate the federal-provincial agreement which relates to financial

services in and for British Columbia;

1) whether the Premier

interfered in the operation of the legislative Committee on Crown

Corporations by pressuring the Chairman thereof to postpone a meeting

which would have examined B.C. Hydro's application to the National

Energy Board for the export of firm power to the United States;

whether the Greater Vancouver Regional District had been consulted

prior to the Premier's announcement of the proposed Annacis Island

bridge;

n) whether the Premier was aware that phony letters

to the editor were being prepared by the Social Credit caucus research

staff who were paid from public funds;

o) whether the

Premier was involved in arranging for one of his employees, Mr. Tony

Tozer, to set up interviews between the police and the staff of the

Social Credit Caucus Research Bureau;

p) whether the Premier

had a meeting with Victoria businessmen to discuss the operation of a

jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria;

q) whether the Premier made any commitments of public funds to subsidize the Seattle-Victoria jetfoil service;

whether the Premier knew that the Seattle-Victoria jetfoil was going to

be operated under a United States flag and with a United States crew;

whether any private company which has any of its directors also as

directors of the B.C. Development Corporation, a Crown corporation, has

received any loans or grants from the B.C. Development Corporation;

t) whether Doman Industries specifically received any land from the B.C. Development Corporation;

why one Mr. David Brown, while working in the Premier's office, was

involved in authorizing a payment of $2,500 to Goldfarb Consultants of

Toronto;

v) why the Premier would tell a group of Victoria

high school students on April 29. 1980, that he ''didn't announce'' the

forming of an ethics committee within the Social Credit Party, when he

did announce in October 1979 that he would bring forward a resolution

to the Social Credit convention to establish an ethics committee:

why the Premier said on September 27, 1979, that, "We have no intention

of having our party try to manipulate the media through hotlines or

letters to the editor," when on May 27, 1975, he sent to Social Credit

constituency associations material marked "personal" and "strictly

confidential," saying: "It's hoped that this new material will be

useful to those in the constituency who are directly in the field of

communicating in hotline shows and in the preparation of material in

the letters to the editor column in newspapers circulating in your

area."

x) why the Premier would not answer with a yes or a

no the question: "Does the Premier believe the general public has a

right to know what happens in his office?"

Mr. Speaker, the substance of that will be dealt with at

[ Page 2506 ]

another

level. I hope it will be filed in the House as a notice of motion at

the appropriate time. We will sit there hoping on our part that the

Premier will have the decency to call it for debate and for a vote

thereon; otherwise we can spend no further time dealing with this

person who has such a low regard for this Legislature and the right of

the general public to have answers to those questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, it's very instructive to know that the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard) has been able to recite the alphabet for us this

after noon. He also rehashed a lot of questions that have been dealt

with and rephrased others into a conclusion which was not correct,

changing in nature things that were said to make them appear

differently. It will be interesting to compare what the member has said

before in this debate and what he said today.

Those

questions I could answer, I have answered. Those that belong in another

area of responsibility can be posed to the ministers responsible, and

the member knows it. However, what I found offensive this afternoon —

when the member for Skeena is finished getting more instructions on

what to say from the Leader of the Opposition; I suppose most of what

he says comes from the Leader of the Opposition — were statements that

somehow he has a great love for the democratic institution and

parliament, a great sensitivity, and that I, as the Premier and leader

of this party — and in fact perhaps our party — have not. I resent

that, and I'll put both my private and public records on the line

against those of the member for Skeena. I'm proud of my record of

service to the community. I'm proud of my record in this country and in

this chamber. I'll put my record on the line with the member's any

time, or with that of any other member of this assembly, for that

matter. I find it offensive that they can establish a so-called attack

to try to suggest that somehow the government is insensitive to the

Legislature and to the process, because their questions are badly

phrased or out of order or belong in some other area to be asked to

find answers. Those questions have been dealt with. However, I think

perhaps the public have had an opportunity to witness, through this

period of time and beyond, I guess, the conduct of the opposition in

this Legislature and their standards.

I don't know if they've received the same questions at their convention

last week about what they were doing, but I was asked about them when I was

visiting Trail on Friday night. I had a great opportunity for a great Italian

meal with the Colombo Lodge, who were putting on their seventy-fifth anniversary.

I must say that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), a member of

the opposition, was at that dinner, and he was at the weekend celebrations in

his constituency. I was there as well. I enjoyed talking to him about a number

of these issues and was very interested in his comments. But I would say that

out there there was a question: what is the NDP doing? What is the opposition

doing? Why are they dragging their feet? What is the matter in the Legislature?

I tried to explain as best I could, but I could only tell from the government's

side. I'm not able to explain the strategy, now that the member for Skeena

has taken over direction of that party, along with the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt), in developing House strategy. We know that the member for Coquitlam-Moody

is in on these strategy sessions and this is what he agrees with — his tactic,

his style, a style we'll see more of, because it's new to this House,

and it's developed during this session and since the election, of two members

who have brought their new tactic from their experience in Ottawa, I guess.

However,

to get back to the questions that were or weren't asked, they have been

dealt with or can be dealt with in other areas. I'm afraid that the

opposition has been worried that perhaps their questions are asked in

the wrong place, but we have lots of opportunity for estimates of

specific ministers, specific questions, in the future. I'll be

interested to listen to them take advantage of that opportunity then to

see if they're as interested as they say they are. It will be

interesting to compare the questions that have been asked in the last

little while with those that will be asked in those areas where they

should be directed.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it's

not very refreshing to have to listen to someone so incurably infected

with his own arrogance. Those questions....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. As the hon. member is more than well aware, there are

certain words that are not generally used, and the latter word is on

the list. I would ask that in the spirit of debate all hon. members....

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I used the word earlier this afternoon, and it was accepted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly not as viciously, hon. member, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. HOWARD:

I will certainly withdraw the word "arrogance" and replace it with

"stubbornness": stubborn blind refusal to recognize what is truth and

honourable dealings in this House.

Let me reiterate it: the

questions that I recited a moment ago were all directed to the Premier

during the estimates. He can't toss them off to somebody else. They

were not, as the Premier intimated, rephrased; they were taken directly

from Hansard . They were not distorted to give them a different meaning. They were extracted from Hansard .

The only person who has done any distortion with respect to them has

been the Premier. He said they were either out of order or something

else. Every single one of them, for the Premier's interest or benefit,

was in order and so held to be by the Chairman of the committee. The

Premier just can't toss them off in that weak, insipid manner. Be that

as it may, the Premier has once again said to the general public of

this province: "You do not have the right to know what goes on in my

office." The use or misuse of campaign funds, the whole phony letters

campaign, the dirty tricks activity, the simple uncomplicated meetings

that he had with business people.... He's telling the general public

that they have no right to know what he does with the taxpayers' money.

Mr.

Chairman, as I said earlier, there's no point in going any further. We

intend to file a notice of motion, when the House meets, setting out a

lack of confidence in the Premier. If the Premier has got any guts at

all about it, he'll call that motion immediately and we'll have a vote

on it.

Vote 9 approved on the following division:

[ Page

2507 ]

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me that there

should be a vote 9 1/2. The first minister now has a deputy. Every

minister that has a deputy has an administrative vote, and we don't see

that before us. We are just wondering what is happening now that there

is the very esteemed Lawrie Wallace in the office of deputy. The poor

chap has no vote whatsoever in this House. We were just quite concerned

that we might be out of order here, and that vote 10 is likely out of

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, vote 10 is not out of order at this stage, hon. member. However, your point will be taken by the Chair.

MRS. WALLACE:

I think that this would perhaps be a good opportunity, inasmuch as the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is also in the House, to raise an

item with the minister that I've been waiting to discuss for some time

under his estimates. I relate to the sale of milk.

I think,

for the benefit of the members in the House, it would perhaps be well

if I just retraced very briefly what has happened with the sale of milk

in British Columbia. In 1960 the Milk Industry Act came into being, and

it made provisions for various controls on the sale and supply of milk.

Under

section 4 it indicated that:

"No person

shall sell, offer for sale or supply milk in fluid form unless the

owner or operator of the dairy farm on which the milk is produced is,

in the case of milk which will be sold or supplied as pasteurized fluid

milk, the holder of a subsisting certificate classifying his farm as an

approved fluid milk dairy farm, and, in the case of milk to be sold or

supplied as raw milk, subject to

section 5 of this act, is the holder

of a subsisting certificate classifying his farm as an approved raw

milk dairy farm."

Under another

section of the act — I think

it's

section 6 — it specifies that a municipality can send a notice to

the Minister of Agriculture saying that in their particular area they

would like to have raw milk provided.

At the time that act

was passed in 1960, when in fact there was much more disease in the

dairy industry than there is now, there was a provision made for the

supply of raw milk under very strict controls and regulations. As time

moved on, the government of the day moved to eliminate the sale of raw

milk, and in 1968 an order-in-council was passed, which excluded, by

school districts, nearly the entire province. There were other

orders-in-council that did this as well. In fact, at the present time,

I think there are only two areas that are allowed to produce raw milk:

one is on Cortez Island and the other on Saltspring, I believe it is —

two of the Gulf Islands. The opportunity to produce or supply raw milk

has been literally removed in the province of British Columbia. I

recognize some of the reasons behind that; it was a health concern.

But

the problem that has come to my mind very forcibly during the last few

months is that there is a tremendous amount of raw milk being produced

and supplied in this province. Nobody can tell you how much because

there is no regulation or control over it. I am surprised at the number

of people that are in the production of raw milk. The unfortunate thing

is that within the ministry there is really no provision for any

inspection. The only time the ministry involves itself — this is my

understanding from the staff in this ministry — is if a complaint is

laid. If someone complains that someone else is selling raw milk, then

the ministry goes out. They talk to them. They say, "You must not do

this, and if you do it again we will take you to court," and that is

it. If they continue to sell and if someone again complains, then the

case goes to court.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

According

to my understanding there is not the staff nor the provision nor the

inclination to inspect these raw milk dairies. As a result, those

dairies are producing milk with no controls. The people who are buying

the milk from those producers are trusting in the honesty of the

producer to provide that milk, to have the cows properly inspected and

tested, to properly chill and care for the milk, to care for the

containers of that milk. But there is no legal protection for those

people. Not only that, but the person who is supplying it is breaking

the law.

It seems that the minister is going to have to make

a decision as to which way he is going to go. If, as in the letter that

he circulated to all members some time ago, signed by himself and the

Minister of Health, he is really sincere in his expression there that

there is this kind of danger from drinking raw milk and we must drink

pasteurized milk, then he has to do something about the inspection of

the raw milk dairies. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that there's a

great deal of raw milk, produced by the commercial dairy farmers,

consumed in this province quite legally. I don't know of any commercial

farmer who sells his milk and buys it back after it's been pasteurized.

Now there's probably no concern there, because those cows are tested

and those dairymen are all drinking raw milk from tested cows. There's

an additional problem there and the dairymen themselves are beginning

to face up to this problem. Many of those dairymen are selling

[ Page 2508 ]

raw milk on the side as well as supplying the pasteurized market. So that's another part of the problem.

The

dairymen certainly have a concern about this, because it's an unfair

competition in their marketplace. The dairymen are required to meet

certain specifications and standards. At the present time they're

paying high prices for quotas; they have a very sophisticated kind of

barns, milk houses, colling tanks, etc., and the whole supply system.

They're in competition with people who don't have to do any of that.

has been tried previously and the cases have been dismissed, but there

is a move now to legalize this whole process of selling raw milk by

selling shares in the cow, because it's not illegal to drink milk which

isn't pasteurized from your own cow, but it is illegal to supply milk

from a cow to someone who doesn't own it. I know of two cases presently

being prepared to go to court concerning selling shares in cows, and

the present owners will simply become cow sitters. If that occurs, it's

going to be a very severe threat in this particular situation.

I'm suggesting to the minister that he has two alternatives. He can

really lay on a police force and go out there and try to control this

raw milk, which will be a pretty expensive business and I think

probably a very ineffective one. Some of us can just barely remember,

though I'm sure all of us have heard of, the days of prohibition of

liquor. Certainly that didn't work. I don't think prohibition of the

sale of raw milk is going to work either, because there are a great

many people who are convinced that they want to drink raw milk. They

don't want to drink pasteurized milk. I'm not making an argument one

way or the other, for or against. What I am saying is that the

government has a problem and should face up to this responsibility to

ensure that if those people are drinking raw milk, they are protected.

What I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister move to once

again allow raw milk dairies to produce in this province, with proper

controls and inspection, and with the same kind of costs and

requirements that are presently facing the commercial dairyman who is

shipping to the pasteurized market, because without that there is a

developing threat to the commercial dairy industry in B.C. as well as

to the health of British Columbians who are drinking raw milk that is

not being properly inspected. I would certainly appreciate the

minister's comments on that particular topic.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I thought maybe the member wanted to ask a few more questions before I

responded. I think the member is correct in saying that there are two

existing dairies that are supplying raw milk. There is an inspection

service for those, but no new dairies were to be established, and none

have been. There is no licence available for the operation of a

commercial raw milk venture. The Ministries of Health and Agriculture

are in agreement that the sale of raw milk does constitute somewhat of

a risk to the consumer. The two existing dairies were there when the

legislation was brought into place. As a result, they've been allowed

to continue, but they are very closely inspected. There is a risk to

the consumer in the use of raw milk. The time-frame involved in getting

that milk to the consumer could cause a problem, as opposed to going

through the pasteurization system.

I would have to say at

this time, Madam Member, that I would not be prepared to look at an

expansion of raw milk facilities in this province. I think we've made

that quite clear in our communication to the public. Those commercial

dairy farmers who do consume their own raw milk certainly know the

state of their farm operations and the cleanliness of their animals,

their barns, etc., and have, in their minds, eliminated the risk to

themselves and their families. But I think to go into a large-scale

commercial operation of the sale of raw milk would be a backward step,

considering the fact that we've come a long way from the days of Louis

Pasteur. I think what we've accomplished has been to the benefit of all

the consumers, so I'd have to say my position hasn't changed.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister has indicated that he is not going to change, as far as

any amendments to the act are concerned. What is he going to do about

the sale of raw milk? Is he going to let it continue without inspection

or regulation? Is he going to establish a police force across this

province that will ensure that people don't drink raw milk? Is he going

to beef up his dairy branch so they'll get out and inspect these farms?

Or is he just going to wait until somebody, perchance, happens to

report that this is happening?

The problem isn't going to go

away just because he doesn't change the act. The problem is there and

it's going to get worse. It is getting worse. If he hides his head in

the sand and doesn't face the problem, we're going to be in a situation

where something is going to happen; where we are going to have someone

contacting undulant fever or TB, or picking up something through the

improper use of antibiotics — unless he does beef up that inspection. I

suggest that that's a horrendous task which he can't accomplish,

because people are going to find ways around that law. I'm very sorry

he's taken the position he has, but having taken that position, is he

then going to go the other half of the way and do something about raw

milk sales? Is that what he's telling us?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Our position hasn't changed to, you might say, inspect and allow the

sale of raw milk. I think it would be a backward step, as I mentioned

before. The two recognized dairies that were in existence years ago are

still being inspected and they are allowed to sell. But we don't

encourage, nor do we want to see, the expansion of raw milk sales. That

is why we have been very emphatic to anybody who has corresponded with

us, asking our position on raw milk. The member refers to a letter that

has been sent out jointly by myself and the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair) where we are, in effect, making those people aware that we do

not encourage it and we are not prepared to recognize it. If somebody

wishes to consume raw milk from their own herd or their own cow, that

is their choice. If somebody wishes to buy it over the fence the same

way as you can buy eggs, chicken, fruit or vegetables, that is a farm

operation. But we've attempted to make the public aware of our concern

in regard to the use of raw milk.

MRS. WALLACE: I

don't understand the minister. He says if you buy milk over the fence,

that is a farm operation. Under the act that is breaking the law.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm aware of that, Madam Member.

MRS. WALLACE:

Are you going to just turn a blind eye to that and let that go on until

we have some outbreak of disease, or are you going to do something

about it? That's the question I'm asking.

[ Page

2509 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I agree with the member in regard to the

sale of raw milk over the fence. I'm just saying I can't put a

policeman at every farm gate to ensure that people don't either have

this given to them as a gift or buy the raw milk. We are saying

publicly, and have for the past number of years, that we do not

encourage and we will not recognize the expansion of the raw milk

industry.

MR. KING: I want to ask the minister a very

brief and precise question before I go on to a number of other matters

that I have to raise, and that is whether or not the minister can

advise me if he has made a decision regarding the Biberger case, which

I have frequently consulted with him about. If he has, I would

appreciate knowing the essence of the decision, either by note or if he

wishes to state it in the Legislature.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) has been very patient with my office in regard to a response

to a query he raised some time ago concerning the Bibergers, who

purchased hogs from Tranquille Farm. Those hogs had, or were alleged to

have had, I believe, the disease or affliction called rhinitis. I can

only tell the member that I have taken his recent correspondence — the

last letter that he sent to me — and forwarded it to my ministry with

the direction that I wanted the matter reviewed immediately by senior

staff and a recommendation sent back to me. I have not received that

recommendation yet. The copy of the member's letter went to my staff

early last week.

I'm sure the member can appreciate that our

problems in the past week have been with another part of the

agriculture industry, namely turkeys, and there has been a tremendous

amount of time spent on that problem. As a result, I haven't seen the

response. My deputy minister and senior staff should be here shortly

and I may have further information for him when they arrive.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I have a real problem with this particular case and I

feel very strongly about it, While I certainly have no great desire to

make it a public issue, I am in the position where I am duty-bound to

raise it in detail in the Legislature unless I receive some definitive

answer from the ministry prior to the passage of the minister's

estimates. I think that's fair enough. I would much rather see the case

resolved satisfactorily to all concerned rather than raise it as what I

feel is a rather scandalous case in the province of British Columbia.

So perhaps I can defer going into this specific case until after the

minister's staff arrives, with the hope that they may have a decision

regarding this matter.

There are two other areas that I want to raise. One of them I did raise with

the minister at an earlier point. I just want to run back over it briefly. It

involves the Ministry of Transportation and Highways primarily, and yet the

implications are very serious to the Ministry of Agriculture. It concerns the

road restrictions that are placed on secondary farming roads in the springtime

in the Okanagan, Shuswap, Kamloops, and the interior generally. I know there's

no easy answer, but I would like some indication from the minister that he appreciates

the importance of this, and that he might be looking, in collaboration with

his colleagues in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and others who

may be affected also, for a solution that is going to do something for the people.

Basically the problem is that for varying periods of time each spring the spring

breakup creates soft road conditions. The Highways ministry puts on a 50 percent

load limitation and the feed companies are thus restricted in the load they

can carry to the area farms. One can say that it's basically a problem of

lack of storage facilities on the farm; be that as it may, if one has a large

herd of either hogs or cattle, they need almost daily loads of feed to accommodate

their herds. There's just no realistic way the farmers could afford the

kind of vast storage facilities that would accommodate any significant storage

of feed supplies. So in most cases they have to rely on delivery daily. On the

other hand, when the feed companies are restricted to a 50 percent load, their

economic viability is impaired. They say: "Well, if we're going to

be required to haul just 50 percent of the load, then obviously we're going

to have to recover our costs somehow. We're going to have to charge the

farmer a higher price." I think the minister appreciates just as well

as anyone else that the margin of profit in the farming community is pretty

narrow. This kind of cost increase imposed because of the poor condition of

secondary roads would simply render, in many cases, their operation economically

unviable.

I indicated at the outset, I'm not blaming anyone for this condition;

it's a fact of life. But I think the minister might well take under

advisement with the government generally the possibility of either

subsidizing the feed company for the period of the breakup while the

restriction is on, or the farmer if he has to pay a higher cost for the

feed, or, if not that, some kind of major allocation of funds to

upgrade the roads in the areas most seriously affected.

The

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) properly

pointed out that it's not only the agricultural industry; forestry and

other commodity dealers are affected through closures. But I submit,

Mr. Chairman, the problem with the agricultural community is much more

acute, because while you can close down a forest operation for a matter

of six weeks, you simply cannot neglect to feed your livestock for a

period of two days, much less six weeks. So we can appreciate that it's

a very imperative problem for farmers and for the feed companies.

have met with the people involved; I know the Minister of

Transportation and Highways has as well. All I'm really asking from the

Minister of Agriculture is a recognition of this very serious cost

problem facing a significant area of the agricultural community and his

commitment to me that he will recognize this problem and try to come up

with some alternatives that might assist in the circumstances. I'm not

asking him for fail-safe solutions. I know it's a complicated one. His

sensitivity and his recognition of the problem would certainly give

some comfort to me, as a representative of an area affected, and to the

farmers and feed companies in the area as well.

Mr.

Chairman, the other point I wanted to raise — and I raised this at an

earlier point in brief fashion — is again a question divided among a

number of ministries, but I submit is primarily the responsibility of

the Minister of Agriculture. It involves the farmland classification

for taxation purposes. I outlined a case where an 89-year-old

gentleman, or someone approximately that age, had lived on a farm in

the Salmon Arm area all his life, and in his later years, of course,

was unable to maintain the farm as a productive unit. As a consequence,

the farm production failed to meet the standard criteria for preserving

the farmland classification that provides a preferred taxation rate to

productive farms as well as some other benefits, such as the use of

purple gas and certain

[ Page 2510 ]

discounts on commodities related to farm use — machinery and so on.

Now

I want to assure the minister and the House, Mr. Chairman, that I don't

argue with the general formula used by the government's Assessment

Authority, which is dedicated to ensuring that farms are productive

units and contributing to the food supply; in other words, it's a

taxation calculated to drive farmland into production. As a general

principle, as a general yardstick, I agree with that approach. What I

do suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that there should be exceptions to that

general guideline, and I suggest that those exceptions should relate to

senior citizens who have worked on a farm, who have owned a farm and

produced food for, say, 15 or 20 years as a minimum, and who then in

their later years are unable to maintain production up to the acreage

requirement set by the Assessment Authority and hence lose their

farmland classification for taxation, which puts them in the position

where they simply have to sell the farm and get rid of their homesite.

Now,

Mr. Chairman, you can appreciate that some people who have lived on a

farm for 40 or 50 years — in some cases longer — are singularly

reluctant to leave that home setting. They have more than a financial

investment in that lifestyle; they have a sentimental and a family

investment in that farm in terms of the lifestyle that they choose and

the lifestyle that they're accustomed to. All I'm suggesting is that

there should be an exemption for senior citizens from the normal

production classification that is required to maintain the farmland

classification.

I think there are two areas that should be

given consideration: one is the senior citizen and the second is the

person who becomes handicapped for one reason or another after having

farmed and operated a viable operation for 15 or 20 years. He has

proved his bona fides during that period of time. Surely the reason we

have this formula is to drive farmland into production and to ensure

that hobby farmers do not get the benefit of a preferred taxation rate.

I agree with that concept and that approach, but surely we can be

flexible enough to allow handicapped people and senior citizens, after

having farmed for 15 or 20 years, to continue to enjoy their homes and

their lifestyle until such time as it's either passed on or sold at

their discretion, free from the kind of punitive taxation that results

from changing the classification from farmland to residential. The cost

increase is such that senior citizens just cannot afford to stay on a

20-acre parcel, much less a 100 acre parcel.

Now most of

these people — many of them, anyway — are pioneers, and they have

invested a lifetime in production for our province and for our people.

All I'm asking is some consideration that they not be punished in their

later years and driven from the home that they've become accustomed to.

They're not trying to cheat the system; they're not hobby farmers

trying to tie down a large plot of land for privacy; they are people

who have been caught up by that element that catches up with all of us.

That's age. After they have invested at least 15 years of labour in the

production of food, they should not be victimized in that way. I would

like to receive the minister's reaction to the proposal I put forward

for those two narrow areas: for people who become handicapped, having

farmed for 15 years, say, or 20 years — whatever — or for senior

citizens in the same kind of circumstances.

Now I appreciate

that there is one outlet for senior citizens, and that is the tax

deferral. But you know, Mr. Chairman, although it's available — and I

agree with that principle too; after all, our government brought it in

— the reality of it is that many of these old people simply will not

take advantage of that option. They feel that they have to maintain

their property free from encumbrance or liability, to pass it on at the

appropriate time to heirs and so on. I disagree with that proposition,

and I think that the tax deferral system is something that more seniors

could take advantage of. But the minister can also appreciate that if

the classification were changed from farmland to residential, the

deferral of the kind of taxes that flow from 100- or 150-acre farms

under those circumstances would eat up the real value of the total

package within a short period of years, perhaps before the property was

in a position where it could be liquidated, or where it could be passed

on or sold as an estate. In other words, the longevity of the farmer

might outlive the tax deferral regulation. So there is a real problem.

think that the government could at least look at the situation of the

elderly and the handicapped and be flexible in terms of applying this

general guideline — which is a good one — of taxing farmland in such a

fashion that we drive it into production. It's a good principle, but we

don't want to deprive senior citizens of their home to accomplish that

objective, I submit.

I'm going to let it go and hope that

the minister responds to the two areas that I've outlined for him —

with the full knowledge that he hasn't got total control in either one

of these areas; but he has a significant interest and a significant

responsibility as the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the deputy is

here, perhaps he might like to respond as well to the earlier question

I raised.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response to the item

raised by the member to do with restricted loads on highways, a week or

so ago, when we had the estimates up before, both the Minister of

Highways and I responded, I think, in a fair amount of detail to your

question. We both recognize it's a short-term problem. It happens in

the spring breakup, and the restriction is there because of serious

damage to the roads. If you allowed the full loads to go over, you'd

totally break down the road, which means costly repairs. It could mean

accidents to other vehicles driving that road.

One thing the

member neglected to mention — although he did touch on the need for

daily deliveries to some farm operations — is that this has been

happening, as you and I are both aware, Mr. Member, for years and years

— the spring breakup, the restricted loads. I think that in the main

farmers anticipate that time and provide for sufficient feed on hand to

get by in most cases, because it is something that relates to every

farm operation where some of the secondary roads have serious

restrictions on in the spring of each year. I can tell the member that

I would certainly cooperate and communicate with the Ministry of

Highways in making sure that there is no serious problem. However, I

can tell the member that to my knowledge I have not, in the four years

that I have been involved as Minister of Agriculture, received a

complaint regarding load restrictions on roads during the spring

breakup.

It is a good point to raise, Mr. Member, in regard

to subsidizing the delivery of feed to the farm operations, but I think

we'd run into a question as to other deliveries that were made by

trucks in all other sectors of the economy on those same roads. When

you subsidize delivery of one commodity, then you had better look to

subsidizing the deliveries of all

[ Page

2511 ]

commodities in all service vehicles. That, I think, would cause a problem.

guess, just in closing that item, Mr. Member, I would certainly like

to, first of all, see any complaint that you've received. Secondly, I

can assure you that I will work with the Ministry of Highways to see

whether or not there are some areas where we can resolve the problem.

But I don't think the approach that you have mentioned is the answer.

As I say, I think in most cases where you've got a commercial farm

operation they have lived with this problem for years and certainly

want the road in good condition, Therefore they are quite prepared to

accept the restrictions and anticipate them and ensure they have ample

feed on hand.

The farmland classification for assessment

purposes. I am glad that the member agrees with the concept that the

Ministry of Finance has put into place. You said that you weren't

talking about the hobby farm operation. You mentioned something about a

150-acre farm where a senior citizen and-or handicapped individual

couldn't operate the farm. Dealing basically with the senior citizen,

there is the homeowner's grant, which is a substantial contribution now

to cover those taxes. I believe it is $580 a year, which applies to the

residents, of course, which does go against their total taxes.

You did mention the tax deferral approach which they can take.

Dealing with a commercial farm operation 100-150 acres or smaller — a

10-acre orchard or whatever — those senior citizens can maintain their

farm classification by leasing out. As long as the operation generates

the income required under the classification through the Assessment

Authority, as long as the senior citizen leases it out and it maintains

its farm classification by producing food, then they have that relief,

you might say, for taxes, as it is still being classed as a farm. That

is the approach that I think would be taken by almost every senior

citizen who didn't have younger members in the family to carry on the

farm operation. They would lease it out; they could have some revenue

coming in, and, of course, it provides a job and revenue for anyone who

wishes to lease the opportunity. It maintains it in good condition for

an eventual sale. If they just left it fallow it would certainly

deteriorate in its value.

I think those two approaches, Mr. Member.... In regard to the farm classification

for senior citizens, again I'm not aware of the concerns you have raised. They are

awfully good points to raise in the House, but I think they are both amply covered

in the responses I've given.

MR. KING:

I thank the minister for his response. With respect to the road

problem, my suggestion of a temporary subsidy is just an idea. It's one

that I'm not wild about either. I don't particularly like to see a

subsidy. On the other hand, I don't buy the minister's argument that

because you subsidize one commodity you subsidize them all. Surely

there is a difference between the imperative need for the supply of

livestock and other commodities on which life and death and well-being

of either farm animals or human beings are not reliant. There is a good

deal of difference between the imperatives involved in that kind of

supply as opposed to certain other kinds of commodities. However, that

is not a solution that I look to with any great enthusiasm either, but

neither do I look to the possibility of the cost of foodstuffs for

animals being increased to cover the cost to the supplier to the extent

that the farmer can no longer make a go of it.

I will get to the minister a very detailed submission which both the feed companies

and the local hog producers, particularly in the Shuswap area, have sent to

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as well as to my office. I was under

the impression that the minister had received one but I'll check on that.

It's

not a matter of it being just a 150-acre farm. I used some examples.

There are many small parcels of land — 10, 15 or 20 acres — some of

them large, but very few. Most of them are comparatively small parcels

of land which seniors may have grown gardens and some fruit on. Perhaps

they had sales from the gate which justified enough earnings to retain

their farmland classification in the past. It's not easy to lease out

that kind of parcel of land and assure that it's going to be productive

by a lessor. If it were a large parcel like the one I indicated of 150

acres, that may be a logical thing to do. I have really encountered

about 50 of these problems, both in my riding and in the Minister of

Tourism's (Hon. Mrs. Jordan'

s) riding in the North Okanagan. People are

getting hammered by it, and many of them have small parcels. I think

that we could show some flexibility in those circumstances, despite the

fact that the tax deferral is available. Many of them simply won't take

advantage of it — the point being that in the final analysis, if people

are forced off their properties simply because they can't meet their

taxes.... That would be the effect, despite the homeowner's grants.

Some

of the increases are spectacular when you go from farmland

classification to residential. They are very spectacular, and there's

absolutely no way that the homeowner grant would adequately cover that.

So if we're going to force them to sell out, many of them will require

senior citizens' housing in town, which there's a shortage of. Many of

them would probably be less healthy, because they've lost their way of

life and the serenity of their farm.

In the final analysis,

if we want to be very crass and mercenary about it, aside from looking

at the psychological well-being of the people involved, I suggest that

it's penny wise and pound foolish in any event. I suspect that the lost

revenue from preserving the farmland classification would be more than

made up for by the savings that would be realized by keeping them on

their land and in the domestic surroundings which they have been

accustomed to. We force them out of there and we chase them into the

towns and villages, and it's our responsibility, as government, to

provide them with senior citizens' accommodation, probably increased

health care needs, and recreational needs. So there's no saving

involved. Leave them on the farms. Do it for the senior citizens.

They've earned it. Give them a bit more flexibility.

Mr.

Chairman, I have to assume now, I guess, that the minister did not

receive any good news from his deputy regarding the very tragic case of

the Biberger and the hogs that they purchased from the government farm

at Tranquille. Am I correct, Mr. Minister? Mr. Chairman, I like to

think that the ministry is going to do the right thing on this matter,

and I'm very reluctant to raise it. I'll let the minister respond.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, the matter of the Bibergers which the member refers to

has been discussed at staff level. Maybe I could just make a few

comments first of all, because I know the member is quite agitated over

it; and to a certain extent I don't blame him, because I think we

fumbled the ball a bit. We certainly didn't do it intentionally, and we

attempted to resolve the problem. My staff have communicated with the

Bibergers. It seems that when government gets involved, government is

100 percent wrong or

[ Page 2512 ]

100 percent right. I guess there's no middle ground. Maybe we can try to resolve that.

The

Bibergers purchased some hogs at Tranquille Farm, and when they

returned to their farm they found that the hogs developed what is

called rhinitis; it was evident that they had it. As a result there had

to be some medication, quarantine of the animals, feed bill, etc. — a

substantial additional expense was incurred by the Bibergers.

all boils down, though, to the purchase of the animals, and in many

cases livestock is bought by viewing the animal. You can all remember

the story about trying to look in the horse's mouth at his teeth to

tell his age — that type of thing — and by going around and feeling his

legs and muscles to tell whether he's of sound body. It's something

similar with any livestock, where the buyer identifies the animal,

looks at it and determines whether or not it's the one he wishes to

purchase, and finally a deal is made and he takes the animal away. It's

a living thing. It's not a commodity that you might say has a warranty

in case a part fails. In this particular case, the Bibergers feel that

they were sold animals that were somewhat misrepresented to them, and

the animals didn't prove to be sound. In most cases where you go to a

private sale — and it is, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) interjects across the floor, a buyer-beware situation — you

identify the animal, look at it closely and purchase the animal.

There's no certificate that says that this animal is free of all

possible illness.

Unfortunately, we got caught in the

middle, I guess, because we attempted, as I understand it from staff,

to oblige the Bibergers. There are conflicting stories. Nevertheless,

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) feels that my staff is in

error. I haven't really got to the bottom of it yet. The member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke felt somewhat dismayed that he wasn't invited to the

latest meeting. Maybe that was an oversight by my ministry. Also, when

he did attend the meeting he found out that it was with — I won't call

them junior staff members; that's not fair — people who had contact

with the Bibergers before, and that there wasn't a senior

representative of staff there, and that it almost — to use his words —

felt like an inquisition of the Bibergers.

I've just asked

my staff whether or not they've had the opportunity to review it. The

deputy minister advises me that he hasn't. He's offered a suggestion of

possibly, you might say, a three-man tribunal — or something like that

— to sort of weigh the evidence and make a recommendation. I've advised

him that I want a recommendation on my desk, and I'll make the

decision, after seeing all the information put before me, as to what is

a fair and reasonable settlement.

Mr. Member, where did we

err? Where did we go wrong? We didn't go out and solicit buyers for the

hogs; the people arrived on the scene, saw the animals and determined

to buy them. The question is raised as to whether or not the Bibergers

asked if they had any afflictions. The responsibility of staff may have

been to determine whether they had given them a clean bill of health.

Who's to say who is entirely right or wrong?

Mr. Member, if I recall correctly, the bill submitted by the Bibergers was

for some $19,000. I find that unbelievably high — unrealistically high. I'm

not sure of the total price they paid for the hogs. My deputy minister says

they paid approximately $200 to $250 apiece for the hogs. I can't recall

the number they bought, but I think it was about two or three. We're talking

about a capital investment of...I'll even go so far as to say, between

$500 and $1,000. They identify them as having a disease, and the bill that

they submit is for $19,000. Now, Mr. Member, I think there's got to be

some realistic rationalization of the problem.

know you'd want to respond and make your points. I think that's only

worthwhile, because then my senior staff members here can hear your

position on the matter. I can only tell you that I will be getting

their recommendations on my desk. We'll be making a decision, and I

think I could give you a commitment, Within a week we'll have a

decision on this, and we'll so advise the Bibergers of our position

with regard to any compensation.

MR. KING: Mr.

Chairman, I've been trying to keep this thing fairly low-key. I find

myself angered by the minister's response. Nevertheless, I'll try to

maintain my good humour, and point out that there has never been a

question as to whether or not the hogs that were purchased at a

government farm had in fact atrophic rhinitis; that has never been

denied either by the staff at Tranquille Farm or by the ministry. There

was a proposition put forward that it's a very difficult disease to

identify and, perhaps, due to the nature of it, all pigs may have

dormant traces of atrophic rhinitis. It's a very complex thing. The

government has at their disposal a laboratory at Abbotsford, and

veterinarians who can make this determination. There are certain visual

signs of the disease which become apparent at a certain stage — that

is, a twisted snout, which becomes extreme to the point where the pigs

can no longer eat at certain times. Indeed, I think it gets to be worse

than mine.

The pigs that were purchased from Tranquille Farm

did display these signs, I think it was, three months after. I'm not

going to recite it

chapter and verse like a lawyer in a courtroom. I

believe they were purchased in November or December; about April they

showed the sign. They were in fact isolated at the Bibergers' farm from

the time they were purchased — for, I think, a one- or two-month

period, on the advice of the local vet. The disease was ultimately

manifestly evident. One of the sows and her litter were slaughtered and

their heads sent to the government experimental farm at Abbotsford.

Rhinitis seemed to be confirmed by the report; there was a bit of a

question, but not very much. The scientific lingo leaves some escape

hatches; but it appeared, I think, to any reasonable lay person that,

indeed, the pigs had rhinitis.

Now the position taken by the

ministry at the outset was the same position the minister now takes:

let the buyer beware. The defence proffered by the ministry at the

outset was that the Bibergers did not ask Tranquille Farm whether the

pigs were indeed healthy. I think that is an absolutely scandalous

proposition. To put forward the idea of "let the buyer beware" from a

government enterprise is something that is not even practised in that

old buccaneer private market anymore. For the minister to suggest that

as a defence when, in fact, there is evidence that the personnel of the

farm had knowledge that their herd was infected when they sold the

pigs.... Now that point is in conflict. But be that as it may, to offer

as a defence the idea that the farmers should have asked whether the

pigs were healthy.... And since they did not, we have a right to sell

them infected stock.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, come on! You told....

MR. KING: Well, that's the inference, Mr. Chairman; that's the clear inference.

[ Page

2513 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, even after the research lab looked at it

and there was some question in their mind? What about a herdsman — how

do you expect him to be better than a scientist, for crying out loud?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, there will be ample time to reply.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, the minister has not questioned the fact that the pigs

were infected. I am not suggesting that the herdsmen should know or

not. Whether they knew or not, at this time to say that the Bibergers

are partially responsible, simply because they didn't ask whether the

stock was healthy, I say is scandalous. You know, Mr. Chairman, we have

a Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the whole and primary

function of that ministry is to protect consumers in the marketplace

against sharp practices in the private sector. In fact they prosecute

people who take that very harsh and narrow point of view — "let the

buyer beware." The Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs holds

that when a commodity is sold, be it an animal or any other commodity,

it should be what it appears to be.

For a public agency, a

government agency — particularly one patented by the Ministry of

Agriculture — to take the defence of "let the buyer beware" is just

unbelievable. The minister said that in the privacy of his office to

me. At that time I assumed that it was a slip and I would not have

revealed it, had he not re-quoted it here in the House. I was prepared

to suggest to him that that point of view is unacceptable, and indeed

he conceded, in his office, that it was. Now to hear him re-emphasize

that here, re-issue it as an argument, is really unbelievable.

The

issue is that the pigs were infected. The ministry now accepts that.

There has been no serious argument against or denial of that finding.

I've got a copy of the veterinarian's report in my file here. I believe

I provided the minister with a copy. I think the evidence is sufficient

to show that the pigs were infected. It may be that the farm wasn't

aware of that at the time they sold the pigs, although that's in

dispute.

Be that as it may — we'll leave that aside — it may

be that the Bibergers have asked for too much in compensation. It is

not my position now, and indeed it never was my position, to dictate to

the ministry what should be paid as compensation. I simply ask for

recognition that very competent young farmers — hard workers and honest

people — have been dealt an unfair blow by government. I accept without

equivocation the proposal that this issue be put to independent people

for arbitration. That's a fair response.

Mr. Chairman, it's

far different than the response I received just over a week ago, after

I had met with the minister in his office and he had promised a review.

He notified me that I would be informed of a review when it occurred,

so that presumably I could attend, since I was an interested party. His

letter states: "Mr. Bruce Richardson, head of our property management

branch, has been given this assignment and will be contacting all

persons concerned." Now since I had raised the matter with the

ministry, I assumed that I was a "person concerned." Since I am an

elected MLA, I would assume that the minister would grant me the right

to represent my constituents and recognize that I am a "person

concerned."

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, but you know what we were talking about.

MR. KING:

Well, I accepted that I would be notified; I was never notified. I was

notified by the farmers that they were called to a meeting in Salmon

Arm on May 1 or 2 — I forget when it was — and they asked that I be

there. So I flew up and I attended that meeting. Perhaps I should read

into the record of this House my assessment of the meeting that I

attended on that occasion. This is directed to the hon. minister on May

6, 1980:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"This

will confirm our brief discussion of yesterday regarding a meeting of

your ministry staff in Salmon Arm on May 1 relating to a compensation

claim by Mr. and Mrs. Hubert Biberger. You will recall that this claim

for compensation stems from the purchase of four brood sows by the

Bibergers from the government Tranquille Farm. At least one of the sows

was infected with atrophic rhinitis and a subsequent litter were also

similarly infected.

"I first contacted your ministry last October seeking the

ministry's recognition of the Biberger's dilemma and a willingness to

compensate them for the losses which have accrued to them since that date. Their

letter, which you have on file, provides documentation of their claim. A number

of propositions were put forward by your ministry initially — namely that the

Bibergers did not ask whether the animals were diseased when they were purchased.

A claim was also made that the Bibergers in some way coerced an unwilling staff

at Tranquille to sell the pigs in the first instance. The Bibergers produced

a witness who indicated that the Tranquille Farm staff offered no reticence

and entered the sale of the stock without reservation. "

There is a letter on file to support that proposition.

attended a meeting in your office on March 14 and discussed this case

with you as well as your associate deputy minister, Mr. Maurie King and

Dr. Bob Avery. At that time you acknowledged that the fact that the

Bibergers did not query Tranquille Farm regarding the health of the

animals was irrelevant. The suggestion that this could be significant

implies a buyer beware approach, which you agree was altogether

inappropriate for a government agency. Similarly you agreed and

acknowledged that there had been no resistance by Tranquille to the

sale of the stock. In conclusion you suggested that a review of the

case would be caused, and that I would be notified in due course. On

the date of March 311 received your memorandum indicating that a

meeting would be convened by Mr. Bruce Richardson, head of your

property management branch, and that all persons concerned would be

contacted.

"A meeting was indeed held on May 1

in Salmon Arm. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I was not notified

by your ministry but rather received a call from the Bibergers

notifying me of the meeting. Accordingly I travelled to Salmon Arm and

attended with the Bibergers at 10 a.m. on May 1. I met a contingent of

staff people including Mr. Richardson and three employees of Tranquille

Farm. Mr. Richardson conducted an interrogation of the Bibergers — nay,

I would characterize it as an inquisition.

[ Page 2514 ]

All of the points which had been previously laid to rest in your

office regarding Tranquille Farm's alleged reluctance to sell, as well as

the Biberger's alleged neglect in seeking assurance that the stock was healthy,

were recanvassed. This, I must say, was done in rather an accusatory fashion

by Mr. Richardson.

"Further

points were raised regarding whether the Bibergers had appropriately

identified the stock purchased from Tranquille and doubt was expressed

that they had isolated the stock and were able to identify them as the

source of rhinitis. Despite assurances from the Bibergers that the

stock were isolated for a considerable length of time and housed

separately with tattoo markings in the ear, Mr. Richardson continued to

express doubts in this regard.

"The Bibergers

are indeed competent farmers and business people, as can be attested to

by the regional veterinarians in both Salmon Arm and Vernon, and I felt

this line of questioning was unfair and unwarranted. This was basically

the gist of the interrogation of the Bibergers, after which I made my

own views known in a very strong fashion.

"These

views are, Mr. Minister, that it was a patent denial of natural justice

to set up an inquiry into the Biberger's complaint by commissioning the

very people employed and associated with the accused government agency

as its prosecutor, judge and jury at the hearing. I pointed out that

Mr. Richardson and the other three Tranquille Farm staff had a vested

interest in denying any liability and indeed giving any credence to the

Biberger case.

"I was angered at the tone of

the interrogation in addition to the format. When I left your office it

was with the understanding that you would conduct a review of the claim

and weigh the balance of probabilities between the Biberger case and

the position of Tranquille Farm. After having taken this course it

would seem to me totally appropriate for you to make a ministerial

judgment as to the moral if not the legal implications of the case. To

arrive at your judgment on the basis of a one-sided source of

information received from employees of Tranquille Farm, who I repeat

have a vested interest in protecting their own job security, is

obviously without credibility.

"The one other

point which came to light during the meeting in Salmon Arm was the

claim by Mrs. Biberger that the herdsman, Mr. Robertson, had

acknowledged his awareness that the Tranquille herd was infected with

rhinitis prior to the sale. At the hearing, Robertson denied having

made this acknowledgement. So this remains a moot point of the word of

the Bibergers being weighed against that of Robertson.

"To

deal once again, and very briefly in conclusion, with the proposition

that the Bibergers' case is weakened by essence of the fact that they

failed to inquire as to the health of the animals, I would offer this

observation. The government of the province provides a ministry of

consumer and corporate services dedicated to protecting the consumer in

the marketplace. Basically this ministry provides support to those who

have been unfairly treated in purchasing commodities, fixtures, etc.

which are not what they appear to be and what good faith and sound

business principles would dictate. To suggest that the government

should so regulate the private marketplace while denying their own

culpability in the case at hand by adopting the attitude 'let the buyer

beware' is a proposition which I'm sure you must reject out of hand.

"In

the light of the foregoing I urgently and sincerely request an early

decision from your office with respect to fair treatment to this

particular case. I have indicated to you that it is possible to achieve

this fair redress without incurring legal precedent which might be

difficult for the ministry. All that is required is some good-faith

dialogue between your office and the Bibergers, in which I would be

pleased to participate. "

Mr. Chairman, I think that's laid

it out fairly. If the minister disagrees with the compensation which

has been claimed by the Bibergers, fair enough. Set up an impartial

agency to make an adjudication; set up an impartial agency to weigh the

evidence of these farmers, who are hard-working, honest people, against

the liability of the department, which seems to hang its narrow case on

the proposition of "let the buyer beware."

The Ministry of

Transportation and Highways has an arbitration process. Even the

Ministry of Human Resources has an arbitration process. Why is it not

good enough for the Ministry of Agriculture? The minister cannot make a

decision in this manner; put it to arbitration. In no way would I

defend the amount of money the Bibergers asked, but I think they're

entitled in fairness and in common justice to a day before some

impartial agency, not before a kangaroo court like the minister

submitted them to in Salmon Arm. The very people that were accused were

sent to conduct the review into these people's claim. That's a basic

and a patent denial of natural justice, and the minister knows it.

want to make a final point, Mr. Chairman. When the minister says there

were only four brood sows purchased, and the capital investment was

only $250 an animal, that's a distortion. If the minister doesn't

appreciate that, he's one heck of a poor Minister of Agriculture. If

that minister doesn't appreciate that the introduction of that disease

into a herd of 300 pigs froze entirely the right of these farmers to

sell any breed stock — froze entirely the sale of any of their animals

by the advice of the local veterinarian — then he doesn't deserve to be

Minister of Agriculture. He wants to handle it as though the only

implication is for the four animals purchased. Mr. Chairman, there was

a special isolation requirement; there was special medication; there

was the freezing and the loss of revenue from this herd of 300 pigs;

and the Minister of Agriculture says: "Well, it was only a capital

investment of four hogs." Well, only one of those hogs, Mr. Minister,

was necessary to introduce this very, very serious disease to the herd,

and that's precisely what happened.

So if you want to

prejudge the amount that the farmers are asking in compensation, so be

it. Put the issue out to an impartial agency and let them sit and hear

the evidence and make an impartial decision with some vestige of

justice involved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in

response to the member, who has read his letter at some length and has

made some comments regarding the Bibergers, maybe I can respond to give

him some indication that all is not black and white.

[ Page 2515 ]

There

were four hogs purchased at $250 apiece, for $1,000. They were bred

sows. One of them proved to be barren, and as a result the Bibergers

got two gilts in replacement for the one sow. That's good business

practice on behalf of Tranquille Farm.

MR. KING: Common.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

But fair. I mean, it's not misrepresentation; it's not a case where the

vendor attempted to misrepresent or something. We promptly went back

and replaced the one sow with two gilts.

As the member

knows, I'm sure, and the Bibergers know, rhinitis is a common disease

in hogs. There probably isn't a herd in B.C. that hasn't had some

infection of it at some point in time. The member did mention that it

was infected, that the head was sent to the testing station, and it was

identified as having the infection. I think you said that even that

decision was somewhat questionable. There was an offer to replace the

animals infected, which is a practice of the trade in the private

sector. Nobody misrepresented the animals that were there.

seems, Mr. Chairman, that the public service has been attacked. The

members identified this meeting as a kangaroo court. I believe Mr.

Bruce Richardson, the head of our property management branch, who is

responsible for these operations, was there. He is a fairly senior

staff member and a very responsible individual, and I think he is

recognized for his ability throughout the industry. I think the members

attempted to put this into a case where we were against the Bibergers.

I think my staff put in a fair amount of time to try and resolve the

problem. As I say, I will attempt to deal with it very quickly now that

the matter has been raised here.

But I want the member to

know, considering that it has been indicated that we are bad corporate

citizens, if I can use those words, in offering for sale animals that

have been infected, and that we shouldn't be doing this type of

thing.... You know, Mr. Member, you may or may not be aware of this,

but the Bibergers have now made a contact with Colony Farm, a

government farm operation, to purchase a boar sight unseen. They've

made that contact. They're prepared to place money and purchase a boar

from Colony Farm — a government-operated farm — sight unseen. I have

some concern about the sale of animals in government farm operations,

because we seem to get caught in this as being the bad guys, and I find

that hard to accept. I think if the member can, beyond a reasonable

doubt — and I don't think you can, Mr. Member — prove that it was that

particular animal that infected that herd.... It could be that the

Bibergers had bought from very many sources. I can't answer your

question as to whether or not they bought from sources other than

Tranquille Farm in the past short while. Rhinitis is a fairly

contagious disease; it is also a common disease, and they could have

got it from elsewhere.

What we are attempting to do is reach

a reasonable solution to the problem. I can assure the member that I'll

attempt to have an answer — a decision of the ministry — within a week.

But I find it difficult to understand in the light of the able

presentation that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke made that the

Bibergers are back at the other government farm operation to purchase a

boar sight unseen.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I believe

I have submitted to the minister a copy of the specimen report from the

veterinary laboratory on one of the sows that was purchased from this

farm. It's identified as "68-K." It's in scientific language, but it

seems to indicate that the rhinitis is present. It indicates the

symptoms at least. I am not a veterinarian. The local vets at Salmon

Arm and at Vernon had no difficulty concluding from this pathological

report on the animal that indeed it had rhinitis. That has never been

questioned up to this point, quite frankly.

The offer to

replace the hogs, Mr. Chairman, flies completely in the face of the

impact which the introduction of this disease had on the farm and the

herd. I always understood that the Ministry of Agriculture was

interested in and had some responsibility for controlling disease in

farm animals and infestations of various kinds in farm commodities.

Here we're saying: "Oh, well, even if it had rhinitis, we offered to

replace the hog." I want to advise the minister that the local

veterinarian advised the Bibergers that they they must not sell any

pigs until the quarantine period on their whole herd had been effected.

I know that there's no law that prevents them from doing so, but most

conscientious farmers would accept the guidance and the direction of

their local veterinarian. I wonder why the minister feels no

compunction to do so. I find that difficult to understand.

Now

his great revelation is that these big, bad farmers have come along now

and made application to buy hogs from another government farm. What are

you suggesting, Mr. Minister — once bitten, twice shy, and they should

know better?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm talking sight unseen.

MR. KING:

Do they not have a right to expect that pigs that are sold are healthy

animals, when their local veterinarian has specifically instructed them

that they must not sell any of their herd? Do they not have the right

to the expectation, particularly from a government agency, that if the

animal is for sale it is going to be healthy stock? My God, what a thin

veil the minister hides behind. I am absolutely shocked and amazed that

the minister would proffer this kind of defence for his ministry's

position. If that's the case, why don't you write it in a brochure? Let

the buyer beware. You can't rely on the Ministry of Agriculture.

Perhaps that's the Social Credit credo that you've applied and enforced

to every department of government. I don't know. If it is, I think the

people have a right to know.

All I ask, Mr. Minister, from

you is a commitment to put it out to an impartial agency for some

arbitration. Let the department, by all means, submit their side of the

argument, let the farmers submit their arguments and their evidence,

and at least have some quasi-judicial or some independent agency sit in

judgment — not the Ministry of Agriculture, as has been the case up to

this point. That's all I ask, and I do ask the minister for that

commitment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, the

replacement of the hog was not because of rhinitis; it was because it

was barren. We didn't say that we were going to replace that hog

because it had rhinitis. We look at what alternatives there are. In the

industry, if an animal has a problem, quite often it is a common

practice to offer to replace it. In that particular case the one hog

was replaced by two gilts because it was barren.

Mr. Member,

I'm not standing in defence. I made an observation — just for the

record, not as a defence of the ministry — on the picture you painted,

which was totally

[ Page 2516 ]

black, that the same people are looking at a government institution to purchase a boar.

regard to my commitment I did say, I believe twice now, that I will

have this matter on my desk and reviewed for a decision hopefully

within one week.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just briefly

like to go back to one of the points that was raised. I will raise more

of the details of this in the estimates of the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis), as they respect assessments, but really, in terms of

an agricultural policy, I can see why we would want to go after the

hobby farmer. I think it is really a good thing to bring in such a

regulation which would guarantee that a certain amount of produce of a

certain value be produced, in order to discourage the affluent

professional who chooses to commute, maybe, from Aldergrove or

Abbotsford or some such area, and live on perhaps a five- to ten-acre

hobby farm, having a few horses, maybe raising a head of beef or

something to get slaughtered.

But, Mr. Chairman, the policy,

I think, has had a rather rough introduction in terms of its effect on

quite a few people who I do not think were in the target group but

nevertheless fell victim to it.

First of all, there have

been some problems with the merging farms and

definitions as to what is

or is not agriculture. We have had the problem of assessors going

around telling people what is and is not farming. They were telling

people in my riding that stud fees could not be counted into farm

income. There are some other areas, such as vermiculture, I think, that

fell into a grey area. And I think that that matter was resolved after

some further discussion, but only because the person objected. Had

these persons simply accepted the law as they thought it affected them,

and said, "A pox on the Socred government," or whatever, and just taken

their lumps without fighting back, these people would have found

themselves paying non-farm status rates of tax assessment.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

The

third problem is with the subsistence type of farm. In my riding — and,

I think, in the riding of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) —

there are a great number of people who produce food of some measurable

value, but it is not for sale. I think, in one instance, of a person in

Argenta who has and works a farm, and feeds not only his own family but

also students who attend an alternate school — the Quakers' school in

Argenta — and probably produces food of a value that might exceed the

guidelines of the assessment, but, again, is being discouraged.

really think that people whose major occupation is simply to farm,

regardless of how commercially successful they are, should not be

discouraged. In fact, if they didn't farm that land and put it into

production, in some of these areas that agricultural land would not be

in any form of production, because they're small isolated pockets of

farmland; they don't even lend themselves to consolidation into a

large, viable farm unit. These are in areas which have been divided and

chopped up and in which some small pockets of agricultural land still

exist. These people are in the agricultural land reserve.

There is a magazine put out called The Smallholder ,

and I think that the philosophy of these people.... It wouldn't be

totally accurate, but you would get some recognition of their idea, as

opposed to that of, say, a hobby farmer, who may be a professional, if

you could label these people — it's a very inaccurate label — hippies.

It would help you to understand that they are engaged in an experiment,

in terms of putting some of the very small agricultural units into

production. I think that something aimed at the affluent person, who's

really taken farmland out of production, has really missed the mark in

terms of hitting these people.

Then, of course, there's the

item that was so well canvassed by my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) — the matter of seniors. In this area, I've heard comments —

and these are some of the things that have happened, which I'd like the

minister to be aware of — that assessors say that lease income — where

one senior citizen leased out his farm, and hay of some value was being

produced on it — could not be counted as income. This was hitting

somebody who had farmed that land for many, many years.

think that what does come through this is that some of the assessors

are not indeed wedded — in spite of major acceptance, I think, in most

public opinion polls — to the agricultural land reserve. When people

have complained to me, assessors have even been quoted as saying:

"Well, none of this land in this area should be in the agricultural

land reserve anyhow." They're saying it to the wrong people, because

they're saying it to people that do want to see their land in

production and haven't been asking to get their land taken out of the

agricultural land reserve. But by bringing some of these personal

prejudices into what should be an objective matter of applying

government policy, it would appear to be an overt act, I suppose, to

really undermine the concept of an agricultural land reserve.

would canvass this matter more fully under the estimates of the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but I bring it up to the

Minister of Agriculture because I feel that some of the

interpretations

of the Assessment Authority are not serving the concept of the

agricultural land reserve; and some of the private opinions given by

some of the assessors were indeed undermining it.

Other

interesting things have happened in this past year, which I relate to

the minister: an incident where somebody appeared to appeal matters of

this nature, as most of them did, before the court of revision. When

they appeared they were told: "Don't make the submission to the court

of revision. Come to the assessor's office." Indeed, some of these

matters were cleared up. But if they had just taken the person at his

word, they would have actually lost their opportunity to appear before

the court of revision and to have had a decision made by their peers,

which was their right. So there were certainly considerable problems in

terms of interpreting this act. I think that it really should be

studied very carefully and fine-tuned so that we not overshoot and end

up harming people who really do have their land in production and are

not simply affluent people who can afford to have a hobby farm where

they do nothing more productive than maybe feeding a couple of horses.

The

main thing I'd like to bring up in the estimates today is the

limitation on outside earnings under the Agricultural Credit Act. I

would hazard a guess that the original inception of the act was

probably around 1974, unless we've amended it and brought in a new act

with a new name; but this concept would go back to about that time.

It's my understanding that there's a limitation on outside earnings,

set when the act was originally brought in: if a person is in receipt

of a gross non-farm income in excess of $25,000, then that person

[ Page 2517 ]

cannot

qualify for agricultural credit interest rebates or reduction of

effective rate of interest. I would think that back in 1974, when this

was introduced, that would have been a fairly reasonable figure, but

inflation, average weekly wages and other things have increased, and

this has not kept pace. Probably it was a mistake in the first instance

not to index it, but it could certainly be changed, and should be

changed, in my opinion, because the main thing is that people who are

building up a new farm and investing in a farm are working out not

because they want to but because they need to in order to get more

money for their investment.

This particular application,

which brought the matter to my attention, involves the principal of an

outstanding loan of $82,500. This was a 1979 application; the fixed

rate of interest at that time was 11 percent. The person was paying

$9,418.13 annual interest, which is a pretty hefty slug of interest

when a person is working out and making a little bit in excess of

$25,000 a year — probably logging and also trying to build up a farm.

we wish to see people get into fanning full-time, I think that

realistically we have to have this figure keep pace. It's my

understanding from persons in the ministry that such a submission has

been made, and that it's been kicked upstairs somewhere. I'd like to

know if the minister has considered this yet. If not, when could we

expect some adjustment?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In regard to

the farm assessment, of course most of those questions could and should

be directed to the Minister of Finance. However, I would point out to

the member that there is an "emerging farm" classification. If the

farmer submits a management plan — I believe they have a two-year

period in which to prove up that farm to qualify — they can get that

farm classification. So there is that opportunity for somebody who has

made the investment in the land and equipment but who hasn't really

generated the income to qualify for that. They have that out, you might

say, in qualifying as an emerging farm.

In regard to the

$25,000 ceiling, I can agree with the member that inflation has taken

its toll. The purchasing power of $25,000 certainly isn't as great

today as it was a number of years ago. That ceiling is under review.

MRS. WALLACE:

I want to deal with a slightly different area at this point in time.

When the throne speech was introduced, it indicated that there was

going to be a change of the name of the Ministry of Agriculture to the

Ministry of Food and Agriculture. I had hopes that perhaps we were

really going to see some changes. I had hopes that perhaps we were

going to bring under one umbrella the whole distribution system of

food, right from the production of the food to the time when it arrives

on the dinner table of the consumer. I have waited in vain for the

minister to say something about this. I had hoped he would talk about

this when he introduced his estimates; he didn't. I've waited for

something to come before this House that would indicate that this

change promised in the throne speech would be forthcoming. I haven't

seen that. The only thing I've seen, Mr. Chairman, is an increase in

the portion of this minister's budget that covers marketing.

So there is only one conclusion I can reach, and that is that this so-called

Ministry of Food and Agriculture is simply going to be a Ministry of Agriculture

that's going to put some more money into marketing the product, rather than

getting into the whole food chain. I'm very disappointed, Mr. Chairman.

It would seem that what is being proposed is something very similar to what

has happened in Ontario, where the name is being changed to Food and Agriculture,

but in fact the only responsibility there is for promoting the consumption of

Ontario foods. While that's a worthwhile thing to do in Ontario, just as

it's a worthwhile thing to promote the consumption of B.C. products in British

Columbia, that is not really a Ministry of Food and Agriculture, because there

are many more facets in the distribution of food than simply the promotion of

the local product.

We've

had a series of conflicting pieces of information relative to whether

or not various levels in the food chain are making too much or too

little. We've had some examples very recently in the processing

industry, which has fallen under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Agriculture. But when you get to the wholesale and retail sectors in

the food industry, that's beyond his purview. I had hoped that with the

change in the name, we were going to be able to have an umbrella

Ministry that would have the control over or the responsibility for the

whole food chain. That has not happened, so I'm very disappointed.

Certainly

in Ontario, the change in name has meant nothing except perhaps a few

more dollars. That seems to be what's happening here. It's done nothing

as far as the producers of oysters are concerned. For a long time they

have lobbied for this very thing: that the Ministry of Agriculture have

a change of name to Food and Agriculture, so that the ministry could in

fact encompass more meaningfully the oyster producers who presently are

organized under the marketing legislation of the Ministry of

Agriculture, but function under the Ministry of Environment, which is

responsible for fisheries. They had hoped that this would be a

meaningful change, and it hasn't happened.

I had certainly

hoped that we were going to have a much broader scope, that we would

have the opportunity, under the Ministry of Agriculture, to review the

whole food process. I hope that still can happen. I recall, and the

minister will recall, in the famous — or infamous — days of the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture, when we talked about whether or not

that committee was going to make such a recommendation, and that if we

did, the recommendation should be a meaningful recommendation, and the

ministry should be prepared to have a meaningful change — not just a

change in name, cosmetics only. And that's what seems to have happened.

I'm concerned about that, because I don't think that in a commodity as

basic as food we should be spreading out the responsibility, where we

have the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, and Consumer and

Corporate Affairs all involved. It's much too easy to pass the buck.

There are too many people and groups of people that fall through the

cracks when you do that. It's much better if you have it all under one

umbrella. Certainly the throne speech indicated that that was going to

happen.

Yet these estimates do not seem to indicate that

that is the case. We're simply going to beef up the marketing dollars

and try in some way or other to make that the answer to a Ministry of

Food and Agriculture. It's not an answer, Mr. Chairman. It's just

another gimmick to attempt to fool the public into believing that we do

have one minister who is responsible for food in this province. It's

not happening. That's a disappointment and a concern. I would hope that

the minister could tell us why we only have this cosmetic change. I

know that many of us on this side of the House are concerned, as many

must be on that side of the House, about what is happening as far as

food goes in this province.

[ Page 2518 ]

have some very grave concerns about the advertising practices that are

followed in the sale of food. It's much more advantageous to the

retailer of food if he can sell a product and make a larger profit.

That doesn't relate at all to the nutritive value of that food. If

there's a package of some kind of pre-cooked, pre-sugared cereal that's

full of plastic whistles and it has an international advertising

campaign behind it, that's the thing the supermarket is going to

feature on their shelves before the consumer is going to buy that.

Certainly if you're talking about food you have to talk also about

nutrition. Of course, then you're into another field, and that's the

Ministry of Health. I can remember when I was first in this House

trying to talk about nutrition under Agriculture and was told: "Sorry,

you're in the wrong ministry. You have to talk about that under Health."

These

are the kinds of problems that are concerning the opposition in this

supposed change — a change in name that may or may not happen. We've

had things in the throne speech before that haven't happened, and it

may not happen. But certainly I do see some extra dollars in that one

particular facet of this minister's responsibilities for marketing. I'm

wondering if he is going to push nutrition. Is he going to have a

program specifically aimed at educating the person who purchases food

in this province as to the relative nutritive value that a consumer is

getting for his or her dollar? Is he going to do that, or is he simply

going to beef up the TV ads with the dogwood? And I'm not being

critical of those, Mr. Minister. They've done a job. All those kinds of

things that have been done, some by the ministry, some by the producers

and some jointly, are good programs. But really they're a small amount

of mind-influencing advertising compared to the number of

advertisements that one sees relative to those money-makers that are on

the shelves without any regard for nutrition.

I am concerned

that this is not happening or, at least, appears not to be happening. I

would hope that the minister could tell the House just what he is

proposing. First of all, is he going to be responsible for food? Is

this going to be something that's going to happen? If so, what steps is

he going to take to ensure that the consumer at least has the

opportunity, the knowledge and all the positive things that will make

it easier for the person who purchases the food for our tables? What

steps will be taken to ensure not only that we're buying B.C. products,

but that we're getting the best value for our dollar and good nutritive

content in that food, not just a lot of fancy packaging, additives,

sugar and all kinds of things that are not particularly good for us?

Those are the things that I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, and I'm

wondering whether or not the minister is prepared to deal with that.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In regard to the throne speech, it was stated that the Ministry of

Agriculture would expand its mandate — I believe that's how it was put.

I don't have the exact words here but it was in the throne speech. The

session is proceeding and legislation will unfold as it should.

With

regard to food and agriculture, if we were into that expanded mandate

we would certainly be carrying on in improving, I guess, our

involvement in the processing sector of food in this province. We would

be looking to a more active role, along with the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development, in the export markets for agricultural

products. There is potential there in certain commodities. We would

also carry on and expand our