1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2133 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Request for meeting on cut-off lands question. Hon. Mr. Levi —

Routine proceedings

Emergency Programme Act (Bill 6 1). Hon. Mr. Hall Introduction

and first reading — 2134

Land Registry Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 78). Ms. Sanford Introduction and first

reading — 2134

Oral Questions

Purchase of Bute Street block. Mr. Bennett — 2134

Rental of Marine Building. Hon. Mr. Hartley answers — 2134

Natural gas price increases. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2135

Supervision of jail inmates. Mr. Wallace — 2135

Payments to Vancouver Island Tourist Services. Mr. Phillips — 2136

Amount of low tender on Kimberley government building. Mr. Chabot —

Losses in Crown ventures. Mr. Gardom — 2137

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates. On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan

— 2138

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Hon. Mr. Stupich

— 2149

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2150

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Hon. Mr. Stupich.

— 2150

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2151

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2152

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman

. — 2152

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2152

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman

— 2152

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2153

Point of order Clarification of items in vote under consideration. Mr. McClelland

— 2154

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2154

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture

estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2154

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman

— 2155

Point of order Suspension of Mr. D.A. Anderson from service of the House —

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2159

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman

— 2160

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2161

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman

— 2162

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2163

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman.

— 2164

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2164

Point of order Imputation of improper motive. Mr. Chairman — 2164

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2165

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply:- Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2167

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman

. — 2168

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2169

Point of order Relevancy of remarks under consideration. Mr. Chairman —

Point of order Suspension of Mrs. Jordan from service of the House —

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture

estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. McClelland — 2173

Point of order Relevancy of remarks to vote under consideration. Mr. Chairman.

— 2174

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. McClelland — 2177

Point of order Imputation of improper motive. Mr. Chairman — 2178

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Mr. McClelland — 2179

Appendix — 2180

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in

the gallery today a group of strong Conservative supporters

from the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain, and their

president, Mr. David Moorhouse. They are here to find out if

life is really as tough for the Conservative leader as

everybody says it is. The House should welcome them.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the galleries

today is a group of students from the North Island Senior

Secondary School located at Port McNeill. They are here today

with their teacher, Mr. Parker. I would like the House to make

them feel welcome.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

if you are surprised at the good behaviour of the Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), let me assure you it's

because of the presence in the gallery of his daughter Kim, and

I hope we all welcome her.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope she stays in the gallery.

(Laughter.)

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask leave to make a statement to the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this is in relation to the

cut-off lands question. Today I wrote a letter to Mr. Phillip

Paul, George Watts and Bill Wilson, the executive members of

the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, in care of Mr. Lou Demerais,

2141 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver.

"Dear Sirs:

"Since the meeting of the cabinet committee and the Premier

with your delegation on March 4, 1975, we have continued to

examine the cut-off lands question. We have compiled extensive

background information on the cut-off lands, and are now

prepared to arrange a further meeting with you.

"I am proposing that your committee meet with a committee

of cabinet in the latter part of June at a date convenient to all concerned.

The purpose of this meeting would be: (1) to set up the terms of reference for

continuing discussions on the question; (2) to provide an opportunity for an

exchange of information; (3) to agree on the mechanisms required to acquaint

the general public with the facts related to cut-off lands.

"It is important to remember that all of the people in British Columbia have an interest in the lands in

this province, and therefore the people must understand the

issues our committee will be discussing. It is my hope that the

meeting in June will initiate a series of meetings which will

enable us to develop adequate techniques and procedures for the

discussions.

"I look forward to hearing from you at an early date."

I spoke to Phillip Paul and George Watts over the phone. I

read the letter to them and they said: "How about the 26th and

27th of June?" I will undertake to get back to them next week,

once I can get a meeting of the minds of the members of the

committee in terms of a date that is convenient to

everyone.

I would be interested, Mr. Speaker, if any of the opposition

leaders have some comments on this.

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

are happy the government will be meeting with the Indians in

regard to the cut-off lands. I only hope that the discussions

will provide the guidelines for the discussions which must take

place between the federal and provincial governments in

concert, meeting with the 23 bands involved in the cut-off

lands.

I hope the action will prevent any disruption or threatened

disruption which may have happened, and I hope the government

and the Indian chiefs will find a basis for the discussion

which we hope will find a solution.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we welcome this

statement by the Minister. It appears that it was not too

difficult to arrange the meeting that we've been urging for

some years now.

It appears that the Indian groups themselves and the

provincial government are indeed in a position to discuss the

question of $36,000 of cut-off lands without negotiations from

other parties.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sorry, 36,000 acres.

We trust that the advertising campaign referred to by the

Minister will not be entirely one way and not be just of the

government's, so that the Indians will be given an opportunity

of making their case as well and that they will not be faced

with a massive barrage of government money used for advertising

which they obviously would be unable to meet.

[ Page 2134 ]

We think June 26 and 27 are quite appropriate. We hope that

before the end of this summer the matter is settled once and

for all and this grave injustice that has continued in British

Columbia now for many decades is rectified.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we certainly approve of the

announcement which the Minister has made. We strongly believe

that this kind of issue can only be settled by discussions

around a table.

I would just like to ask one question. Perhaps the Minister

could tell us if, in the light of this decision by government,

there has been any reciprocal commitment by the Indian people

that in the meantime, prior to June 26 and 27, some of the

unfortunate scenes which have resulted in interruption of the

B.C. Rail, for example, and other disturbances in the

communities, will be minimized or discontinued now that the

government has taken this step to negotiate.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, Mr. Speaker. We have not put any

strictures on the question of the meetings. I think the answer

to that question, Mr. Member, is something that the Indian

leadership itself will have to deal with.

Introduction of bills.

EMERGENCY PROGRAMME ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hall, Bill 61, Emergency Programme

Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

On a motion by Ms. Sanford, Bill 78, Land Registry Amendment

Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

PURCHASE OF BUTE STREET BLOCK

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Public Works:

can the Minister confirm to the House that the government

purchased last November a seven-storey office building located

in the 600 block Bute Street in Vancouver, the legal

description of this property being lot 10, block 17, district

lot 185, plan 92; and that the purchase price was in excess of

$2 million'?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased

to check that out.

MR. BENNETT: Well, you don't know....

HON. MR. HARTLEY: All right, Mr. Speaker, he asked me if I

will confirm this. Now I'd like to reply to the question that

he asked last week.

RENTAL OF MARINE BUILDING

On Wednesday of last week the Leader of the Opposition asked

if my department had rented space on the 8th floor of the

Marine Building in Vancouver ...

MR. BENNETT: Two weeks ago.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...at an annual cost of $4.50 per square

foot, until the price goes up on May first to $5.70 per square

foot.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that because that

information is not correct. When any person gets up and asks a

leading question: "Can you confirm?" I think a person is very

foolish to answer yes or no. I could not confirm the majority

of his questions. If I had confirmed them, I would have been

just as wrong as he is.

Now I could be pleased to give the information with regard

to the Marine Building. The Department of Public Works has

rented space in the Marine Building...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an answer to a previous question.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...and they've rented space for the past

17 years; to be precise, since May 1, 1958. Now we had hoped to

be able to occupy this space on January 1, but the oil company

operating it did not vacate until later in the year.

MR. BENNETT: When?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The rate is $5.30. This space is included

in the overall lease for the period May 1, 1975, to April 30,

1978 — that is, a three-year lease of $5.52 per square foot.

This space was not vacated, as I said, by Standard Oil on

schedule, but at a later date.

MR. BENNETT: When?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We will receive a credit on our temporary

lease for the overrun by the oil company. The B.C. Forest

Service are renovating the space, and the B.C. Forest Service

will move in when

[ Page

2135 ]

they have completed the renovations.

MR. BENNETT: I have a supplemental to that, and a

supplemental to the question you didn't answer.

Would the Minister advise when the oil company vacated the

space, how much the credit will be, and why it has taken so

long for the renovations to take place?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The refund to the oil company will be

prorated for the length of time, and I believe it was early

February when they vacated.

MR. BENNETT: Didn't you come in with the answer? Do you know

the date they left?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. BENNETT: Will you give us the date they left? You came

in with the answer.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Early February.

MR. BENNETT: It was early February? Fine.

Now in regard to the question I asked the Minister about the

building, did you take that as notice?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I said I would look into it and report

back. I would like to check out the facts rather than getting

up and very foolishly answering yes or no, as you might do.

MR. BENNETT: Just as foolishly as you've done now.

NATURAL GAS PRICE INCREASES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The question is to the Attorney-General

in connection with the price of natural gas.

When the federal Minister announced the increase in price a

few days ago, his statement indicated that Ottawa and Alberta

would be together considering the matter of the increase of

price to the producers of gas. May I ask the Attorney-General

whether we in British Columbia may act unilaterally, or is the

national government involved in the decision in this

province?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The federal government is not

involved. They have been content that we should await the results of the inquiry

which is now going on under Dr. Thompson of the Energy Commission into what

is a fair price to pay for the producers in the field for natural gas. I would

hope that that inquiry would be able to make its report by late August or even

the beginning of August so that we'll have three or four months before the major

drilling season commences in the winter season.

That inquiry is now well underway. Counsel has been engaged,

and they've already had an initial meeting, with most of the

producing companies turning up to that meeting. So it's a very

active inquiry that's going on, and it will recommend to the

government what the prices should be.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Supplemental. If the price of gas to the

producer rises, will that result, under the formula that has

been negotiated with the national government, in a reduction in

the moneys that the B.C. Petroleum Corp. Is obliged to pay the

national government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will result in a reduction of the

revenues of BCPC.

Your second question is a little more complicated: will it,

under our undertaking, pay to the federal government the taxes

that they would have achieved under the Turner budget? I'd have

to check out whether or not that would increase our obligation

to Ottawa under the arrangements we've made.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: My final supplemental, Mr. Speaker. In

view of the staff study which was announced in the press this

morning, indicating that the increase in price to the producers

appears to be appropriate, is the government considering an

increase in price at this time?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. This is merely one

research paper on the subject, prepared by staff, with facts

and figures. The decision as to what recommendations will be

made to the government, of course, will come from Dr.

Thompson.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Supplemental. Can the

Attorney-General give a commitment to the House to make the

report of the Energy Commission, when it is prepared, available

to all the Members in the Legislature and to the general public

as soon as that report becomes a fact?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we renew our commitment as to open

government. This is a public body making a report to

government. I think it should be available to the producers and

I think it should be seen by the people.

SUPERVISION OF JAIL INMATES

MR. WALLACE: To the Attorney-General. With further reference

to my question of May 5 regarding

[ Page 2136 ]

the suicides of accused persons in custody, and in view of

another suicide yesterday — this time at Oakalla — and in view

of the report by Mr. John Cramm of the Justice Development

Commission which was highly critical of facilities, will the

Attorney-General initiate on an urgent basis the necessary

correction of these most serious deficiencies in the system of

supervising accused persons in custody and inmates in jail?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, the answer is undoubtedly yes,

including the question of closed-circuit television, as the

Hon. Member mentioned the other day. I can see that in a

lock-up situation; I am not sure that I can approve it in terms

of long-term custody of somebody after sentence, because that's

a little bit Big Brother, isn't it? In local lockups it is

being used. It's a matter of urgent consideration, yes.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the

Attorney-General what more immediate steps are to be taken? I

presume that the longer-term study which will be undertaken as

a result of the report will come forward with steps. But in

view of the continuing situations I've quoted, is there not

some immediate urgent step that the Minister is prepared to

make a commitment about right now?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is underway, of course, a

coroner's inquiry into the case. It wasn't New Westminster; it

was Oakridge, that death that was referred to. In the one that

has just happened, I don't know whether there will be a

coroner's inquiry or a coroner's inquest, but either one of

those two steps will certainly be taken.

PAYMENTS TO VANCOUVER

ISLAND TOURIST SERVICES

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

question is to the Minister of Travel Industry. In view of the

fact that it now seems to be a policy for the Premier and the

Minister of Travel Industry to rebuke the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) publicly, and that the

contract which the Minister of Transport and Communications

signed with Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd. has now been

broken, would the Minister advise if any moneys were paid by

any motel operators to Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd.

to have their brochures placed on the ferry before the contract

was broken?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry):

First of all, dealing with the suppositions on which the Member bases his question,

he's wrong in the first instance; it's not a policy to

rebuke anybody. Secondly, the contract — I forget the word you

used, but whatever word you used, you were wrong again.

(Laughter.) The enormity of the Member's questions staggers the

imagination. I told the Member during estimates what was

happening. If he chooses to fool around with the answers,

that's on his head. May I say to the questioner what has

happened now, so he now knows what he should say?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you remember the question?

HON. MR. HALL: I do remember the question, indeed. I've

given a number of accounts about it in the corridors already. A

press release has gone out and it's been well received all over

the place.

In consultation with the ferries, on consultation with the

Minister of Transport and Communications, I as the Minister of

Travel Industry renegotiated and augmented the service and the

contract that was in existence with Mr. McCall of Vancouver

Island Travel Services Ltd. The Department of Travel Industry

is now in charge of the business of brochures on the ferries.

Mr. McCall is going to continue much of the work that he had

already contracted to do. It will be a better system.

If I remember correctly, the Member applauded my remarks on

Thursday, April 24, when I was going to negotiate with Mr.

McCall. Mr. McCall has agreed to the contract being cancelled,

and that's part of the deal.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Travel

Industry is trying to soothe the Minister of Transport and

Communications, would the Minister answer my question? Were

there any moneys paid by any motel operators under the contract

that the Minister signed? Were there any money paid before the

contract was renegotiated? Was any money paid by any of the

motel operators?

HON. MR. HALL: The answer to that question is yes, and the

moneys are being returned to the people who sent the money.

They were held in trust by Mr. McCall. My information is that

Mr. McCall has contacted those people and will be refunding the

money.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view

of the contract that Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd,

had, which could have brought them $150,000 a year, and in view

of the contract they now have with the Department of Tourist

Industry, under the new terms of the contract was there any

bonus paid to Vancouver Island Tourist Services Ltd. when the

contract was renegotiated?

[ Page 2137 ]

HON. MR. HALL: No bonus.

AMOUNT OF LOW TENDER ON

KIMBERLEY GOVERNMENT BUILDING

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Public Works and cafes. With respect to receipt

of tenders for construction of phase 2 of the government

building in Kimberley, could the Minister confirm that the low

tender was received from Bill Carlson Building Services Ltd. of

Cranbrook in the amount of $22,928,90?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take it as notice.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The answer is yes. I'm not certain of the

exact figure, but the answer is yes.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary. The company submitting the low

bid does not have a collective bargaining agreement with its

employees, nor was the company qualified to bid and undertake

the work through contract under the public service fair

employment which permits non-union work. The contractor

submitting the bid employs less than two people. Therefore

could the Minister give the reason why the contract is to be

re-tendered?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The contract is being re-tendered. We have

called new tenders and...

MR. CHABOT: Why?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...as soon as the...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...tenders are in, we will announce them.

The first tender was not in compliance with the public works

fair employment legislation.

LOSSES IN CROWN VENTURES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to direct a question to the House Leader, but since the

House Leader is not here and the Deputy House Leader's not

here, who is the House Leader? If someone would put up their

hand? Who?

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: If there is a House Leader, I would ask the Hon.

House Leader: in view of the fact that every 24 hours of every

day ICBC is losing over $100,000, the B.C. Ferries are losing

$68,000 and B.C. Hydro transit is going down to the extent of $46,000, 1

would ask whatever Member is prepared to answer on behalf of

the Premier whether they are prepared to recommend to him that

he correct and amend his budget, because we're clearly in a

deficit position. Or failing that, would they be prepared to go

to the people so we can replace this administration with one

that won't bankrupt the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Any party over here would do a better job than

you, my friend, make no mistake of that fact. This or that —

any one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, whatever ICBC or the B.C.

Ferries lose, the people gain. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I note that

according to standing order 25, the daily routine indicates

that this is private Members' day. There hasn't been one for

over a year, and I just wonder if the government is ever going

to subscribe to the rules of the House and follow them.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he took

part in a motion and agreed to it at the beginning of this

session that priority would be given to Committee of Supply?

Therefore, until Committee of Supply is completed, that

priority persists unless you get unanimous leave of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: At the moment I don't think we have unanimous

leave. But possibly by Monday it may be possible again to have....

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 6: production and marketing programmes, $4,413,655.

[ Page 2138 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis).

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought the Hon. Member had just come in and

not taken his seat. I recognize the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Well, Mr. Chairman, this

is a most interesting turn of events. Having stopped smoking

and now having an extreme weight problem, I find it somewhat

flattering to have been sitting here the whole time since the

House opened this afternoon and finding that you thought I

wasn't here. I also find it most interesting at this time, when

we are working under a means of selective closure by this

government, that we are entering on a very vital portfolio long

after its initial votes were passed, with a period intervening

of some two weeks. Then we find that even with those

interruptions, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is

trying to ram the votes through without allowing debate. There

certainly doesn't seem to be any resistance on the part of the

Chairman.

I would like to pose a number of questions under these

votes, but first of all I would like to talk about the

section

on weed control. As the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) may or may not be aware, we are somewhat concerned

that this vote, which was $200,000 last year, is reduced to $100,000 this year. In another vote, presumably, the transfer of

emphasis which would be under the insect and biological control

programme is only $100,000, which means that the actual control

on the part of the government, if I understand the estimates

correctly, in terms of weeds and insect control....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan, we are considering vote 6, production and marketing

programmes.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, under

section 20 of vote 6,

it has weed control with an estimate of $100,000....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member continue?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, are we having a little problem today?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what day it is.

MRS. JORDAN: Now that you have interrupted me, Mr. Chairman,

I wonder if the Minister follows my point: one cannot look at

weed control in isolation from the other vote which I mentioned

on page L23, vote 8, designation No. 2, insect and biological

control programme. These are interrelated. I assume the

Minister's reason for cutting the weed-control programme to $100,000 this year from $200,000 last year is, as I mentioned,

that he is changing his emphasis.

Now, Mr. Minister, this is a matter of serious concern to

the producers in the agricultural industry in British Columbia

and to us as an opposition. As the Minister is well aware, the

attitude publicly, whether it is intentional or not, has been

to sock it to the farmer when it comes to this matter of weed

control. It has been the producer in this province, whether he

is in the production of fruit or the production of row crops or

the production of cattle or whatever the various production

.... Emphasis on environmental control, which certainly is a

matter of considerable importance, and the emphasis on

ecological management, which has prohibited the use of many

sprays which have in the past been of benefit to agriculture

has meant that the producer is bearing the cost in terms of

dollars and in terms of his manual output for this social

concern.

If the Minister has been made aware, there has been a rapid

increase of noxious weeds on the ranges in British Columbia.

The distribution of the seeds is considered to be accelerated

by traffic — cars, helicopters, people on foot who are more and

more utilizing rangelands and agricultural properties for

recreation, traffic by birds and traffic by animals.

Trains. There are a number of tracks criss-crossing the

Province of British Columbia, and since there has been a

restriction of chemical sprays along the railroad tracks, there

has been a great increase in the number of noxious weeds

throughout the province. These are spreading increasingly

through the various traffic patterns or avenues which I have

mentioned, as well as nature itself through winds.

It is the producer who is having to cope with the problems

this is causing. The spread of weeds is cutting down on the

productivity of a lot of our rangelands. It is cutting down the

productivity of many hay crops, for example. I would cite in

this instance the problem we are having in the Okanagan with a

weed which is commonly called peppergrass. I won't give the

Latin name because I don't think any of us would understand it.

But this is a weed that is proving resistant to almost any type

of control. It spreads by root; it spreads through animals.

Once it infests a field it is like a cancer — it is highly

malignant; you can't kill it. It seems to feed on itself,

[ Page 2139 ]

and it will eventually take over the whole field. It is not

only unattractive to animals when they are grazing — they won't

eat it — but it also has a very destructive effect as far as

their appetites are concerned if it is in the baled hay.

This is one area, Mr. Minister, where there is a great need

to have more money available to the Agriculture department in

order that they can carry out more pilot projects to, first of

all, find an effective control for this weed and, secondly, to

be in a position where it can be applied at minimum cost to the

producer.

We have other range problems, and I am sure the Minister is

aware of it. Before I go into all the details on this specific

point I'd like to ask him why this vote is down, other than the

point I mentioned, and what emphasis he is placing on weed

control in the province at this time? Where are the funds

coming from to accelerate this problem? What compensation is

there going to be made available to the producer who is having

to bear the brunt of social concern in this area?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, under this vote I'd

like to say a few words about marketing boards, which isn't

anything new. Prior to being elected I had a lot to say about

them, and since being elected I've had a lot to say and I'm

still no happier with them.

As a matter of fact, up until this time I felt that there

was room for marketing boards to improve, there was room for

them to start working for the betterment of the consumer and

the farmer. But through actions which have taken place through

past months, I've lost that small amount of faith that was

left.

I'd like to refer to the six million pounds of turkey and

the three million pounds of broilers in storage in this

province at this time. I think in both cases it is regrettable

and almost unforgivable.

The consumers in this province will be in the position that

they have three pounds of turkey in storage for every man,

woman and child in this province at the present time. The

consumer will be continually eating a product which is dried

out more than it should be — not as fresh a quality as what

they should be having an opportunity to purchase. This also

applies to broilers. It is a known fact that neither one of

these should be kept in storage more than six months. They

start deteriorating prior to that even, at a period of four

months.

The marketing boards were initially set up to control production so that there

would not be surpluses in the province, so that there was orderly marketing,

so that both the consumer and the producer would be protected. But in my view

they haven't worked. When you end up with this type of surplus in storage, it's

an indication that there has been a failure. To me, this affects everybody in

the Province of British Columbia.

Some of the actions by marketing boards affect some parts of

this province more than they do others. I've said this before

and I'm going to say it again: throughout the whole interior of

this province there isn't one producer who has the right to

raise fryer or broiler chickens. This has a bad effect on the

economy. It has an effect on the consumer in regard to the

product they eat. They eat a product which often comes in from

Manitoba or Alberta or from the lower mainland of the province,

and it is often quite old before it reaches the store shelves.

I feel that this government should have moved to see that

something was done about this before this time.

The past government let it carry on for 20 years and we have

let it carry on for almost three years.

MR. WALLACE: What have you got in mind?

MR. LEWIS: I say that production should have been into the

interior shortly after we were elected with the stand that we

took that there would be regional control of marketing

throughout this province. But the marketing board structures

are set up and Pan-Ready Poultry is set up with complete

control in the Fraser Valley of this province or with some on

Vancouver Island. The farmers in the interior of the province

don't have an opportunity to go into these fields. When Pan-Ready Poultry was structured, I took the stand that

if there was a plant built in the interior, there should be

farmers from the interior who would be the directors on that

plant. But this isn't what happened. The directors for that

plant come from the lower mainland of this province.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Vancouver Island.

MR. LEWIS: The directors who represent the growth in the

interior or the construction of that plant are people who are

tied with Pacific Poultry in the Fraser Valley or Pan-Ready in

the Fraser Valley as well. It is not to their best interest to

see that there is a plant constructed in the interior of the

province. There were quotas allocated almost a year ago in the

interior. Many of those producers have gone ahead and built

buildings and have them ready for production but there is no

processing plant.

I say that Pan-Ready Poultry isn't responsible to the whole

of the province; they are responsible to a few producers which

they represent in the Fraser Valley of this province. Harry

Liedtke is the chairman of the Broiler Marketing Board and he

is also the chairman of Pan-Ready Poultry. I say that decisions

that Harry Liedtke and his board are making aren't in the best

interests of British Columbians.

[ Page 2140 ]

I urge the Minister to do something to see that something

happens in regard to the construction of this plant so that

some production takes place in the interior immediately. I know

there have been problems in regard to a site for the plant.

There was an initial site which was to be built near the

Shuswap River and there was a lot of concern by

environmentalists that it could pollute the river. I feel that

the location of a second site was desirable, as does the

Minister. But if that had taken place in the lower mainland

with that same board, they would have had an alternate site

within a matter of a couple of months and that plant would have

been under construction.

Because of the large amount of surplus poultry that is in

storage in this province at this time, decisions are being made

by Pan-Ready Poultry, the Broiler Marketing Board and the

turkey board to see that farmers throughout the province don't

have a chance to get into production on these commodities. I

say this has to change. I ran on a strong platform that there

would be regional production throughout this province. The

party policy was this way. There has been a push by people

throughout the interior, not just the farmers but also the

consumers, for something to happen to see that people

throughout this province have equal opportunity.

In my view, the operation of the Egg Marketing Board hasn't

been quite as bad. At least they have producers throughout the

interior; they have one member on the board from the interior.

But it is still far from being perfect.

With regard to the tie-in with CEMA, I say that CEMA right

now is a disaster. I say that if we go ahead and sign the

agreement which CEMA has put forth for all the provinces, B.C.

will be sold down the river. Farmers in this province will lose

a share of the market which they have enjoyed for a number of

years. The interior and Vancouver Island in this province will

likely be put in the same position as they were when marketing

boards came into this province in the first place: they will

get a smaller share of the total market and won't have the

right to grow with consumption in those areas.

I think the example of what happened in Terrace with an egg farmer there who

is being sued for $136,000 right now for producing too many eggs is disgraceful.

That farmer, in my view, broke the law; there is no doubt about that. He produced

more eggs than he should have. But I say that the law is lousy. I say that farmers

in that area should have an opportunity to supply products to the consumers

of that area. When you can say that there is only one egg farmer between Vanderhoof

and Prince Rupert at the present time and that he is going to be sued for $136,000,

which will put him out of business and leave that whole western corner of the

province without an egg producer, with the consumers dependent upon production

from either the lower mainland or Manitoba, I think that is disgraceful.

That is my view on it. I stand very strong on it; I am not

going to change my position. I think that I have had a fair

position. I think it is a fair position for all of the

province, not just for the interior. I think the interior has

been discriminated against for a number of years. It's time

that it changed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I find that Minister's

presentation most interesting. I think it is just very typical,

when one recalls comments that he has made in this House before

as they relate to his comments now, where he seems to change

his position whenever it is convenient and where he thinks it

is politically popular. This is very characteristic of this

government, of that Member and this Minister. It is an example

of the games that this department is playing with the producers

in the province and with this whole industry. Referring to the

Member for Shuswap....

MR. LEWIS: You were there for 12 years and didn't do

anything about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

speak to vote 6.

MRS. JORDAN: I am. I am referring to his position on the

poultry industry in British Columbia today.

I certainly don't blame anyone for standing up for the

rights of the people they represent. That's our job. But if

there was a man in real estate in this Legislature, or a lady

in a commercial business in which there was a Ministerial

responsibility, and they said what this Member has said about

his own business, they would be accused of conflict of

interest, Mr. Chairman.

This Member has taken three positions in this House. When he

first came in he couldn't say enough bad about the Egg

Marketing Board. Now he's mellowed his tune, and yet there has

been no major change in the Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, if this Member was sincere in his efforts, he

would ask the Minister, as I will, what the Minister is going

to do about the Garrish report. That's the avenue. Don't

champion your own pocketbook. The Garrish report was

commissioned by the former administration to look into the

operations of the Egg Marketing Board in British Columbia. They

were given a certain period of time and a certain amount of

money, and the chairman of that committee came back to the

government of the day and said that the job was too big and

there wasn't enough money, and that they would like an

extension of the time that they were given and more money than

they were given.

[ Page 2141 ]

Subsequently they filed a report to the current Minister and

the current administration in which they made a number of very

positive statements about the value of marketing boards. I

think they were very unemotional and very realistic statements.

They also went on record as suggesting that if it hadn't been

for marketing boards for some products in this province we

wouldn't even have those products produced in the province

today, because of external factors that are beyond the control

of the province. I think the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) is

aware of this.

Also in the report Mr. Garrish and his committee recommended

that there could be some constructive alterations made in the

marketing system. He concluded on behalf of his committee with

comments to the effect that it needed more extensive study and

more time, and he recommended that changes to the marketing

board in the interim, without this type of in-depth study,

would merely be a Band-aid approach.

So, Mr. Minister, because we seem to see a schizophrenic

attitude on the part of this government, first of all the

Member for Shuswap, who changes with the wind and seems to

stand for anything that he thinks his constituents might fall

for...and that we see the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon.

Ms. Young) who is violently opposed to marketing boards, who

has condemned them openly and without constructive criticism,

who has done a great deal of harm to the agricultural industry

in this province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to make my point

of order first, and then the Hon. Minister.

On vote 6 we are considering the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister only under this vote, and not

the points of view that might be held or might be taken by

other Members of the House. You must discuss the administrative

responsibilities of this Minister under this vote.

The Hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) on a

point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Fine, Mr. Chairman.

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

never said at any time that I was opposed to marketing boards,

and that Member has falsely accused me of making such

statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. We accept the correction by the Hon.

Minister. Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan

continue?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In deference to your rule I won't read

from press releases I have, issued by the Minister of Consumer Services, to

substantiate my statement. But I will address my question to the Minister of

Agriculture, who has, to his credit, staunchly defended marketing boards.

I would suggest that if one examiner, these various

statements and one examines the interests of the consumers in

this province and the interests of the producers of this

province, it is imperative that the Minister of Agriculture

give us his position with regard to the Egg Marketing Board in

particular and marketing boards in general.

I would like to ask him what his position is in regard to

the Garrish report. Is he going to follow the recommendation

that was made and have an overview of the Egg Marketing Board,

or does he intend to disregard the report?

In speaking of poultry, Mr. Chairman, I also would like to

know the Minister's view on the poultry-processing plant in the

interior. I find it a little difficult to understand the

various positions that have been put forward, first by the

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and at times by the Minister,

because my understanding is that there is indeed a surplus of

turkeys in the Province of British Columbia in storage and a

surplus of poultry in storage. The former speaker mentioned six

million pounds of turkey and three million pounds of

broilers.

My understanding is that the processing plant that the

Minister is endeavouring to establish in the interior of the

province will produce, in one year, the amount of poultry that

is currently in storage now, and for which there is no market.

My question to the Minister is: where does he intend to market

the poultry that will be processed in the plant which is to go

into the Salmon Valley area? Where does the Minister propose

that the current backlog of processed poultry in storage be

marketed?

I also understand that it is economically not feasible at

this time for the turkey processing to operate on a separate

basis from poultry processing, in light of the overhead and the

limited market. I would like to know the Minister's views on

this and if, in fact, he does intend to amalgamate, one way or

another, this type of production.

I would also like to ask the Minister in relation to the

processing plants.... I would like to suggest that the

government was very wise indeed to back off from the location

the way they did, because there was certainly a good deal of

public concern from the pollution control point, but also there

was a lot of public concern from the economic point of view as

to whether this plant was indeed viable.

I would like to know if, in fact, the Minister is intending

that it should be established in the Salmon Valley area. Have

there been extensive studies done as to whether or not the

pollution factor is to be taken into consideration if the

effluent is used in spray irrigation? If the Minister intends

that the government or the companies buy the whole of the farm

involved, what does he intend should be done

[ Page 2142 ]

with the balance that will be not used for the

poultry-processing plant? I would also like to know if he could

give the House an explanation as to why the criteria for the

pollution control permit was altered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Shuswap on a point of

order.

MR. LEWIS: I would ask that you have the Hon. Member

withdraw the inference that I spoke on behalf of self-interest.

If that is the criteria taking place in this House, then she

should never speak on health, because her husband is a doctor;

no lawyer should speak on a law case or anything to do with

lawyers. I say that her action is irresponsible and

disgraceful. She should speak up for her riding instead of

speaking against it.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman,

last time we talked about marketing boards the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was in his seat.

Is he going to be in this afternoon or...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister

proceeds, in dealing with the matter raised by the Hon. Member

for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), I gather that the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was suggesting that the Hon.

Member was speaking only out of self-interest. Therefore I

would ask her to withdraw this inference or imputation against

the Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I think you have misinterpreted

my intention. I said that if a man was in the real estate

business and spoke as this Member did, he would be accused of

conflict of interest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Then I would ask you the

question, Hon. Member, if you were, in fact, suggesting that

the Hon. Member for Shuswap was speaking only from

self-interest.

MRS. JORDAN: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to save some of my

remarks about marketing boards in general and in particular

until the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

returns.

There was a question about weed control — the vote for weed control. The reason

that had been cut back was that we have found we haven't needed nearly as much

money as was previously provided. As the Hon. Member for North Okanagan pointed

out, last year $200,000 was voted for salaries and for grants to those regional

districts or municipalities that wanted to cooperate with the Department of

Agriculture in a weed-control programme. By the end of January, the last figures

that I happen to have with me in the House right now, we had spent a total of

$37,000 for that programme. So it would seem to be poor management to provide

$200,000 if we expect that $100,000 will be quite adequate for the programme

and for the anticipated expansion of this programme. That's why there is a cutback

in this particular vote.

The question with respect to entomology, I suggest, would be

more appropriate, Mr. Chairman, under vote 8.

With respect to the Garrish report: the Garrish report said

many things about the egg industry, including the reference to

the fact that when the egg board was first established there

was general agreement that quotas should have no value. It is

unfortunate that over a period of time it did develop that it

would have a value and the price went up. I think in some cases

there were sales as high as $400 or $450.

While agreeing that this was unfortunate, that the agreement

was that it would never happen, Mr. Garrish in his report

recognized that it did happen and that it would not be fair or

equitable or even possible to wipe out this value overnight —

not even desirable. But the implication was there that there

should be a gradual reduction in the price of quota. We have

achieved that by establishing a market for quota.

In the first year after the Garrish report was tabled we

established a market of $300 a case per quota. We said then

that we expected the market price to reduce. The price right

now is $270 and we have indicated to the egg industry that we

expect this value to keep on reducing at the rate of $30 a year

for a number of years — not necessarily to wipe it out

completely, but the plan is to reduce it.

Mr. Garrish in his report recommended that there should be

changes in the management of the egg board — that is, their

policies and the way it operates in the egg industry in the

province — but that these changes should be made gradually. We

have been trying to do that in ways other then in reducing the

value of the quota itself. For example, relocation of the

industry; there are good grounds for relocating the

industry.

I suppose I am just a little bit surprised at the Hon.

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) taking offence at anything the

Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) says. I would

simply consider the source of those remarks and not take any

offence at all, having had a fair amount of experience

listening to her remarks in the House over some eight years.

I'm not the least bit surprised or disappointed at anything

that comes from that Hon. Member.

[ Page 2143 ]

But I will say that she, too, suffers from not being

consistent, if you like, in that just last year she was urging

me to consider one site in particular for a poultry-processing

industry in the interior, urging me to get on with the job.

Today she's raising the question as to whether it's

economically feasible to do so and asking why we are trying to

encourage production in a market where we now have a surplus.

She's quite ready to be inconsistent when it suits her and is

quite ready to attack anybody else, on any grounds, at any

time, whether she has any basis for her attack or not. That has

never really concerned her in the past and, I expect, will not

in the future. I would just not consider anything in that way

coming from her as intended to be sensible at all.

MRS. JORDAN: You're unbelievable, just unbelievable! No

wonder you were defeated.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As I said, there are good reasons for

moving production from the Fraser Valley to the interior of the

province, quite apart from satisfying a market in the interior

of the province, providing the people in those areas with fresh

products when available, providing them with B.C. produce as

opposed to produce coming in from other provinces and, to some

extent, in the interior of the province. When — and I say when

rather than if — we have a poultry-processing plant in the

interior, there's no doubt that we'll be replacing, to quite an

extent, poultry that is now coming in from Alberta and from

other provinces east of Alberta. So it's not just a matter of

adding to the production and hence to the surplus of poultry

meats in the province; we will be filling a market with B.C.

produce.

Apart from that, there are the problems of disease control.

An increasing amount of evidence indicates that the efficiency

of poultry production — poultry meat and poultry egg — in the

Fraser Valley is suffering because of the concentration of

poultry in the lower Fraser Valley. There are indications that

there are diseases, some of them not always recognized as such,

and indications that because of the heavy concentrations of

poultry in that area, we are losing production. Production is

not as efficient — that is, pounds of meat per feed. The

conversion is not as good, the production of the layers is not

as good as it should be, and the only reasons that they can

come up with are the fact that there is the heavy population of

poultry in that area.

So quite apart from trying to satisfy the consumers in other areas of the province,

we do want to encourage a reduction of production in the lower Fraser Valley

of these products and move this production — I don't mean physically move the

people involved, but simply shift production from the lower Fraser Valley to

other areas of the province. We are working to accomplish that. We have done

a fair amount with respect to eggs, and when the poultry-processing plant is

available somewhere in the interior of the province — I've not said Salmon Valley,

but I hope very soon to be able to announce the location of that plant — that

will encourage some production in that area. There might be a corresponding

reduction in the lower Fraser Valley, and there certainly will be a displacement

of products from out of the province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): In this vote dealing with

production and marketing programmes, I was expecting some

explanation from the Minister as to the weaknesses there are in

the programmes, and the methods he intends to take to rectify

them. We've heard of the superboard, and we've had, of course,

the food council, which now has the consumer association

representatives withdrawing from it because they feel that the

whole thing — and I think I'm quoting them correctly — is a

rubber stamp for ideas originally initiated by the Department

of Agriculture. The food council is on another vote, but the

fact of the matter is that it deals essentially with the

problem of marketing and the frustration these people — the

consumers association people — felt when dealing on that board

with marketing board questions.

The other reason for asking the Minister to comment on new

regulatory procedures for his marketing boards is, of course,

the decision by Mr. Justice Hinkson that, indeed, the

government has in the past — indeed the Premier himself and the

Minister of Agriculture have in the past — intervened in the

operation of marketing boards. Without going through the

details of all this, you know full well that the Minister of

Agriculture was unable to recall any such intervention but it

was recalled by, others present at the meeting, and their

testimony was accepted by the judge. Lawsuits resulted and

large sums of money were eventually decided upon in the way of

settlement and damages.

There's now, by decision of the judge, a clear indication

that indeed the government did intervene on the question of

northern producers and on the question of quotas that should be

assigned. The intervention dealt also with going after the egg

boards to have them reduce the amounts of levies that they were

putting out against certain individuals, and once again, the

intervention was apparently necessary to make sure that these

levies were reduced.

What we have is a clear situation, a decision by a supreme

court judge that the government has been interfering with the

mechanism — the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture — have

been interfering with the operation of these marketing boards

in at least one instance, and, in fact, I am sure there are

other cases as well. Therefore it would seem to me that the

government has some duty to explain to this House

[ Page 2144 ]

what steps have been taken to rectify the problem, the

technical problem, which led to this intervention, because the

marketing boards simply weren't working well. Nobody denies

that. The Premier made that perfectly clear. The Minister of

Agriculture has made that perfectly clear. The Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has made that perfectly clear. As a result

of that, they decided to intervene in a manner which turned out

to be not illegal, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

The fact is intervention took place. I want to know what steps

the government has taken to make sure that in the future this

problem will not recur. That's the first point.

The second point is, of course, that now the decision in

this case has jogged the memory of the Minister of Agriculture,

I wonder whether he will in these last few hours of the debate

on estimates, and this estimate in particular, be willing to

apologize to members of the boards who were accused of perjury

and who, in fact, as found by the judge, did not perjure

themselves at all but were speaking the truth.

That's two points. The first one is: what steps are being

taken to take care of the problem? The second matter is, of

course, the question of an apology to innocent people accused

of perjury.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the food

council was disposed of under vote 4. With respect to what

procedures we have adopted to make sure that the "problems"

that arose in the past with respect to marketing boards will

not arise in the future, well, of course, the action taken by

the government there was to introduce legislation, that the

House approved, to set up a provincial marketing board to which

any problems that do actually arrive shall be referred.

The House, I am sure, is aware, or should be aware, that one

problem did indeed arise fairly recently. It was the first

problem that was referred to the provincial marketing board,

and the board settled it during the course of a 12½-hour

marathon meeting. The problem was quite serious to some members

of the poultry industry, when turkeys that were due for

processing just weren't being processed. The processors weren't

accepting them any further. It was a problem about which I

asked the provincial marketing board to call a meeting of the

processors and the marketing board. It was solved at least

temporarily and got the product moving again. I think the

action of the superboard, the success of the provincial

marketing board in that instance, justifies the setting up of

the board in the first place and shows that this method of

dealing with any problems that might arise is apparently a very

appropriate method.

With respect to apologies, I don't feel I owe any apology to anyone. I never

called anyone anything that I feel I should apologize for during the course

of the debate. If the Member opposite feels that he should apologize to someone,

well, that is something I should leave to him.

I would like to say something about marketing boards. I feel

as though we are perhaps ready to move on to another vote.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, we may not be. That's fine. But I do

want an opportunity to say something about marketing boards in

general. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom), when he was in his seat one day, led an attack on

marketing boards in principle, in general, and suggested that

these marketing boards, for example, should not be compulsory:

they should be voluntary — and do we really need them at

all?

I suggest to him that if there were not a case to be made

for marketing boards, there wouldn't be marketing boards in the

first place. Marketing boards are like a union of producers of

a certain commodity — a getting together of the people involved

in the production of that commodity — in an attempt to protect

their interests in the same way that other people in society

band together into various organizations to try to bargain

collectively, if you like, or at least to manage their

enterprise with some degree of collective action in order to

protect themselves in a community where so many people are

organized.

As far as the consumers are concerned, I think the consumers

also benefit from this collective action on the part of the

producers of any particular commodity. Perhaps good evidence of

that is the fact that just about a year and a half ago the

housewives in the country, on the continent, were banding

together and taking collective action against the prices of

beef. They were boycotting beef because beef was so high in

price. Just a year and a half later, the prices which the

cattlemen were getting for beef were so low that many of them

were being forced out of business and they were turning to the

government. Of all people, the cattlemen, the most independent

of all farmers, presumably, were coming to the government and

asking to be included under the income assurance programme.

The housewives, or the consumers generally, have had some

temporary benefit from this in that the price of beef is lower

now — although many of them say they haven't noticed any

difference. Certainly they don't feel called upon to boycott

beef these days. But these fluctuations in prices are harmful — very harmful — for the producers and, in the long run, do no

good for the consumers who must pay a higher average price over

the course of time because they are paying for the cost of

getting production up and down. The cycles of production are

expensive for

[ Page 2145 ]

the producers, and that cost eventually has to be passed

on to consumers. So consumers, as well as producers, do benefit

from marketing boards.

As far as location of production in the province is

concerned — and I am talking now of egg production, turkey

production and broiler production — it was not the marketing

boards that decided that there would not be broiler production

in the interior of the province, or turkey production in more

areas of the province, or even decided that there shall only be

one producer in the whole northwest part of British Columbia.

These decisions were made long before there ever came a

marketing board in any of these commodities.

The marketing boards simply established the status quo.

While we would like to have seen some changes and while there

would have been more opportunities for change had there been an

increase in the market for some of these products — for

example, if egg consumption in the Province of British Columbia

had climbed in proportion to the population — it would have

been much easier for these marketing boards to deal with the

problems of increasing the proportion of production in the

outside areas of the province and to move the proportion of

production away from the Fraser Valley. There has not been an

increase in the consumption of eggs.

The marketing board arrived on the scene when there was a

certain production: one producer in Terrace, if you like, a

limited number of producers in the Prince George area, a

limited number even in the Okanagan. It established that

position and allowed some movement. I think that was unwise; it

should not have allowed movement out of the interior and should

not have allowed movement off Vancouver Island. That has been

stopped in the last two years. There has been some movement

back onto Vancouver Island and some to the interior of the

province. Under our policies, something like 500 cases of

production have been accumulated in the Fraser Valley for

relocation in other areas of the province.

It is slow. It is slow because there has not been the

increase in consumption in the province that would have allowed

us to achieve more of an increase in production in those areas.

The same thing with broiler production and turkey production:

we cannot get an increase. There is a little bit there, but we

cannot really get a substantial increase in broiler production

in the interior until we have a processing plant there. I am

hoping that we will have it very soon, as I have indicated on

many occasions. I hoped last year that I would be able to

announce the site then.

Members have already commented on the fact that there was some difficulty in

locating it because people in various communities, while they thought it was

a good idea to have it somewhere, didn't want it on the sites that were immediately

available. We are looking at sites now. No one site has been zeroed in on but

a couple are being looked at pretty closely..still hope to be able to announce

the site very soon.

It is true that there is going to be some difficulty in expanding

the total B.C. production very much when we have this storage problem

or this inventory problem right now of three million. Again, it is

going to have to be a gradual thing. The increase in production in the

Okanagan area of the province with respect to broilers is an example.

But there will be some movement. We have said there will be; it is

still government policy that there shall be. It is my hope to be able

to announce the location of the interior processing plant very soon.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't have a great deal more to add to this,

but I listened with great interest to the Minister. One cannot

help but wonder; we have people in this province who know why

he is wearing a red jacket.

He certainly is inconsistent. When I listened to him talking

about marketing boards, I wondered why he was attacking the

Member for North Okanagan. I have consistently defended the

right of marketing boards ever since I came into public life

and before that. It is the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), his

own Member, with whom he is having trouble. It is his own

Member who has been trying to undermine the rights of producers

to organize themselves. I find it ironic that this Minister

should accuse the Member for North Okanagan of inconsistency

and irrelevance in his whole eight years in the House. I would

remind the Minister that during those eight years I sat in the

House the full time, but the Minister didn't. His constituents

knew that he was the type to play games. They spoke, Mr.

Chairman, as they will speak again.

Let's have the record quite clear on where the Member for

North Okanagan stands and where this party stands. It is in the

record from the time we came into opposition and it was in the

record before that, but that is the time from which I wish to

speak. We have consistently defended the right of the producers

of this province to organize in their own organizations and in

their own way and with a majority vote.

It was this opposition that attacked the government for

trying to impose upon the rights of the producers an imposition

that they were not prepared to impose on any other sector of

society. Let us remember that it was this opposition that made

very clear, when the Minister of Agriculture insisted that

consumers sit on a marketing board that is supreme to all

producers and all producer organizations and all marketing

boards in this province, that if that was his policy for

agriculture, his government must have the same policy for the

IWA, for the Teamsters, for the government

[ Page 2146 ]

employees association and for every other organization that

acts as a speaker for their group in this province.

We say, Mr. Chairman, there should be no more restrictions

imposed upon the producers of this province than are imposed in

other sectors of society. Let us not have the Minister twisting

and twirling and conducting himself in a manner which could

hardly be a credit to the position of the Minister of these

subjects.

I hope the record is very clear. We believe that in the long

run it is the marketing boards and the organizations of the

producers themselves that have provided the consumers of this

province with a product that is available to the best of our

ability to produce in this province in terms of climate and

soil. We believe it is the producers of this province in their

actions and through their organizations that have ensured that

the Province of British Columbia has an agricultural industry

and can afford some opposition to imports, which are beyond the

control of this Minister or any other Minister of Agriculture

in this province.

We know, and I'm sure the Minister knows, if he is candid,

that one of the major problems with agriculture in this

province is that we are subject to imports from other countries

and other provinces where the cost of production is far below

our cost of production, where the climate is far more equitable

to the production of agriculture, where the seasons are longer

and where in fact the products have been subsidized. We

understand the problems of the producers in the apple industry

who have to compete with subsidized fruit on consignment

landing on the docks of British Columbia. What concerns the

producers and what concerns us and concerns the people of this

province is how we can develop a market where the marketplace

itself will bring the return to the producers that it should

do.

Again, I would just say let it be very clear that we stand

solid for the right of the producer to enjoy the same benefits

in this province as do other segments of society and to enjoy

the same freedoms. We don't, like you, Mr. Minister, believe

that they should be restricted in their work. We don't believe

that they should be excluded from agriculture if they choose to

supplement their incomes in other ways. We don't believe that

income assurance should be used as a means to control land and

the producer in the future. We believe in their rights and

their responsibilities.

I hope the Minister will, during his estimates, which have

been badly interrupted, confine himself to the concerns of

agriculture in this province instead of the petty politics he

tends to indulge in.

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show that the

major problem for agriculture in the Province of British Columbia is that for

20 years we had a government that wasn't interested in agriculture. I think

the fact alone that the previous administration in its last fiscal period spent

something less than $6 million in the whole department, while the estimates

before us total up to $60 million, shows quite clearly that this particular

government is extremely interested in agriculture — in farmers and in agricultural

production. So the major problem was the administration before, rather than

the other problems — which are all problems we have to deal with.

I think perhaps I would be the last one, if not very near

the last, in the House to invite the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to put anything else in the record. But

I do recall last year that Hon. Member saying quite clearly

that we should proceed with all due haste — not necessarily

words to that effect — to establish a poultry-processing

industry in the interior of the province. As I heard her

remarks today, I believe she is now suggesting that we should

go slowly on this because of the environmental concerns and

because of the surplus that we currently have of poultry meats

in the province. That was the inconsistency to which I was

referring in my remarks earlier.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to advise the Minister

that when this subject came up last year I was not the

agricultural critic. Secondly, I suggested that if he was

looking at a site in the North Okanagan region from Revelstoke

to Lumby, through the Vernon area to the Faulkland area, he

should examine the meat-packing plant in the North Okanagan

which was standing idle and had a considerable investment. I

did not at that time speak on the economics of the plant,

because I didn't know. I merely addressed myself to the fact

that he seemed to be having difficulty finding a site, that it

was acceptable and that I felt he should consult these

people.

He again has misinterpreted my point. I'm not telling you to

get on or get off with the plant, Mr. Minister. I asked you

some questions about its economic viability and how you

proposed to market. I think these are very reasonable

questions. They are questions that the public wants to know,

because for some reason the public has the idea that this

government is not really very responsible when it comes to

investing their money. They seem to think that a $36 million

deficit in ICBC, a $104 million overrun in Human Resources and

now a major ferry deficit just may indicate that this

government doesn't operate on a sound business basis.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Like the Columbia River treaty.

[ Page

2147 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, it is with that concern in mind

that I asked you some questions which I put in the record and

which have not yet been answered. I didn't state one way or

another the pros and cons. I want to know where you're going to

market this produce, how you are going to keep out Alberta

poultry, if that's one of your ways, and how you intend to

equate the oversupply at the moment with the production that's

coming into effect when and if this plant goes ahead. Is that

unreasonable? I don't think so. I think probably there are many

people not only in this House but outside who would think they

are very reasonable questions.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can only assume the Member

was not listening when I was giving the answers. I said yes,

there are economic problems; I said yes, there currently is a

surplus of broiler inventory in the province, that the

establishment of a plant in the interior of the province will

make it possible for production to shift to the interior of the

province, which will improve the efficiency of broiler

production in the province as a whole and will provide an

opportunity to get some of the broiler production out of the

Lower Fraser Valley and improve the production there; that we

will be displacing products from out of province.

Of course, there's always the mechanism, if you like, that

is adopted now from time to time and is currently in place in

the lower Fraser Valley — that the volume of production is

varied according to the inventory. The broiler producers in the

lower Fraser Valley right now, I believe, are operating at 85

per cent of quota. The opportunities of operating at full quota

will vary, as does the consumption of broiler meats and poultry

which altogether right now is down because beef prices are down

in comparison to what they used to be. So there are the

possibilities of expanding the total market. There are the

possibilities of displacing out-of-province products, and

having a plant in the interior will provide the opportunity for

some production in that part of the province.

MRS. JORDAN: At least we're moving a little bit, and I

appreciate the Minister's comments.

The situation seems to be a little iffy, and I wonder if the

Minister has had an economic feasibility study done, both on

the basis of production and marketing and potential markets.

Have any studies been done as to how the integration of this

production is going to take place? Quite obviously there's

going to be a reduction of production, one would assume, in the

initial stages in the lower mainland, and reduction of output

down there. If the Minister has had these studies done, I'd ask

him to confirm it and file them with the House; then we can

allay our own concerns.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, we are getting quite

concerned in the northwest part of the province about the

possibility of our one and only egg producer going out of

business. I often go down to the store to pick up the groceries

for the family and, of course, I look for Samson eggs when I

look for eggs. A great number of the other people in Terrace,

Kitimat and also Rupert do, too. This would be a great tragedy,

a great disaster from the food point of view if these eggs

should disappear from the store shelves because of the levy

that's being imposed against Samson's poultry, which is now

owned by Stan Kincaid, and the writ that's been filed with the

court with regard to this matter.

Interjections.

MR. DENT: Order, please. (Laughter.) I'm asking the Chairman

to call the man to order — I must remember I'm speaking as the

Member for Skeena now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Members. Let the Member speak,

please.

MR. DENT: Now I would suggest a remedy that might be

undertaken. The difficulty is that we are allowing a fair

amount of freedom for various groups, such as the trade union

movement, to operate and do their own thing, for the doctors

and the lawyers to do their own thing and for the commodity

groups, in a sense, to regulate themselves. I don't think the

province should step in and interfere with the actions and

decisions of various self-regulating bodies in the province

unless it is clearly in the provincial interest. I would

submit, viewed from our vantage point in the northwest, that it

is in the public interest in our area for the government to

intervene possibly through the B.C. Marketing Board, the

superboard. I would propose that in some way the B.C. Marketing

Board bring together the parties involved — the owner of

Samson's Poultry and the representatives from the Egg Marketing

Board — and resolve this in the public interest.

The public interest is not being served at the present time

in the northwest by the Egg Marketing Board. It has not been

served, since I have had the privilege of representing that

area, to the satisfaction of our requirements.

B.C. is a regional type of province more than any other

province in Canada. Each region is almost self-contained in

many ways, and we are such a region. The northwest region is

relatively isolated from the rest of the province. It takes

time to move products in there. There's somewhat of a breakdown

in communications, and so on. Therefore the more that we can do

ourselves within our own region, the better. It's in the

interests of the people there to do

[ Page 2148 ]

things for themselves, and certainly it's in their interests

to try to provide themselves with their own products as far as

this is possible, such as milk, eggs, et cetera.

I do not think the Egg Marketing Board is responding to that

real need of the northwest. Therefore I would propose that some

means be found by the Minister to bring together the

representatives from the Egg Marketing Board and the principals

of Samson's Poultry in order to meet the public interest in

northwestern B.C.

MR. LEWIS: You know, it's a little bit amusing to listen to

the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talk about how her

party stands strong for regulated marketing in this province;

she always has and she always will. For 12 years she was in the

government before we took office — six years as a cabinet

Minister, I understand. She supported marketing boards all

right, but not B.C. marketing boards. She supported the Fraser

Valley marketing board which says that you shall not raise

broiler chickens or frying chickens anywhere else in this

province. That's what she supported.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MRS. JORDAN: The Member is wrong on how long I've been in the Legislature.

He is wrong about....

MR. LEWIS: That's the only thing I'm wrong about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

comment on the arguments only, rather than on the Member.

MR. LEWIS: The people in her riding will sure be glad to see

where she stands when she says that she supports the present

system which says there shall not be any broiler production in

her riding. There won't be any egg production. There isn't a

single egg producer in her riding that I know of.

MRS. JORDAN: I asked for the Garrish report.

MR. LEWIS: And for her to support that type of thing and say

it is for B.C., she'd better take another look and look where

she comes from in this province. I say that if you put that

same type of regulation on a storekeeper, on a lawyer or on

anybody else and said, "You can't operate in the interior

because the ones in the lower mainland were there first,

" see what the reaction is. Take a look at the

reaction.

Just one comment with regard to what the Minister said when he said that marketing

boards have, in fact, increased the number of producers. I disagree with that,

because in the Kootenays there were 120,000 laying birds prior to the marketing

board coming in. In the Prince George-Quesnel area there were well over 100,000.

In the Okanagan, at one time prior to the board coming in, they shipped numbers

of cases of eggs to the lower mainland. Actually, as to the conditions for egg

farmers, as far as the ones who are in the business, I would say they have done

better since the board has come in. But they have certainly reduced the number

of farmers throughout the interior that are in the business. A promise which

was made to the interior when we went into the marketing board system that the

interior would grow with its consumption has never been honoured by the marketing

board.

This is where most of the problem is. If they had honoured

the growth in consumption in those areas, then there would have

been orderly growth throughout the area. The interior wouldn't

have been in the position where they have to import eggs from

Manitoba or the lower mainland. Often eggs which the person has

to import and resell are turned down because the egg inspector

finds they are of low quality.

All of these problems have to be rectified somehow, and they

are not going to be rectified the way the situation is now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, what I did say

was that the marketing board did allow some shift in production

from the deficient areas of the province. It was unfortunate

that they allowed this, but since we have taken office we have

stopped that shift. In consultation with the egg board, they

have now stopped any decrease in production in those areas of

the province. It has, in fact, turned around and there has been

some increase in allotments to those areas. I think it is

unfortunate that they allowed quotas to move out of the

deficient areas of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to disagree

with the last speaker, the Member for Shuswap, because it isn't

only marketing boards that have caused the decrease in the

number of producers in the industry. Farmers are retiring from

agriculture in this country today at the average of 30 a day.

That's the national average; it's a national trend. It's not

only here in British Columbia and it's not only because of

marketing boards; it's because of a critical labour shortage in

agriculture and it's because of young people just not coming

back into the industry when parents retire.

Just to follow up for a moment on the problem of conflict of

interest in regard to this new plant in the interior, wherever

it's going to be, I don't know whether the Minister answered

the question or not about where the new site was going to be

and when

[ Page 2149 ]

we might expect that a site might be chosen and this plan

get underway.

The Minister should also, I think, bring before this House

any feasibility and economic studies that were done in regard

to this new plant and tell us, since it is pretty well accepted

that the plant can't be economically feasible without some kind

of government help, whether or not that plant will be

subsidized directly from tax dollars from consolidated

revenues.

I would like to suggest that there is a pretty high

possibility that there is a conflict-of-interest situation in

there with the chairman of the poultry board also being

president — Mr. Liedtke — of the 10K group,

Interior-Okanagan-Kootenay Poultry Co., which, I understand, is

going to operate the new processing plant, and also president

of William Scott processing in Burnaby.

I would just like to remind the Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis) too that Mr. Liedtke is not a Fraser Valley producer at

all but is a Vancouver Island producer. Both of those companies

are 40 per cent owned by the government, and the other 60 per

cent is owned by Pacific Poultry Producers Co-op. That company,

too, has a $2.5 million government investment in it. So that

kind of interrelationship surely presents some kind of a

serious conflict of interest. I think the Minister owes it to

the marketing people in the industry to investigate and comment

on that.

Now particularly with regard to Panco Poultry, Mr. Chairman,

I would like to ask the Minister if he could advise what the

outstanding liabilities of Panco Poultry are at the present

time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pinko Panco.

MR. McCLELLAND: Pinko Poultry, yes.

Would the Minister tell us whether or not any negotiations

were going on prior to the government purchase of Panco Poultry

through Pacific Poultry Producers Co-op to have Pacific Poultry

Producers Co-op buy Panco Poultry? If that's true then, Mr.

Chairman, I suggest that the Minister's comments, particularly

since the government has a pretty heavy investment in Pacific

Poultry Producers, that the government jumped in at the last

minute to save jobs is baloney.

The government, at least an agency with which the government

was connected, had in fact been negotiating prior to the

government's purchase — in fact, quite a long time prior to the

government's purchase. But the liability question interests me,

Mr. Chairman, and I wonder if the Minister could help us

out.

If I may be allowed, since we are speaking about agriculture and much of my

constituency is in an agricultural area, I would like to welcome and have the

House welcome some students who just arrived from Aldergrove secondary school

along with their teachers, Mr. Phelps and Mr. Ruggles. They asked me to say

something about Aldergrove because they said everybody always forgets Aldergrove.

So — Aldergrove's a great place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to comment too

much upon another Member, especially one who is not in his

seat, but the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) said some

extraordinarily curious things about a lawsuit currently taking

place, of a man who is before the courts on a charge of

perjury, with reference to what he said in the examination for

discovery and the court case dealing with the production of

eggs of his particular operation. Now I think it behoves a

Member, in particular one who is a former member of the clergy,

to realize that there is a very important aspect here which is

also to be looked at, and that is whether or not egg producers

or anyone else should get before an examination for discovery

and commit perjury — lie. That's the issue at point in the case

that the Member talked of, Mr. Chairman. You better believe

it.

There was a very dramatic scene in that courtroom —

undoubtedly the Member was not present — where, indeed, he was

asked that very question as to whether he had given correct

judgment in the examination for discovery. When the facts came

out that he hadn't, that's when the troubles began. That's an

aspect which is well worthy of looking into for the Member for

Skeena.

The Minister talked of the superboard and how this is

solving problems, but as the Member for Skeena as well as the

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) pointed out very clearly, there

have been plenty of problems and these problems have led to

something I referred to before — namely, the Egg Marketing

Board going to court. Now we all, I am sure, regret it when a

government board has to take producers to court. We regret that

it is necessary for a producer's money and court time to be

wasted in this fashion. But the fact is that it happened. And

in that decision Mr. Justice Hinkson came down with a clear

statement that, despite the inability of the Minister of

Agriculture to remember....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I am waiting in anticipation

that the Hon. Member for Victoria will somehow relate his

remarks to vote 6. The only item in vote 6 that relates to

marketing boards at all is the Provincial Marketing Board,

which was not even established at the time he is describing

now. Now unless he is intending to lead into a discussion of

Provincial Marketing Board activities or possible

[ Page 2150 ]

activities, I just wonder about the relation, that's all. I

just wanted to see that he will establish some relationship

between his remarks and the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, The point of order is well

taken. It is required in committee that discussion be strictly

relevant to the item or items under discussion. Therefore I

would ask him to relate specifically to items contained in this

vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh absolutely, Mr. Chairman. The

Provincial Marketing Board, which the Minister has explained

was necessary to curb these problems, may or may not do so.

Therefore if we are to examine whether or not money should be

given to the Provincial Marketing Board, clearly we are going

to have to look at the circumstances and the problems which led

to its creation. That's a perfectly logical question of cause

and effect.

While the Minister undoubtedly does not wish to be reminded

of his memory loss, which the judge commented upon so acidly in

this judgment by Mr. Justice Hinkson, it's important that we

find out precisely why the Provincial Marketing Board was set

up and whether it will succeed in what it's doing. Now to

justify the $100,000 expenditure we are going to have to look

into the background of this particular matter.

HON. MR. STUPICH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would suggest that the time to have

looked into that background would have been when we were

discussing the legislation setting up the Provincial Marketing

Board.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is reasoning

in a somewhat circular fashion, because efforts made at that

time were met with the remark that it was before the courts,

and we now have a court decision....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. First of all, on the point of

order the point is well taken in the respect that we should be

dealing with present administrative responsibilities of the

Provincial Marketing Board and its activities rather than to

discuss the reasons for its creation. This would be rather a

matter of legislation; therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to

comment on the administrative responsibilities of the B.C.

marketing board as provided for in this vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you for

the elasticity of your mind and your conscience in this matter. But the fact

of the matter is that when the discussion took place on the legislation, we

were barred from discussing this point because of statements by the government,

which were accepted by the Chair, that this was before the courts. The matter

is no longer before the courts.

There is another matter which is before the courts, which

the Member for Skeena spent his entire time talking about —

namely, protecting some gentleman who committed perjury before

the examination for discovery, interfering with the aspect of

the course of action. But that is something else.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I can't see

what relation that has to vote 6. I think if the Member wanted

a general discussion of the Department of Agriculture, the

opportunity was there in vote 3. But now, surely, we are in

vote 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When a point of order is raised

by an Hon. Member, as the Hon. Member for Victoria knows, the

Chair is forced to make a ruling under the rules of the

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, the Chair rules that the Hon.

Member....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, you're going to get someone this

time. You make a speech that's out of order and then you rule

out others. It's totally out of order. Then you rule out other

people dealing with things that are in order. You are going to

make that judgment as a minister of the cloth? Ho!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any Hon. Member at any time is entitled to

rise and make a point of order. When the Hon. Member for Skeena

was speaking, evidently no point of order was made on the

matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. However, when a point of order

is raised, the Chair, no matter who is sitting in the chair,

must rule according to the rules of the House. It is not a case

of personalities at all; it is a case of the rules of the

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's very simply....

[ Page 2151 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Therefore the Chair is simply

drawing to the attention of the Hon. Member on the point of

order that was raised that discussion must be confined to the

items contained in vote 6 and specifically to the

administrative aspects of this.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, further on the point of

order, when the Hon. Member for Skeena was speaking, he was

describing a case that could be referred to the provincial

marketing board. Now if the Hon. Member for Victoria is

suggesting that something might be referred to the provincial

marketing board and he would get to that suggestion, then I

think he might be in order. I am just trying to help him

out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the dilemma rises because,

despite the total loss of memory of the Minister when faced

with a judge, he seems to have excellent recollection when it

suits his purposes in this House. The fact of the Minister is,

you see, Mr. Chairman, that interference took place in the

operation of the board, as found by judicial decision and based

upon the testimony of people on oath. Those who failed to give

their testimony under oath...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...found themselves again in court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...is persisting in speaking out of order

when the Chair has drawn his attention to the matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, Mr. Chairman, that's just....

MR. CHAIRMAN: These matters are clearly not contained under

the items in this vote. That is why I would ask him to return

to the vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the vote to which I am

referring is vote 6, Provincial Marketing Board, code 20. Got

it? Right.

Now what led, to the setting up of this? Why do we have

$100,000 here this year and nothing last year? Got it?

Good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also like the Hon. Member to get

something. We are considering the reason, the purpose for this money in terms

of its administrative functions. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, right, Mr. Chairman. I just refer

you to the Member for Skeena's reference to the inaccurate

testimony given in the examination for discovery regarding that

trial of Kovachich's.

But, Mr. Chairman, what is important in this instance is,

indeed, if statements made by the Premier and Minister of

Agriculture are accurate concerning the whole aspect of the

marketing boards and their failure to regulate properly in the

area which was talked about so eloquently by the Member for

Skeena, the Member for North Okanagan, the Member for Shuswap —

all those Members — the judge has made a great ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...error of judgment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was assuming the Hon. Member was going to be

leading up to some consideration of what responsibility the

B.C. Provincial Marketing Board might have. This has not

happened so far. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his

remarks to items in the vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, you are indulging in

obstruction of debate and obstruction of justice in your

efforts to make rulings which suit your purpose and that of the

Minister of Agriculture and that of the Premier. They fail

totally to recognize the fact that we obeyed the Chair's ruling

previously when matters were subjoined. When we have an

opportunity under the debates of the Minister and have been

waiting until vote 6 to deal with the specific item 20, we feel

that it is fully in order at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order to which

the Hon. Member is referring, the rules of the House must be

applied equally to every Member in the House. If there is any

dispute about that....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's about time they began. We have been

waiting for three years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In regard to this matter, any Member at any

time, if he feels that the rules are being abused, may rise in

his place on a point of order. It is the responsibility of the

Chair to enforce the rules. The point of order was raised. The

Chair is merely following its duties under the standing

order.

Would the Hon. Member keep his remarks

[ Page 2152 ]

confined to the administrative function of the B.C.

marketing board?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, you

have a very limited appreciation, clearly, of the intelligence

of the Chair. Clearly it is possible to appeal to the logic and

reason of the Chair. It is not simply necessary to assume that

no logic or reason will prevail, no arguments can sway him, and

therefore the only alternative is simply to state a point of

order and then sit down. I don't think you are doing justice to

the people who occupy the position in which you are presently

sitting, Mr. Chairman. The fact is: here we have problems in

justice. We have an either/or problem in justice.

I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is here;

the Minister of injustice is here to hear of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that that type of

remark is totally unparliamentary, and I would ask the Hon.

Member to withdraw the remark.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, let me withdraw the remark....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To refer to any Minister of any

department as the Minister of injustice is, I think, clearly an

unparliamentary method of debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let me withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman,

at your insistence, and suggest that we have here an

opportunity for the Attorney-General to indicate if he is the

Minister of Justice....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, we are not considering the

Attorney-General's estimates. We are considering vote 6,

production and marketing programmes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we didn't raise points of

order when the Minister of Agriculture referred to the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) or referred to

other Members present or not present in the House. We just

didn't bother raising stupid points of order with respect to

referring to Members in the room. I welcome the

Attorney-General here. I am sure that he would appreciate, like

the Minister of Agriculture, an opportunity to rectify

injustice which essentially lies within the ambit of the

Minister of Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I would ask the Hon.

Member either to speak to the vote or take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the provincial marketing board is what

we are discussing. No matter how hard you try, I am sorry, I don't think you

can allow this partial enforcement of the rules on a year-to-year and month-to-month

basis, depending on whether it suits your convenience or that of the Minister

of Agriculture, to interfere with the proper discussion in this Legislature

by elected Members of the public of British Columbia of the affairs of the province.

This is what you are doing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order. I'd just like some

clarification from the Chair, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the

rulings that you have made. I understand that descriptions of

these votes were provided as a guideline for the Members as to

which parts of this vote we can discuss. I don't know whether

the Chairman has read the description of this particular vote,

production and marketing programmes, but it is very clear. Just

read the last three lines, Mr. Chairman. Those are the

parameters around which we must discuss this vote, and we must

be allowed to discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair does not follow any

preamble that may be contained in the vote, but rather the

rules of Committee of Supply. The rules of Committee of Supply

are that we are not to discuss matters of legislation. We are

not to discuss any other Minister's responsibilities. We are to

consider only the specific items contained within the vote for

which sums of money are indicated. Therefore the Hon. Member

must discuss those items.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.... You are right

on. Let me just read three lines from the description. This is

at the top of vote 6, the description of this production and

marketing programme, okay? I'll read the last sentence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think it is irrelevant to

refer to the....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The description of what is in the

estimate is irrelevant. I can't even read you the description

the government itself produces to explain what this money is

for? Now that is absurd! You've done lots of funny things

before, but that really takes the cake. That's

unbelievable!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair makes rulings. It is

not necessary to lecture the Chair. The Chair has ruled under

the rules of Committee of

[ Page 2153 ]

Supply that Members must confine their remarks to specific

items contained within the vote for which sums of money are to

be voted. The Hon. Member must speak to these matters. As to

the parameters of what is to be discussed under each item, the

Chair will make rulings as the occasion arises.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, to aid you in your

rulings....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Chilliwack on

a point of order.

MR. SCHROEDER: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, you say

that these remarks here are a

preamble to the vote. With all

respect, please note that vote 6 is clearly marked at the top

of the page and that the

preamble becomes part of the vote,

according to the printing of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule that the

preamble

at the top is not part of the vote, any more then an

explanatory note is part of legislation.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair does not wish to

debate. Would the Hon. Member continue with his remarks? The

Chair will rule if he is in order or out of order on specific

items.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, could I indicate to you

what we are discussing in this Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to

the vote or take his seat?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. I would like to speak to page L

21, Agriculture, vote 6, production and marketing

programmes.

"Description. The programme provides assistance and

technical advisory...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair rules again that the

section at the top is not, strictly speaking, part of the vote,

but rather the items for which money is to voted constitute the

vote. Therefore the Hon. Member must speak to the items for

which appropriations of money are provided. Then the Chair will

determine, when the Hon. Member is speaking, whether or not he

is in order. So would the Hon. Member speak to the items in the

vote?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Chair will determine whether or not

the Hon. Member is in order. Okay? Is that your final

statement? Fine.

I would to discuss a programme which provides assistance

and technical advisory services to agricultural producers and

commodity groups through specific extension programmes and

specialist services. I would like to describe these activities

which are "designed to facilitate improved management and

production of livestock, poultry, apiary, and field and

horticultural crops." I would like to discuss grants that are

made "to agricultural organizations in reference to livestock

and crop improvement and weed control." And, Mr. Chairman, what

I would really like to discuss is "legislation and regulations

pertaining to the inspection, orderly marketing and promotion

of British Columbia-grown farm products" which are administered

and conducted within the programme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is in order,

providing that he does not discuss matters which are matters of

legislation, or the responsibilities of other department, et

cetera. So would the Hon. Member proceed with his specific

comments?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to

discuss is the orderly marketing promotion of British

Columbia-grown farm products. Orderly marketing of British

Columbia farm products.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again draw to the

attention of the Hon. Member rules of Committee of Supply,

standing order 61(2). I will read it for the benefit of the

Hon. Member: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be

strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Now clearly this means those items for which appropriations are

provided. Now his remarks must relate to those items, and I

would ask the Hon. Member to ensure that his remarks do relate

to these items when he continues.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know where we

started off and how much time we've wasted by your incredible

rulings. I would like to discuss vote 6, and I would like to

discuss provincial marketing boards. If I can get back to where

we started off, I would like to describe and discuss the

genesis of this, which comes right out of a court case, the

Hinkson judgment on the Kovachich case where, Mr. Chairman, you

will find....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member said he

intended to discuss provincial marketing boards. There is only

one Provincial Marketing Board as contained in this vote, so if

he would speak to that board....

[ Page 2154 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order. I would like the Chair's

ruling as to whether or not there might be conflicting rights

here because every Member spoke on marketing boards, including

yourself. Could you advise the House whether or not the orderly

marketing of products should be properly discussed under the

director's salary on this vote, because the director,

obviously, is in charge of all of the programmes which are

described in the description of the vote? I think that's

properly the place that marketing boards and orderly marketing

can be discussed.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There was a point of order raised and it

is the Chair's responsibility to comment on the point of order before the Hon.

Member proceeds. Providing that the remarks are relevant to the administrative

responsibilities of that particular person.

Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me

my afternoon's exercise getting up and down from my chair. If

you do it often enough, it's really quite a good programme of

exercise.

Along the lines suggested by the Hon. Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland) I would like to question whether or not the

$53,609 put aside for the director of this operation is

justified in the light of the fact that the government doesn't

think he's qualified because they keep interfering. How's that?

Okay. Now he's gone up in salary from $36,476 last year to

$53,609. That's down there under director — first line under

activity: staff estimates 1974-1975; staff estimates 1975-1976.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you have here a man who, as I see it, is

being paid more and more....

HON. MR. STUPICH: On a point of order, I just wonder whether

the Member realizes that it is two people we're talking

about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it's down here: staff, two. I'll

read the whole thing because the Minister....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister adding this

when I try to get on to the description, I'm ruled out of

order. I thought if I read anything about the staff column I

might be ruled out of order, too.

Last year, $36,476; this year $53,609. A lot of money. The

only way we can judge whether this large increase is justified

is to check as to whether or not, in the last year — or even

previous to that — this director, or perhaps it should have

been directors.... I don't know if there's a misprint there;

I'm just reading the activity description....

HON. MR. STUPICH: You want me to help you before you dig

yourself in too deeply? Can I just explain something?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Explain? Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you've got an explanation to give, at

long last.... We've been waiting for years.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Just before the Hon. Member digs himself

in too deeply, I draw your attention to these estimates. You'll

note in the top half it says activity, and in the bottom half

it's expenditure classification. Now the activity to which

you've been drawing the House's attention, that is, director:

in the first place, it applies to two people's salaries, but it

also applies to the expenses of the directors in their capacity

as directors. So a portion of such things as travel expense,

office expense, materials and supplies, all those things, all

those items in the top half under activity are divided among

those items at the top. So that's not salary alone. When you're

looking at two people getting $53,000, that's not salary alone;

that includes the expenses of their activities as

directors.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I quite agree with the Minister's

statement. I didn't think that he was going to be the one to

point out how stupidly this thing has been put together. You

can't work out from this what the salary of the director

is.

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, but you know you can always ask and

get an answer if you want it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but that's the sort of thing that

should be down here in black and white. It should be right

there. It used to be in the estimates. It is in some estimates,

but here we can't find it. Oh, yes, they'll throw everything in

and call it all simply the estimates for all the directors.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It would be novel for you to ask a

question during estimates and discussion. You might try asking

a question for a change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 2155 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Question — okay. The direct question is

this; in the light of the fact that the Minister's memory is so

wrong or so failing, in the light of the fact that we have a

judgment from Mr. Justice Hinkson regarding egg marketing in

the Province of British Columbia, in the light of the fact that

apparently the Hon. Premier and Hon. Minister of Agriculture

know something that the judge didn't when he made his decision

....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not think the Hon. Member can do

indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly. The Hon.

Member must speak directly to the items under

consideration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to know whether the Minister

of Agriculture intends to have this decision appealed or to

instruct the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to appeal

this decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've asked the Member to speak

relevant to the items in the vote. He has not done so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll try one more time and if the Hon. Member

is not relevant to the items in the vote, I will ask him to

take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we have professional services for

lawyers, we have travelling expenses, office expenses; that's

where this all comes from. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that if you

look at that detailed vote which you keep instructing us to

look at, you'd find it is perfectly in order to ask, in light

of the information which the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the

Attorney-General...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member proceeds....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...whether the case will be appealed...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...because a travesty of justice has

occurred unless it is appealed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member made a statement which

I want to assist him with. That is that he is talking about

items in here which he assumes to be for a purpose in the past.

Clearly these items are for expenditures to take place during

the current fiscal year.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): How do you know?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the matter could be cleared up by

asking the Minister a question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, my question to the Minister is:

will we use any of this professional services' money to appeal

the Hinkson judgment so that the judgment which is based upon

the testimony of a large number of people — Kovachich, Link,

Samson, for example — which supports the affidavits in this

House...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I don't think it's necessary to go into

detail.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...will be appealed because of the fact

that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture apparently,

through...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...statements in this House, know

something the judge didn't?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And if the Hon.....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member take his

seat?

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 6 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman. The question is directed to

the Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've asked the Hon. Member to

take his seat...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I have more to ask.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...because the Hon. Member is persisting

in irrelevance and...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Irrelevance!

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...disobedience to the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Disobedience! Come on, Mr. Chairman, you

can make up better excuses than that! The fact is that they

have...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! Would

[ Page 2156 ]

the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...given information in this House, and

if it's....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Now the Chair has attempted to bring the Hon. Member to

order. The Member persisted in continuing to be out of order.

Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to discontinue his

speech.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now again I would ask the Hon. Member to

discontinue his speech. What this means, as a point of order,

is that you may not speak until someone else has spoken

again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair has the prerogative, that's

why. The Chair has made that ruling.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may appeal the

ruling of the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Member to be seated and to remain seated until

another person has spoken.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would order the Hon. Member

to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will read the respective standing order.

Standing order 43:

"Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the

attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a

Member who persists in irrelevance or in tedious repetition,

either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other

Members of debate, may direct him to discontinue his

speech.

"If the Member still continues to speak, then Mr. Speaker

shall name him or, in committee, the Chairman shall report him

to the House." Now I have asked the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

Now the Chair ruled that your remarks were irrelevant to the

vote under consideration.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, the Chair ruled that the remarks of

the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) were

irrelevant. The Hon. Member may appeal the ruling of the Chair;

however, the Chair has ruled that you must discontinue your

speech.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would make the observation that if the Hon.

Member rises again before....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When a speech is discontinued, that's

discontinued. Therefore, if he rises in his place

[ Page 2157 ]

again, then I will have to report him to the Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan on a point

of order.

MRS. JORDAN: I wish to make a point of order, Mr. Chairman,

but as I do I must deplore the conduct of the Chair in this

whole issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order.

Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: Would you hear my point of order, Mr. Chairman,

before you turn your back on this House again?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: There goes another slice of democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee in

consideration of vote 6 the Hon. Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) persisted in irrelevance. First of all I

drew to his attention the fact that he was speaking

irrelevantly to the vote. He persisted in being irrelevant. I

read standing order 43 and I ordered him to be seated. He did

not remain seated. I am now reporting it to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is the Hon. Member

prepared to obey the orders of the Chair in regard to the

request that he be seated?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I constantly returned to my

seat. I popped up again to point out that pr