1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2525 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 16). Hon.

Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 2525

Ministerial Statement

Quebec Referendum.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2525

Mr. Barrett –– 2526

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Victoria-Seattle ferry service. Mr. Skelly –– 2526

Acute-care hospital at UBC. Mr. Cocke –– 2527

Neighbourhood pub licences. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 2527

Medication for handicapped schoolchildren. Mrs. Dailly –– 2527

Unemployment at Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead –– 2527

Proposed mill at Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead –– 2528

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2528

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2529

Mr. Leggatt –– 2530

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2532

Mr. Levi –– 2533

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2534

Mr. Stupich –– 2535

Mr. Ritchie –– 2535

Mr. Cocke –– 2536

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2538

Mr. King –– 2539

Mr. Mussallem –– 2540

Mr. Barber –– 2541

Mr. Hanson –– 2548

Royal Assent to bills –– 2550

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce two very special

guests who have come to us from the Mother of Parliaments in London. In

1964-65, Mr. Merlyn Rees was parliamentary private secretary to the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt. Hon. James Callaghan. Through

those years right up until 1976-79 he served in the Labour Party

government. He finished his term with that government as Home

Secretary. Mr. Rees is accompanied by his wife Colleen. They have spent

five days in British Columbia. Over those five days they have been

impressed with the beauty of British Columbia and the dissimilarity of

politics. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, let me share in the warm welcome to British Columbia by

the Leader of the Opposition. We are always willing to share our

province with those who come to visit from the Mother of Parliaments in

England, and also to share it with many of those who have come to make

British Columbia their new home. I also bid a warm welcome and share in

the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have the honour to welcome into the galleries three of my cousins,

Miss Emily Chew of Vancouver, formerly of Penang, and Miss Lilian Lai

and Miss Christina Lai, both of Singapore.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I am sure many of us noticed how quickly Captain Merritt left the

chambers after offering prayers today. The reason is, as he advised us,

that today his daughter gave birth to his first grandchild. Christopher

David. I think we should congratulate the captain and his family.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I would like the House to welcome today a group of grade 7 students

from Scarborough, Ontario, who are here visiting their counterparts at

Monterey Elementary School in the heart of south Oak Bay. I ask the

House to welcome them, along with their principal. Mr. Lane.

MR. BARRETT:

I didn't have the opportunity to complete my introductions. I want to

thank the Premier for his comments. Accompanying Mr. and Mrs. Rees in

the gallery are Michael Morgan, Mary-Joe Campbell-Morgan and Glyn Jones.

HON. MR. McGEER:

In the buildings today, but not with us right at the moment, are 54

grade 10 students from the Little Flower Academy in the riding of Point

Grey. I would like the members to welcome them when they arrive.

There is a guest in the galleries with us right now who is one of the most

famous band leaders of all time. Mr. Rudy Vallee is in Victoria to do a benefit

concert at the McPherson Playhouse tomorrow night. Rudy tells us that it is

the Preatest sound system in the world that he'll be playing through tomorrow

night. He would like you to be there for this special performance celebrating

his 50 years in show business. The proceeds will go to the Lord Chamberlain

Players here in town. I wonder if the members could welcome one of the great

band leaders of all time, Mr. Rudy Vallee.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, the members will make good music here this afternoon.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today. under the guidance of their teacher.

Jim Adams, we have a group of students from Handsworth Secondary School

in North Vancouver. During this past week. these students have been

host to students from Nelson McIntyre Collegiate in St. Boniface, who

came to North Vancouver under the guidance of their teachers, Lenna

Glade and Bill Peckman. I would like this House to welcome the students

from St. Boniface and also the students from North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. HANSON:

I would like the House to join me in welcoming someone in the gallery

today who works very hard on behalf of various cultural groups here in

Victoria, Mr. Willie Swami.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker,

would the House please welcome a class from my constituency. They are

from the Bradner Elementary School and are accompanied by their

teachers, Miss Barron and Miss Sasaki.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming a

Victorian, Mr. Victor Nundoo, and Mr. Ahmed Patel from Vancouver.

Introduction of Bills

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr.

Nielsen, Bill 16, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment

Act, 1980, 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.

QUEBEC REFERENDUM

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement concerning the referendum

that took place in the province of Quebec. Yesterday was a day of

decision, not a final decision, but a decision by the people of Quebec

to try and come to the table of Confederation and join with all

provinces to build a new Confederation within the framework of our

country.

I think all members of this House take heart that

the people of Quebec rejected leaving the country — or association from

outside the country — and chose Canada and a route of building the

country from within instead. I know that I speak for all British

Columbians when I express our desire to work not only with the province

of Quebec, but with the other provincial governments and the government

of Canada, and to meet at the table of Confederation to resolve not

just those problems or concerns brought out in the referendum debate in

Quebec, but concerns that have been expressed by our provinces in the

Atlantic region, concerns that have been expressed here in British

Columbia, and to deal with,

[ Page 2526 ]

hopefully in a positive and decisive way, the solutions that have been offered from a number of quarters.

our patriotism and the decision of yesterday there may, perhaps, be

some false expectation that the things that are wanted by the people of

Quebec and the people of British Columbia can be easily achieved. Mr.

Speaker, we see this only as the beginning of a very difficult task,

one in which resolution cannot be achieved easily, but can be achieved

if we have the type of dedication, flexibility and commitment to the

country as a whole that will be required from all regions in order to

accommodate one another within this great country.

Yesterday

the people of Quebec said they want to pursue this course. I feel

proud, with the members of this Legislature, that I was able to deliver

on their behalf the results of a resolution passed unanimously in this

Legislature and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition before that

vote. I hope in some small way this encouraged them to make the

decision to work within our country to resolve their disputes and their

concerns and to build a better future for themselves and ourselves.

Mr.

Speaker, today is a beginning. The referendum was not the end; it is a

beginning of a challenge that can turn into Canada's finest

opportunity. It is a chance to further develop a country that has

unlimited possibilities if we have the will to set up the government

structures that allow it to work, the flexibility to appreciate the

differences of the regions, the language and the culture and if we

allow the relationship between our people to grow to its fullest.

Yesterday then, Mr. Speaker, was another beginning for our country.

MR. BARRETT:

May I thank the Premier for his statement and respond with just a few

brief comments. It is true, as the Premier stated, that yesterday must

be viewed as a beginning rather than an ending. I think all serious

Canadians view the results of that vote in those terms.

there is any impression abroad that a great victory has been won on the

basis of logic and reason, that feeling may lead to the false

impression that the problems that have been long-lasting in people's

minds in regions of this country will be solved quickly with a written

constitution. Such has not been the case with mankind. Laws and

constitutions have been written and broken, but when there is a sense

of good will, an understanding of tradition and a commitment to a

greater understanding of what a nation is, then written words will

indeed be the binding force.

We've had the opportunity in

this country to express to our fellow Canadians in Quebec a sense of

solidarity about this country. We're proud of its past, we're unsure of

its future, but there's no doubt that there's an indication from a very

good percentage of people that they want to try to make this country

work in the best interests of as many people as possible.

have only a couple of more things to say, Mr. Speaker, and that is that

I feel that there should be a sense of humility for all of us who

supported the no position and an understanding, openness and

generousness to the 40 percent who voted yes. Those people, as

witnessed on television last night, represent, obviously, a whole new

young generation in Quebec. The statistics that gave the age breakdown

of the vote indicated that most of the young people in Quebec voted for

the referendum. It is those people to whom we must reach out; it is

those people who become the challenge; it is those people who we must

convince, as they look to their future as Canadians, that Canada is the

place where they can fulfil their futures. I wish all peoples in this

country involved in the development of the new constitution the

greatest possible success, and I hope that there is the greatest

possible involvement in drafting that constitution.

Oral Questions

VICTORIA-SEATTLE FERRY SERVICE

MR. SKELLY:

I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Will

the minister confirm that during the past long weekend the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess combined carried 2,400 fewer passengers than did the Princess Marguerite in the same weekend of 1979?

HON. MR. FRASER:

The answer to that is no, but I have some figures which I am pleased to

give to the House. There were 3,424 passengers transported to Victoria

from Seattle on board the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess

during the first six days of the new royal service. I am pleased with

the apparent acceptance of this, because during the first six days of

the service provided last year by B.C. Steamship Company, 2,406

passengers were transported to Victoria from Seattle.

MR. SKELLY:

In answering, the minister used two sets of figures. I wish him to

clarify the figures for the May long weekend in Victoria. I hope that

the minister will take the question as notice. Obviously, in his rush

to prepare himself for the question, he did not get the dates or the

figures, and I would urge the minister to check. Did the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess carry 2,400 fewer passengers than did the Marguerite in the May long weekend?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll repeat what I just said. For the first six days it increased by 1,000 passengers or an equivalent of 42 percent.

MR. SKELLY: The minister is also including people who were invited by the Social Credit government to take a tour on the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess and also those who were invited by Boeing Aircraft Corporation. The figures as a result are distorted.

would ask the minister to confine himself to the three days when the

thing was operating in free enterprise in the free market. That is what

he should be concerned about.

I would also like to ask the Minister of Tourism, if I may, if she agrees that the decline in passengers on the Victoria Princess and the Flying Princess

for that holiday weekend represents a loss of tens of thousands of

tourist dollars in the city of Victoria during the May long weekend

over the previous May long weekend.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I appreciate that member's genuine interest in seeing this exciting new

project become a major success, and I regret very much to advise him

that his statements are wrong.

MR. HANSON: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. Would he confirm for the House that the Victoria Princess had

83 crew members

[ Page

2527 ]

and

72 passengers on board for its 6 o'clock sailing from Victoria on

Saturday — less than 10 percent of a similar departure last year?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that at all. I don't go and look for pessimistic answers; I look for optimistic answers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. Has the B.C. Ferry Corporation finally reached an agreement

with the B.C. Steamship Company as to what the rental or lease fee will

be for the Victoria Princess , formerly known as the Queen of Prince Rupert , for the Victoria-Seattle route'?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to answer the member, they are working on it, and in due course they will come to a very good arrangement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister is not familiar with what is

happening in his own ministry. I will try another question. Over what

period of time will the B.C. Steamship Company be leasing the Victoria Princess from the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

HON. MR. FRASER: From approximately last week until approximately October 7, I believe,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You guys want it to fail, don't you'?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

ACUTE-CARE HOSPITAL AT UBC

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, first, if I might ask if there is a doctor in the House. [Laughter.]

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Has the minister approved the operating budget of the new acute-care

community hospital at UBC, otherwise known as the monument to McGeer?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's too bad; I was going to answer the second part. I'll take the question as notice.

MR. COCKE:

Is it not unusual to have no decision reached on a budget so soon

before opening? Normally the operating budgets are months and sometimes

over a year before the opening; and the opening. I understand, is very

soon.

HON. MR. MAIR: I can scarcely answer that question, having taken the first question as notice. I'll take that as notice as well.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise the House when the battle will be

resolved between the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications and

the Ministry of Health over the potential $600 per patient-day which is the

proposed budget at that hospital?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I find that a very difficult question to answer, but I

will certainly take a look at the entire question of the budget and

bring an answer back to the House. I want to assure the members of this

House that relations have never been more cordial between the good

doctor and myself. We went out and opened that great university medical

hospital the other day to a wonderful crowd. I think the House would be

proud if they could see the institution now there, largely owing to the

efforts of this great minister.

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB LICENCES

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

A question was asked last week by the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Macdonald): "Following the order-in-council of April 20, 1978,

creating marine pub houses" — a new category of neighbourhood pub —

"did the liquor administration issue a pre-clearance letter within four

days to a company that became Grammas Marine Inn, of which the

directors were R. Dale Janowsky and other members of his family? Did

that pre-clearance letter go out and, if so, when?" To respond, the

preclearance for an F licence to All Sports Marine Ltd. was drawn up on

April 25, 1978, and forwarded to the solicitor for that company by Mr.

B.E. Munkley, the then director of licensing.

The second

question was: "If what I have stated is the case, that the

pre-clearance letter went out within four days of the creation of these

pubs, did the pre-clearance letter go out before an application for a

marine pub house licence could have been received and in fact was

received?" The answer to that question is no.

"Is it also

true that under the old regulations relating to neighbourhood pub

licences, this application could not have been granted because the site

requested was within one mile of another site of a neighbourhood pub?"

The answer is no; it can be a matter of discretion for the general

manager.

MEDICATION FOR

HANDICAPPED SCHOOLCHILDREN

MRS. DAILLY: A question to

the Minister of Education. The mainstreaming of handicapped children

has increased the number of children at medical risk attending school

in our province. Such children require medication on a daily basis.

There are few, if any, persons attached to our schools who are

qualified under the Medical Act to administer such medication on a

daily basis. What steps has the minister taken to provide medical

personnel for this purpose'?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to take the question as notice. I assure the member

that it's a matter also of concern to me that teachers are in some

districts being required to administer medication to a degree that goes

beyond the handing out of an aspirin. I share the member's concern and

I will respond at more length in due course. I thank the member.

UNEMPLOYMENT AT OCEAN FALLS

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour. Of the 423 people

who used to be employed at Ocean Falls. only about 200 have found em-

[ Page 2528 ]

ployment

at other work. Only 32 of these new jobs are in the pulp and paper

industry and are mostly in supervisory capacities, and about 100 of

these people have had to find their own jobs. This leaves about 200

people totally unemployed in Ocean Falls. Has the minister contacted

the 21 other pulp operations in the province of British Columbia in an

attempt to persuade these operators to take on additional employees

from Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I

received a request something like at least six weeks ago to write to

all of the other operations who have pulp mills, and I have received a

reply — as a matter of fact, a very positive reply — from a good number

of them. Also, I might add that many of the mills did send some of

their industrial relations and employment personnel to Ocean Falls to

interview a number of those people who were employed. Although the

member did refer just to whether or not contact had been made with

others, the other matters which he raised I would like to take as

notice and provide a full answer in due course, if that's acceptable to

the member.

There are a number of things, and I have been

meeting with people in my ministry, Mr. Speaker — manpower,

consultative services, joint programs between the federal and

provincial governments — to assist most of these people.

PROPOSED MILL AT OCEAN FALLS

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. At the time the

government announced the Ocean Falls shutdown, it was announced that a

flitch and chip operation would partially take its place. Can the

minister advise whether a source of timber supply has been arranged for

the proposed new operation?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The

Forests ministry has been working very closely with personnel and

consultants of the Ocean Falls Corporation in an attempt to determine

areas which they could operate in. As the member recalls, one of the

problems we had in the Ocean Falls area was that a lot of wood that was

apparent in the area was classified as sub economic under normal

operating and wood usage conditions. We have been working with the

consultants, with the corporation, to find an area. I can't tell the

member if that has been accomplished at this date, but as of a few

weeks ago I understood that they were very close to actually picking

areas that could be operated on a trial basis, as was the intention of

the experiment by Ocean Falls Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

I have one further question for the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I noticed that.

MR. HOWARD:

The point of order I want to raise with you relates in part to the

ruling you made yesterday about quotations by ministers of the Crown

from documents which are identified as state documents and the like.

You will recall that on May 5 the Premier quoted from a document, and I read from Hansard for that day on page 2265:

Just

to finally conclude it, from the federal-provincial first ministers'

conference, February 5 and 6, 1979,

summary record of proceedings No.

155: "The Premier of British Columbia indicated they also supported the

draft text, but felt that it should be within provincial Jurisdiction

to regulate companies such as B.C. Tel, which operates solely within

the province."

I'm not able to find in Votes and Proceedings

for yesterday that that particular document has been tabled pursuant to

the ruling that you made yesterday, and the document appears to fall

within the prescribed requirements. I wonder if we could inquire

whether the Premier will table that particular document now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Inasmuch as it did occasion some 16 days ago, would you allow me just a

short time to review the matter and bring the instance back to the

House.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to that number of

days ago, Mr. Speaker, I should say that when the committee rose and

reported to the House, I raised it at that time as a point of order.

You took it under advisement, and yesterday's ruling followed upon the

point of order I raised on that day.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Before calling Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform all

of the hon. members that His Honour the Administrator will be coming to

the assembly this afternoon at about 5:45 to give royal assent to some

bills.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE:

Yesterday we had a rather low-key debate — in the shadow of Mount St.

Helens and the referendum — dealing with the problems of agriculture.

But as I thought over and reviewed Hansard , I had some concerns

about the kind of answers that we received during the course of that

debate. I am concerned that the kind of answers the minister has given

this Legislature relative to.... For example, when I raised the

question of the sale of raw milk, in the discussions following that the

minister indicated: "Well, if they're going to sell it over the back

fence that's okay; it's not in accordance with the law, they're

breaking the law, but, okay, they can sell it; we're not going to

investigate that." That's a very strange attitude for someone who is

charged with the responsibility of making the laws of this province.

When

my colleague for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) spoke of the problems

that one of his constituents was facing relative to disease in his

swine — atrophic rhinitis, a very contagious disease — that minister

stood up and said: "Well, you know, the farmer didn't ask whether or

not the product he bought was diseased or whether it was well." That's

a very strange attitude. Is that the attitude we take when we're

dealing with the government? Let the buyer beware that the government

will sell him a diseased animal if he doesn't ask whether or not, it's

diseased. That's a very strange attitude from the Minister of

Agriculture.

[ Page

2529 ]

When my colleague for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was speaking about

her concerns about the corporate concentration in the food industry in

this province, the minister stood in his place and said: "Well, you

know, we have good dealings, good relationships with these large

corporations.''

He showed no concern for an overall food

policy, as was laid out by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Levi). I don't think that's good enough for such a basic industry as

agriculture. I'm not at all satisfied with those kinds of answers.

I'm

not at all satisfied either with the kind of financial assistance that

that minister seems to be prepared to give to agriculture in this

province. He said yesterday that we never give him any credit, and he

talked about the Maplewood plant in Sooke — how hard they had worked

and how that had been arranged — and gave credit to Pan Ready Poultry

Ltd. I congratulate the minister, his staff and Pan Ready on that

operation. That's good. But how can we congratulate if we don't know?

That was the first I was aware that that deal had been completed. I'm

very happy that that has been completed and is underway. That's the way

it should be: a local British Columbia company is taking over an

operation that will be of benefit to both the producers and the

consumers — and to the province generally in the economic arena. That's

the way it should be. But when we come to the other half of that

Maplewood plant, instead of that minister being prepared to make some

low-interest money available to another group of producers.... I don't

understand how he can stand in his place and say there were no other

producers or no other local concerns prepared to take that over,

because that certainly is not my understanding.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Name names.

MRS. WALLACE:

He's saying: "Name names.'' The turkey breeders and turkey raisers in

this province were prepared to take that over. They needed about $3.5

million of low-interest money, but this government was not prepared to

put that kind of money into the agriculture industry in this province.

They also needed — according to the minister's reports, I understand —

a guaranteed loan to cover possible losses. The turkey growers don't

think they would have those kinds of losses. But if they did need that

guarantee, why not?

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister keeps saying: "I'm not going to buy it if that's what you

want me to do." I would like him to do that, but I know he's not going

to do that, and I'm not going to ask him to do that, because I know

that's contrary to his philosophy. I wouldn't ask him to do something

that was so completely in opposition to the things that he believes.

But

that government does believe in pumping money into private enterprise

to assist it. Why is there money available for everything but that

particular agricultural plant — and other agricultural plants; a

parallel case on a much smaller scale is the Willowbrook hog processing

plant. My understanding is that they thought they had a government

guarantee, but it didn't come through. As a result, that plant is now

in the hands of the receivers, and producers who shipped into that

plant before the end of April have not received payment for their pigs.

The bank is now operating it and people who were fortunate enough to

ship after May 1 are receiving payment. A little government money in

that plant would have helped.

But we have this kind of

situation where the minister sits back — no funding available. The

plants are going bankrupt; the banks are taking over the operation of

Willowbrook, and in the case of Maplewood, this minister has gone from

one position to another and is now back in the position of allowing

Cargill to come into this province again, even more so. We have said in

this House before that the first mistake that minister made was in

selling Panco to Cargill in the first place. Now he's in a position of

going to allow them to extend their stranglehold, as it were, on the

poultry industry. How can the minister take that stand after having

said: "Look, we don't want them in because of the kind of corporate

concentration that that's going to put into the hands of one particular

corporation."? How can he reverse his stand on that position when the

answer is right at his fingertips? It's simply a matter of assisting

the local processors to get involved.

I can't help but

wonder if somehow Cargill has already managed to get that minister in

such a position that he can't say no. Obviously when Panco was sold

there were no provisions in the contract with Cargill to ensure that

the kind of improvements and expansion that they had intended to put in

place would be carried out. What is the situation between that minister

and the international corporation Cargill? Why has that minister taken

these reverse positions rather than make a little bit of money

available to ensure that that processing plant would remain in Canadian

and British Columbian hands?

He tells us there's no other

buyer. There is another buyer. The problem is that the government will

not make funding available to that buyer. I am surprised, if this

government and that minister have the kind of commitment they try to

tell us they have to the agricultural industry in this province, why he

is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is. That's the

question I'm posing to that minister and that's the concern that we on

this side of the House have relative to his most recent stand on

Cargill. Now he's changed his mind before. He can change it again. The

first time is the hardest, they say, and he's changed it many times.

I'm hoping that during the course of this debate we can persuade the

minister to change his mind once more and keep that international

conglomerate out of our poultry industry, out of any further extension

into the poultry industry so they do not control the 100 percent of

hatching eggs, the 80 percent of turkeys and the 42 percent of broilers

that they will control if he persists in the direction that he is now

embarked upon. I just cannot express too strongly my concerns on this

matter. I think the minister has a responsibility to face up to that

decision and to change his mind once more, because that's the way to

go, Mr. Chairman. If he would stand up and say he changed his mind, he

would get nothing but applause from this side of the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think I should spend a few minutes on Cargill and Maplewood Poultry, for the record if nothing else.

would like to go back in history in regard to why this government and

this minister got caught, you might say, in the position that they

found themselves in. In regard to the purchase of Maplewood Poultry.

Let me give you some dates and some information. Madam Member, I'll

table these letters if you so desire after I make my comments.

[ Page 2530 ]

March 11 we received a letter from the Pan Ready Poultry Ltd. As you

know, Madam Member, FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, looks

to the province for its comments regarding any acquisition of a

Canadian company by foreign interests. We had not responded to their

request for our comments at that particular time and on March 11 I

received this letter regarding the sale of Maplewood Poultry Processors

Ltd. in Clearbrook from Pan Ready Poultry Ltd.

"For

your information I have been directed by the president of Pan Ready

Poultry Ltd., Irving Reid, to send you the information contained in

telegrams and letters sent to the Hon. Eugene Whelan, Minister of

Agriculture, Ottawa, and the Foreign Investment Review Board,

Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, letter of April 6, 1980, as follows and a

copy of March 3 as attached.

"'The directors

of Pan Ready Poultry Ltd., a British Columbia-owned poultry processing

plant, are in a willing position to purchase Maplewood Poultry

Processors Ltd. The necessary financial undertaking has been approved

by our bankers, a letter to follow. Signed, I. Reid, President, and

four directors of Pan Ready Poultry.'

"The attached letter dated March 3, 1980, states the

steps and conditions to be taken in the purchase of Maplewood Poultry

Processors, Clearbrook, and J.J. Hambley Hatcheries Ltd. The letter has

been agreed to and signed by Mr. Hambley, President, Maplewood Poultry

Processors Ltd."

W.J. Chesham, Secretary,

Pan Ready Poultry."

The Telex sent to Ottawa to the Hon. Herb Gray states, in regard to British Columbia's position:

PAN READY POULTRY, A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PACIFIC POULTRY

PRODUCERS' COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, B.C.-BASED AND 100 PERCENT CANADIAN,

HAS A SERIOUS INTENTION OF ACQUIRING MAPLEWOOD. PAN READY HAS RECEIVED AN UNDERTAKING

FROM MAPLEWOOD'S OWNER WHICH ALLOWS THEM ACCESS TO FINANCIAL RECORDS AND

PLANT RECORDS. FURTHERMORE, PAN READY HAS INDICATED THAT BANK FINANCING IS NOT

A PROBLEM, AS A RESULT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS, B.C. STRONGLY OPPOSES CARGILL'S

APPLICATION.

That telegram was drafted and, I believe, was out on March 20.

On April 3, 1980, we received a telegram from Mr. Irving Reid, President, Pan Ready Poultry.

FURTHER TO OUR LETTER AND TELEGRAM OF MARCH 6 IN REGARD TO THE

POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS LTD. AND J.J. HAMBLY HATCHERIES

LTD. OF CLEARBROOK, B.C., AFTER THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE CASH FLOW POTENTIAL

OF ABOVE-MENTIONED PLANTS IT IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR US TO CARRY THE CURRENT BANK

INTEREST ON THE ASKING PRICE OF THE ASSETS OF $2.8 MILLION AND A FURTHER $2

MILLION ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE IN INVENTORY.

IRVING REID PRESIDENT, PAN READY POULTRY

As a result of that, of course, this ministry, this minister and the turkey

producers — if the member hearkens back to some of the discussion that she has

raised in this House before — had meetings and attempted to resolve the problem.

One of the possibilities was the turkey producers, as the member mentioned.

The

turkey producers advised after a number of meetings that they were in a

position to raise $200,000 on an asset that would cost them, to get

into operation, $6.5 million. I believe the figures were $2.2 million

in capital and $1.4 million in improvements. A $1.5 million loss would

be placed before them because of the market for turkeys, the large

inventory and the long term before their major marketing seasons of

Thanksgiving and Christmas. And $1.5 million for operating capital.

That's

$200,000 with 3 to 31/2 percent equity. I think the member would agree

that that is a very small equity to place before the government in

regard to our programs to look at assistance. The operating costs that

would be incurred may place that investment at risk, even though they

may be able to obtain some government assistance. The percentages just

didn't work out, Madam Member. We had several more meetings and

discussions in attempting to see whether or not we could resolve it. I

would suggest to you that this ministry and this government certainly

looked at the turkey producers. They looked at a $200,000 equity on a

$6.5 million operation.

The member neglects to comment....

Well, I guess she did comment briefly on the fact that $780,000 was

made available through government assistance under our ARDSA program

for Pan Ready Poultry, the company which advised us that they were in a

willing position to buy Maplewood at Clearbrook and then reneged —

after investigation, to give them their due. Nevertheless, they advised

us two weeks later, after we took our stand with FIRA, that they

couldn't proceed. In attempting to resolve the matter of having a

processing plant on Vancouver Island, and also to complete the sale

which would give moneys to the owner of Maplewood to resolve his

problems, we provided for $780,000 worth of ARDSA assistance for Pan

Ready Poultry to buy the Sooke plant — that deal which now has been

completed.

For the record — I wanted to get it on the record

with some of the comments that have been made — this ministry took a

stand with FIRA and with the federal government because there was a

willing Canadian buyer. When that failed, we made every effort to

resolve the problem and attempt to find another buyer. So did the owner

of Maplewood, but to no avail. As I have mentioned in this House

before, the Maplewood processing plant is the tip of the iceberg. My

major concern is to have a plant available for the processing of

turkeys and chickens for the producers of this province.

MR. LEGGATT:

I want the minister to respond to a series of questions, if he would,

concerning the Cargill-Maplewood problem. One of the rationales — in

fact the major rationale — the minister provided to the House in terms

of the sale of Panco was that vertical integration was an evil thing. I

think he would get some agreement from this side of the House on that.

But the purpose of the Panco Poultry sale to Cargill initially was to

prevent what he perceived as a government operation spreading

vertically into the industry. He is now faced with the position where,

rather than having a publicly owned British Columbia corporation

operating in the industry, he has a privately owned multinational

corporation, which is either the largest or the second largest in the

world — they are right next to Kraft; they run

[ Page 2531 ]

one

and two and I'm never sure which is first — and which is about to hold

a clearly dominating position in the industry in British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For

the minister to stand up and say, "Well, we offered $780,000 here...."

Cargill finds those figures miniscule. Cargill is not particularly

interested in running its Panco operation at a profit, on the simple

ground that they have some long-term objectives. One of the great

difficulties is that this government doesn't have any long-term

objectives. Cargill is a multinational corporation that knows where

it's going. This government looks silly, because it doesn't know where

it's going in terms of this particular industry.

I want to

direct some specific questions to the minister. He may have full

answers to them, and I would appreciate him responding if he could. I

know he's busy with his assistants, but could I direct a couple of

specific questions to him?

I would like the minister to

advise, first of all, whether he's made a complete inquiry as to the

reason for the Maplewood failure, and whether the Maplewood failure had

anything to do with the price of turkeys over the last two years —

particularly anything to do with the price of the turkeys that have

come into the market since Cargill began processing turkeys at the

Panco operation. The reason I raise this question is that I can recall

two. three or four months ago — just as a person walking through a

supermarket — finding turkey at 90 cents a pound. Now that's a bargain.

We all have a duty to smile for the consumer when we see bargains like

that, but I get suspicious when I see a bargain like that. I get

suspicious because somebody might be loss-leadering, somebody might be

out there manipulating those prices down to the point where their

competition goes out of business.

I'd like the minister to

look at

section 34(1) of the Combines Investigation Act, and I'll read

it for the record.

section 34(1) says:

"Everyone engaged in a business, who (

c) engages in a policy

of selling articles at prices unreasonably low, having the effect or tendency

of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor, or designed

to have such effect, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment

for two years."

The question I have for the minister is this: has the minister inquired into

the real reason for the low price of turkeys in the past two or three months,

and was that price contributed to by the policies of the Cargill company and

the operation of the Panco Poultry plant? In other words, was Maplewood faced

with unfair competition because they had a giant multinational operation which

could afford to stand losses over a very long period of time? The smaller

operation could not afford to stand those losses and, of course, has wound up

in serious financial difficulty and in receivership.

know the minister will no doubt want to raise the marketing system in

his answer, and I'd be pleased, because, quite frankly, I'd like to

learn a little more about the way marketing boards operate in the

turkey business. But I still know something about the Combines

Investigation Act. I'm deeply concerned that once you've allowed a

major multinational the size of Cargill — a company with fantastic

resources, which can stand to lose as much as it likes over an

indefinite period of time — to come into the province of British

Columbia, that might have the impact of driving the price of the

product down and leaving the small processor out of luck in the

province of British Columbia. Now I know that was one of the reasons

the minister gave for the original sale of the public British Columbia

corporation to Cargill, and I would like the minister to direct his

attention to that specifically.

The second question I'd like

the minister to direct his attention to lies in the operation of the

Maplewood plant itself — the reasons for Maplewood's failure. Why was

that not an economically viable operation in an industry which had been

economically viable? For example, in an industry where we have a quota

system, why was Maplewood unable to compete with Panco? Why is Panco

alive, Cargill alive and increasing its investments in the province of

British Columbia, and Maplewood is out of business? You know, when the

elephant gets a cold, the small guys get pneumonia and die.

One

of the things you've got to examine as a government.... I'm glad to see

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) paying attention to this, because I think it's something he

should think about too, in terms of his own ministry.

AN. HON. MEMBER: In what way?

MR. LEGGATT: Once you allow the elephants in the door, they jump all over the chickens, and in this case, the turkeys.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear that from Tommy Douglas'?

MR. LEGGATT:

I learned a lot from Tommy Douglas; you should have listened to Tommy

Douglas. Mr. Chairman, through you, if that particular minister had

listened a little more to Tommy Douglas, he'd be over on this side of

the floor contributing something, to economic development.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The member for Coquitlam-Moody has the floor on vote 10.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I've directed two specific questions. The third question

deals with the present consideration of the application by FIRA.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I'd be very delighted if we would set aside some time in

this Legislature to debate the record of the province of Saskatchewan

versus the record of this government in the province of British

Columbia. Any time! Lower taxes....

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Absolutely, I'd be delighted to talk about the way they've handled their potash, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members, including the

Minister of Industry and Small Business

[ Page 2532 ]

Development, please come to order. We are in committee on vote 10.

MR. LEGGATT:

By now I know that the minister will take his place shortly and tell us

how many members of the opposition there now are in Saskatchewan and

how many Social Credit elected MLAs are out there fighting the good

free-enterprise fight. I know he's going to tell us where all those

Tories have gone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 10, please, in committee.

MR. LEGGATT:

Vote 10, all right. I'm always distracted by that charming minister,

Mr. Chairman. He has a great capacity to wax eloquently — or

non-eloquently from time to time.

The third aspect I wanted

to ask the Minister of Agriculture to deal with is the position that

has been taken with FIRA. FIRA is a body that was created to make some

independent decisions: FIRA is a body which may or may not accept the

representations of any particular provincial government around whether

something is for the benefit of Canada — and that happens to be the

standard FIRA uses. Since the minister is fond of being open with the

House, I expect he'd be delighted to table the original letter that he

directed to FIRA setting forth his opposition to the Cargill takeover.

I expect I'll see that letter tabled, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't write the letter to FIRA. Where did you get that?

MR. LEGGATT: You didn't write a letter at all. Did you just pick up the phone and give them a call?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Where did you get that about writing a letter?

MR. LEGGATT:

The second question I would like the minister to respond to is whether

he's willing to table the letter in support of the takeover. What are

the distinctions between the two? Is the only distinction between the

two that he could not find a Canadian corporation ready, willing and

able? Is that the only indication or are there other reasons for the

change of heart? I think the public is entitled to know whether there

is any other reason, and whether he believes Cargill is an appropriate

company to come over and take over yet another Canadian business. The

reality is — and our agricultural critic from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) has dealt with it in more detail and more eloquently than I

can — that there is a double failure here. First of all, there is a

failure to have a proper economic farm policy for the province of

British Columbia, and this clearly shows, Mr. Chairman, a complete

collapse.

The second failure is that he's gone to his fine

pencil. He has gone and sharpened the pencil on Pan Ready. You know,

the good old bottom-line government over there. He sharpened the pencil

and said "no." That's what he's done to that Canadian corporation.

Naturally they're not interested. They're not interested because these

guys pulled the plug on Pan Ready and said: "That much and no more,"

There is something more important involved than having a look at that

particular investment only in terms of immediate gain to the government

in return of its investment. This is a time, Mr. Chairman, when this

government should have had the guts to say: "Either we make Panco

publicly owned, or at least we give small Canadian business a chance."

And they didn't do either one, Mr. Chairman.

So I hope the

minister will have a took at these things. I hope he'll look at

section

34(

l) of the Combines Investigation Act and tell us that Cargill is

clean on this one, because I think the public of British Columbia are

entitled to know. The least he should do is perhaps phone the director

of combines investigation and do a study into the Cargill pricing

system in the operation of that plant to make sure that we haven't seen

a serious violation of the Combines Investigation Act as a direct

long-term plan for taking over the industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's amazing how they can twist.

In regard to the Maplewood failure....

MR. LEGGATT: Which position do you have this time?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I can tell you, Mr. Member, in regard to the Maplewood failure, we

didn't just sit down in a room and decide that we could or couldn't

help the acquisition of the Maplewood plant. We engaged consultants to

do an in-depth study of that plant on an emergency basis. They went out

and reported back to us. So we had available to us outside consultants

to get the possible approach that we could take.

You asked

why the Maplewood failure occurred. Well, I can tell you that one of

the major reasons is that there is a national problem in the turkey

industry in the sense that there is somewhere in the vicinity of 18

million pounds of surplus turkey in this country. As a result there are

a lot of turkeys that have been processed and are in storage, and it

costs approximately 20 per pound to keep a turkey in the freezer by the

processing plant, the wholesaler, or the retailer, wherever that

product may be stored, and that, of course, contributed to the

Maplewood failure because they had a large surplus of processed product

on hand.

I can tell the member that prior to the closure of

Maplewood, prior to the Maplewood matter even coming to the fore, my

ministry, the producers, the processors and feed mills had a meeting in

an attempt to see how we could move some of this surplus turkey — to

put on a drive to move some surplus product. We had the cooperation of

the retailers, some of which are the multinationals that that member

seems to have such glee in attacking. There was good cooperation and

good promotion. We all contributed funds to reduce the price of that

turkey to move it into the marketplace, and this government, under one

of its programs, contributed to that promotion program approximately

$75,000. That was done before the Maplewood issue really came to light.

But

in regard to Cargill's involvements and its pressures, regarding the

anti-combines act, etc., I think the member's fully aware that the B.C.

Turkey Marketing Board sets the production quota for the producers, and

that production, of course, when the birds reach maturity, has to find

a processing plant. Cargill is not involved in the production of birds,

but is involved in operating a processing plant.

The member

is also aware that the price is set by the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board,

and the producer is paid for his product. That price is determined and

the processing plant must pay that price, and then the processing plant

adds value to it by processing the bird, wrapping it, freezing it and,

of course, marketing it. Did the involvement of Cargill to this

[ Page 2533 ]

point,

as the member seemed to imply, cause Maplewood's failure? I'd have to

respond that it didn't cause Maplewood's failure. As a matter of fact,

Cargill, up until the time that some of the Bell processing plant's

turkeys were directed to it, only had 45 percent of the market. When

the Bell's turkeys were directed to Panco, owned by Cargill, the amount

reached the 60 percent figure that I have quoted before. But Panco —

Cargill — absorbed the Bell processing plant's production, because the

Bell plant had closed some months ago.

The reasons for

Maplewood's failure are basically that they were running at

approximately a $40,000 per week loss. The owner of Maplewood felt that

he could only absorb that for so long and then attempted to resolve the

issue by, of course, finding a buyer.

The plant is obsolete.

That's one of the other reasons for its failure. And, of course, the

high inventory impacted oil the owner of the plant.

You may

ask then, why does Cargill make a move to buy Maplewood? I can respond

to the fact that Cargill, when they purchased Panco, had a management

plan, a five-year strategy, in which they were going to upgrade the

plant and move more into modernization of turkey kill and broiler kill,

and do further processing of turkey. They had to go into plant

expansion with, I think, approximately $3 million of capital

expenditures. I could get that accurate figure for you if you so

desired. But they made a major expenditure, only to find that they ran

into problems with municipal community plans, zoning regulations, and

they all of a sudden found themselves non-conforming.

I've

said this in the House before, Mr. Chairman, but I'll continue to say

it. I'm not here to defend Cargill's position, but I do get frustrated

and a little angry when the members opposite attempt to make a big

political issue out of this thing when they fail to realize that it's

the salvation of the turkey industry in this province that this

minister is trying to achieve here.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also

tell the member that Pan Ready Poultry, in its acquisition of Maplewood

at Clearbrook, had the opportunity and the funds available from ARDSA

for that acquisition if they so desired. They withdrew after analysing

the situation at Clearbrook and determined not to proceed, even though

they also knew those funds were available to them.

Mr.

Chairman, maybe I should get a little political for a few moments.

Let's go back in history to August 1975 and deal with the same

Maplewood plant. I'll just read from a newspaper article:

"The

provincial government is dragging its heels on a poultry processing

plant deal which would help eight farmers get rid of their surplus

chickens, a leading processor said here Monday. Bryan Hambley, head of

Maplewood Poultry Processors Ltd., said his company is still trying to

negotiate with the Department of Agriculture for a $1.5 million loan

that would help renovate and reopen the former Willows processing plant

in Abbotsford. Canada Packers Ltd. closed the Willows in January

claiming it could not continue under a union agreement signed in the

previous month. One hundred and twelve employees were thrown out of

work, and they staged a sit-in which lasted 36 days. When the workers

ended the sit-in, they claimed it was a victory. Maplewood had

announced plans to purchase the plant.

"Agriculture

minister Dave Stupich had indicated the government would back a loan

being negotiated by Maplewood. Stupich announced in March that

Maplewood would get a government guarantee for a loan of $1.5 million.

'We're still negotiating more than five months later,' Hambley told the

Vancouver Sun on Monday."

Five

months, with a $1.5 million loan, with 112 people out of work — and the

members opposite are raising an issue with regard to the Maplewood

plant at this particular point in time. If you had moved a little

faster in 1975, maybe some of the problems that exist today wouldn't be

there. So don't look too deeply into the problems that face this

minister, this ministry and the industry. I think you will I find that

we made a valiant effort, not just this ministry but the industry

itself, in attempting to resolve the problem.

MR. LEVI:

One of the things that I'd like to ask the minister is.... Gradually,

in a very difficult way, he's releasing little bits of information on

the negotiations that have taken place with Maplewood and Cargill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm only repeating what I told you before.

MR. LEVI:

If you were repeating, obviously you don't remember what you're trying

to repeat. You said something about a $3 million capital improvement by

Cargill. I'd like to put it to the minister — and I've put it to him

before, but he doesn't want....

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's at the Surrey plant. That's the Panco plant, not the Maplewood plant. Get it right. You're always wrong.

MR. LEVI:

We're dealing with Cargill at the moment — that's what I want to talk

about. Just keep your cool. Obviously it's a very touchy subject with

you. All you have to do is to be very candid with this House and table

some of the documents. You tell us that you went to FIRA and that you

made some kind of decision in November and then you made another

decision in March.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't say that; you're wrong again.

MR. LEVI:

Now we can presume that when they first applied to get it, you had no

say in it at all. You never said to them: "We want you to let them

purchase it." Then later on you went back to them and said: "Don't

purchase it."

I want to just point out to the minister — and

I want to do this by analogy, Mr. Chairman, so that I don't transgress

the rules.... The Cargill purchase of Panco went through in December

1978. The Foreign Investment Review Agency publish a weekly communiqué

listing all of the various takeovers. Now I put it to the minister: on

December 14 there was a takeover which dealt with a proposal by

Simpsons Sears and Sears, Roebuck, which is a United States firm. They

had to make a proposal to FIRA as to what they would do if they took

over the particular plant in which they were interested. There were

eight pages of statement by the company saying what it was prepared to

do if it were successful in its bid to take over this particular

company. They were prepared to meet certain obligations. What we're

trying to

[ Page 2534 ]

find

out from the minister is whether he was privy to the obligations that

Cargill said it would undertake to do in respect to the purchase of

Cargill. That's the first thing. If Cargill was going to get involved

in 1978 in respect to what they did with the purchase of Panco, there

must be within the minister's files the company's undertaking in order

to meet the requirements of FIRA. I put it to the minister that

something went wrong in terms of the undertaking which Cargill made in

1978 in respect to Panco. They were not able to meet, and did not meet,

all the conditions required to allow Cargill to come in and take over

Panco. We have some genuine concern about that.

But we're

not able to find out from the minister whether, in fact, he was

concerned about their original takeover. He gives the example that

they're good corporate citizens because they assisted in trying to

dispose of the large amount of turkey product that was stored. Okay?

That's fair enough. It's part of the problem that exists in the

industry.

We have perfectly legitimate concerns on this side

about the role of Cargill, not just in the turkey industry — we're

concerned about all the things that they get involved with. We're not

the only people; the U.S. Senate committee looking into multinationals

also had major concerns about Cargill. These are not just "socialist

concerns," as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) likes to say; these are concerns that are manifest

among a large number of people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're playing politics.

MR. LEVI: I can remember that man in 1969 standing up and talking about the terrible things that were going on in Saskatchewan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the minister come to order.

MR. LEVI: He's leaving. The noise level will decline by at least 140 percent. So will the gas level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will remember that we are on vote 10.

MR. LEVI: Well, we got rid of him. That in itself made the afternoon for me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue on vote 10, hon. member.

MR. LEVI:

The minister has been on the griddle on this particular issue of

Cargill and Maplewood. He said so himself. He's always on the firing

line about it, and every time we ask him a question he trickles out a

little bit of information. He doesn't seem to feel it's such an

important issue, but it is an important issue for the people on this

side, and we are going to make politics out of it. We'll deal with

multinationals. What we want you to do is to make available to this

House some of those thousands of dollars that you spent on consultants'

reports. You've trickled out little bits of information on the whole

problem that Cargill had in terms of being non-conforming and being

unable to get rid of their effluent and all these kinds of things.

We've picked up some of that kind of information, so be candid about

it. Don't just dribble the information out. Tell us exactly what you

found out. You haven't told us that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I have.

MR. LEVI: Just be very frank with us and tell us.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've been very open about it.

MR. LEVI:

It won't in any way move us away from our concern about a multinational

like Cargill, but it might very well enhance the minister's argument,

As he puts it, this is not a major issue. Of course, he goes back to

August 1975, which is almost five years ago. Because at that time that

government failed to deliver a loan, is this somehow a justification

for what you're doing in not making money available to them in terms of

their $40,000 loss? You offered them 20 percent. After all, as Mr.

Hambley pointed out: "Why should I accept $20,000 when it was the

government in the first place that put me into the position of the

$40,000 a month loss?"

I would point out to you that we've

had issued this week the order-in-council resume. One of the items in

the resume is: "Development Corporation of British Columbia, financial

assistance, Flying Princess

transportation, $(U.S.)2,450,000.'' That's what it says. That's money

going to a U.S. company to employ 80 Americans. That's what it's doing.

That's Canadian money going down there in U.S. dollars — another 18

cents on the top — to provide employment for them. Yet you cannot

justify in this House why there is a failure on the government's part

to provide money to Maplewood so that they can operate to give 150

people who are Canadians jobs. We separate right down the line on this

issue. We're not interested in what happened in 1975. We're only

interested in what happened today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why didn't you loan them the money? Shame on you.

MR. LEVI:

We made a mistake. Yes, shame on us, but we're not the government;

you're the government. Don't keep telling us about all the mistakes we

made. We're talking about a mistake that you've made and are making

today. We're not interested in a history lesson. If you want to learn

from history learn from that mistake in August 1975. The loan should

have been made and it wasn't, but you're not even prepared to consider

making the loan because you're the great free enterprisers. You're not

going to assist Canadians, you're going to assist the Americans to the

tune of $2.5 million in U.S. funds to create employment in the United

States. Where's the justification in that? Where's the justification in

that kind of philosophy that you have? You're so free enterprise you're

prepared to go over the border to spread the doctrine.

the minister prepared to make available to us some of the documents —

because you hired a management consultant firm to do the analysis for

you — so that we can better understand how you reached the decision?

Don't trickle it out to us; put it on the table, let us took at it. If

we read it we've got the analysis, and if you're right then you're

right. We don't seem to be getting that kind of' information.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'm not going to respond to many of the comments that the member raised

because they raised them the other day and they've been responded to

before.

[ Page

2535 ]

MR. LEVI: And we didn't get an answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Let me talk to him about the $2.5 million that went down to the United

States in U.S. money, as he makes a comparison with the turkey

processing plant here. I don't know whether you could even comprehend

the revenues that will be generated by the movement of the tourists

that come into British Columbia, Vancouver and Victoria, by that

vehicle. You wouldn't understand it because all you can think of is

acquiring socialist manufacturing plants or processing plants or

whatever else you wish to look after.

MR. LEVI: Panco was a bad deal for you, eh? Fourteen million dollars.

HON. MR. HEWITT: All I'm saying is that you're using the comparison of the Flying Princess . You'd rather not have anything at all and see the tourist industry go down in this province. There's no comparison at all.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps all hon. members could come to order. All members are reminded

that we are on vote 10. There have been some analogies drawn with

respect to the vote of another minister, but we are on vote 10, the

estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. With that said. the Chair

recognizes the member for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Now we'll get some serious debate and I'll answer the questions.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said something under his breath that I didn't quite catch so I won't respond to it.

would like to go back just a little further. Certainly the minister was

warned as to what kind of an American corporation he was getting into

bed with when he first negotiated the sale of Panco to Cargill.

Cargill's reputation in Canada and in the States was very well known in

this House. The former Minister of Agriculture, the former member for

Skeena, knew what kind of an organization Cargill was and, to his

credit, opposed the sale of Panco to Cargill. To his discredit, I

suppose, he was the one that was actually in office when the deal was

finally consummated. There is no excuse for the minister not knowing

the kind of situation he was leaving himself open to in agreeing to

sell Panco to Cargill.

I would like to know just how much

difference there was in the price that Cargill paid and the offer that

was made by Pan Ready to take over the Panco operation late in 1978.

How many dollars' difference was there in the offer made by Pan Ready

and the offer made by Cargill?

I would like the minister to

confirm or deny the charge that I made in the House a couple of weeks

ago when I said he was blackmailed. I did withdraw that word, but

certainly it was widely reported that Cargill had threatened to close

down turkey processing in the province if the minister and the cabinet

didn't change their position and get down on their knees to Ottawa and

ask them to withdraw their objections to Cargill taking over Maplewood.

Perhaps I should not use the word "blackmail," but I can't think

of any other word that better describes that situation — the way in which Cargill

was able to bring this cabinet to its knees and to plead its case in Ottawa.

There is no excuse for the minister not knowing that he was leaving himself

open to that kind of pressure when he first agreed to start dealing with Cargill.

would like the minister to tell us about the promises that Cargill made

to do something with Panco, to spend money improving the facilities

there, to spend money getting into further processing. What happened to

those promises'? Was there ever any call on Cargill to live up to his

promises, ever any asking for accountability? What were they doing and

why were they not doing something to live up to those promises? Was

there ever any report asked for from Cargill?

I know the

minister has said — and Panco has said, actually — that they were

prevented from so doing because of Surrey's objections. I think we want

something better than that. If Cargill was able to bring this

government to its knees to get what it wants, certainly Cargill had

some influence that it could have brought to bear on Surrey

municipality if it really wanted to do anything constructive with the

Panco Poultry processing plant. I would like the minister to tell us

some more of the background.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

The member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH:

I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed. I saw the minister making

notes as I was asking questions. I see him smiling and he's saying

things now, sitting in his seat, but he apparently hasn't got the

intestinal fortitude to stand up and answer these questions. He sits in

his seat and mumbles. Does the minister have anything at all to say in

response to the points I made?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Make some more and I'll respond.

MR. STUPICH:

I am getting all kinds of comments from all over the House but nobody

will get up on their feet and say anything about it. The minister is

still sitting there grinning and saying something that I can't quite

hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair did not

recognize you. The member for Central Fraser Valley was next on his

feet after you took your place.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't asking the member for Central Fraser Valley any questions. I was asking the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Our standing orders, hon. members, say the first member to rise is

recognized by the Chair. The Chair will recognize the member for

Central Fraser Valley on vote 10.

MR. RITCHIE: I am compelled to respond for two reasons. First, the member for Nanaimo did suggest that someone get

up and answer his questions. The other reason is that I was so deeply

involved in that industry over the years and particularly at the time

when the Panco plant was offered for sale by the large grain company at

the time.

To be very brief, I would like the House to know

once and for all that the producers of this province, including the Pan

Ready organization, were offered an opportunity to purchase the Panco

assets. I was personally involved in trying to bring about a

transaction that would have put the assets of Panco Poultry into the

hands of Pan Ready and the producers. So

[ Page 2536 ]

there

can be absolutely no reason for further discussion or criticism of this

government in respect to the sale of Panco Poultry. Panco Poultry was

offered to the producers; it was offered to the Pan Ready organization.

Individually they attempted to put a package together, and they

couldn't come up with whatever was necessary to swing it. Then they

came together jointly and attempted and could not do it.

MR. STUPICH: How much was their offer?

MR. RITCHIE:

I do not have the figures at hand that have been asked for by the

member for Nanaimo. The figures will come forward to you. But I can

only assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members over there, that they're

only flogging a dead horse. Panco Poultry was offered to the producers

and they refused it, and the same thing has happened this time at

Maplewood. I can also suggest that, as our minister said, had the loan

that was requested — and to some degree promised, back in 1975, to Mr.

Hambley — been made available, he may not have been in the trouble

today that he's in. I say that only because I think that at that time a

loan could have been made available that would have made it much easier

for Mr. Hambley to finance his operation and possibly not be faced with

heavy expenses as he was faced with as a result of having to find his

financing elsewhere.

So I hope that we can put to rest all

of this nonsense that a special deal was made with Cargill, or that

Cargill brought the government to its knees. That's a lot of hogwash.

The producers were offered it and they just couldn't come together to

do it.

I don't know whether the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt) got an answer to one question. He asked why turkey was

selling at 90 cents, and why it was that Cargill could survive in the

turkey processing industry and Maplewood couldn't. I think that if the

facts were known Cargill too have been losing a great deal of money in

the processing of turkeys, only because of market conditions. Keep in

mind that it's not a question of one processing company competing

against another in British Columbia but rather of the processors of

British Columbia competing with other provinces and sometimes with

United States products. So it's all a general market condition.

It's

rather irritating to hear this continual bantering about why we didn't

do this and why we didn't do that. This government did its level best

to keep these facilities in Canadian hands, and it was impossible

because there wasn't a buyer in a position to acquire the assets.

That's the reason — not that this government wanted Cargill to purchase

it at all.

MR. COCKE: What the member has very

efficiently and vociferously told us is that the government blundered

in the first place. You see, Mr. Chairman, Panco Poultry was a going

proposition and was a profitable proposition, serving the consumers in

B.C. with our own plant. Recall that the NDP government bought that

plant by virtue of the fact that it was going out of business if we

didn't. We made a profitable proposition out of that plant and, beyond

that, served two communities. One was the consumer and one was the

producer.

Then this great concept of "free" or

"private" enterprise, however you would like to describe it, got the

better of the government. Really what got the better of the government

was the fact that it was a profitable government-run proposition and

that was very difficult for those people to take. So they offered it on

the market, and they wanted it sold at a particular moment in time. I

recall vividly going to the member for Skeena at the time, talking to

him. I recall going to the member who is now the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), while the proposition was still

floating, and telling them that there was documented evidence that the

monopoly that they were selling to, or proposing to sell to, had a

reputation that was quite unacceptable, particularly in this province.

suggested at the time to the House — I suggested at the time to anyone

who would care to listen — that our poultry industry would be in the

hands of a cartel in short order, going the route that the government

had chosen. We didn't have to be great prophets in order to make that

kind of suggestion. We knew, for example, the reputation that Cargill

had in the United States. We knew, for example, the reputation that

they were building in western Canada at the time, having taken over a

very large chain of Canadian elevators. We knew that they were under

indictment or investigation everywhere from Interpol to the Senate of

the United States. We knew that they had been charged on a number of

occasions for all sorts of things, including a cartel proposition in

the poultry industry in the States, where they manipulated prices. I

feel great tears at this moment when the member for Central Fraser

Valley (Mr. Ritchie) tells us that Cargill at the present time is

losing because of a market condition. Mr. Chairman, that's the kind of

condition that these cartels and monopolies create.

I stood

in this House the other day and discussed how Procter & Gamble

bought a little outfit down in the southern United States called

Folger's Coffee. They've been going across the United States competing

with General Foods, Maxwell House. They go from city to city and state

to state, pushing the prices down with their competition, pushing every

small producer — that is, all the small coffee-makers — out of

business. Then all that's left of the market is for those two giants.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They don't grow coffee in B.C.

MR. COCKE:

The Minister of Forests says: "They don't grow coffee in B.C." They

don't grow it in the United States either, Mr. Minister. But you

haven't got a clue, have you? You don't even understand the system

you're putting forward. You haven't got a clue...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. COCKE: ...and

it's unfortunate that a person with your mentality would be given a

portfolio in any government, let alone this government.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the Minister of Forests will come to order, and the member

will withdraw any imputation he has against the minister.

MR. COCKE: That he has a clue? All right, I suggest that he has a clue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster continues on vote 10.

[ Page

2537 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we were also told that Pan Ready

refused.... You know, there is a limited market for an outfit such as

Panco. That was obvious two or three years earlier when we took it

over. Mr. Cohen came to the government of the day and said: "We're not

going to continue to operate. We will send our poultry to Alberta or

wherever, have it processed there and bring it back here." Now that is

hardly good for the consumer. So naturally the government, in order to

conserve 450 jobs, a going concern and a poultry industry in the

province — that is, the poultry production in the province — going on

in a healthy fashion took it over. But no, they smashed it. They

smashed it in their vindictive way of trying to do in anything that the

NDP had done before them, as they have now hurt their own prize tourist

industry in this city by virtue of the fact that they blundered in

transportation as they blunder in virtually everything they do.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, they continue to blunder. What we said in '76 is as true

today as it was then, and it will be true as long as this government

survives — the worst government that we have ever seen in this

province, bar none.

Just to give you a little background,

Mr. Chairman, in terms of what Cargill stands for, let me read this to

you. This is from Crown Publishers. It's on food profiteering in

America. Actually, it's just a paragraph about Cargill. This was

produced in 1975 before we got into this mess. and I wish the

government had done some reading at that time. This is what was said in

this particular expose:

"Cargill is the

largest grain-raiding corporation in the world, but it also is in a

position to sell seed to the grain farmers, then to put the harvested

grain in its own railroad cars" — now we're talking about the United

States — ''for transport to its own grain storage elevators. From

there, its own oilseed processing plant can convert the grain into

vegetable oils, or Cargill's own turkey hatcheries can use it to feed

more than two million birds a year, or its Burrus Mills subsidiary can

process the grain into flours and meals, package it in bags they make

and sell it to you under their 'Light Crust' and 'Drinkwater' labels."

Vertical

integration all the way from the bottom to the top is the way they like

it and the way they're getting it in this province. It won't be long,

because of this blundering government and this blundering minister,

before we're going to have Cargill calling the shots on what we eat in

this province. The president of Cargill here said recently in a meeting

in the Fraser Valley: ''We are going into the feed business within a

year." They're doing it here. The saviours of B.C. are going to be the

millstone around our neck.

Mr. Chairman, they don't seem to

understand that commitment to this fantasy — this "free" or "private"

enterprise system.... As far as I'm concerned, it's neither free nor

private. It's monopolistic and it's outside of the country.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Have they no kind of vision? Has that minister no kind of vision? He certainly hasn't shown any indication that he has.

This

company, with sales of something in the order of $16 billion to $17

billion a year, as large as or larger than the total agricultural

production of this country, let alone B.C., is going to be calling the

shots: in my view, it has already started. It started when B.C. got

forced into a position where we had to sell them our second plant. Now

they're telling us they're going into the feed business — the same

business, incidentally, that the member for Central Fraser Valley was

in very recently, where he sold to some of his employees. I wonder if

his employees and whoever owns the other 70 percent that I don't know

about will be selling to Cargill. Whatever's going on, I don't like it,

because it smacks of the past. It smacks of the behaviour of this

company wherever they go — the same company that settled out of court

with the country of India for shortweighting grain that was to go to

starving children in that nation: the same company that was involved

when glass and garbage got into some grain going to Russia.

Look,

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very serious situation, and our

province should never have been placed in this position in the first

place. But having been placed in that position, now it's up to the

government to bail us out — to get the agricultural business in this

province out of that situation. Why should our turkey and chicken

producers be faced with having to deal with that monopoly? Pretty soon

those same poultry producers are going to be buying their grain from

Cargill. Why do I say that? I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Because

Cargill will say to them: "if you don't buy our grain, we won't sell

your product." That's the way it goes in this good old free enterprise

system. "If you don't buy our feed, we won't sell your end result." How

do you like that?

MRS. WALLACE: They're already saying it with poultry.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

just can't imagine anything more ridiculous, and the minister tries to

defend that behaviour. I recall when I had the talk with those two or

three other people.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I don't understand what you're talking about. Why don't you stand up on

your feet instead of sitting in your chair, Fred Flintstone, and say

something in the House and put it on the record? Then I'll argue with

you.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You stand up and answer some of the questions that you've been asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would hon. members kindly address any remarks they may have, which must be in order, to the Chair.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm telling you the rules that I don't play by. Look at

this headline: "Cargill Inc. Making Profit From Hunger." That's not the

rules we play by over here. You're quite right. Mr. Minister. This is

the kind of material that was available. I told the ministers at that

time that I would make the material available to them, and did so. I

recall sending a whole sheaf of it to Mr. Shelford, who became Minister

of Agriculture. He asked me for it. The

[ Page 2538 ]

Minister

of Municipal Affairs at that time said that he was very disturbed. We

were all very disturbed. But now we're going further down the pit.

We're going further into this cartel control of the agricultural

business in this province. First there was pigs; now it's poultry; next

it's feed. Then where do we go with Cargill? I don't ever want to see a

big sign up in this province, saying "Owned and Operated by Cargill

Inc."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He says

he'd rather see it owned and operated by the people. I sure would too.

Do you know who Cargill is, Mr. Member? Two families in Minnesota.

They're not even on the stock exchange; they don't even have to declare

under the SEC; they don't even have to make a report to the Securities

and Exchange Commission in the United States. It's a totally private,

family-dominated company, with sales three or four times the size of

the budget of this whole province. What are we talking about? The

history of that company is anything but the kind of history that anyone

would want to be associated with, if he had an ounce of decency in his

veins. Mr. Chairman, obviously they lack that decency over there, if

they can make those kinds of statements. Do some reading, Mr. Member,

that's all I suggest.

I would like the minister to stand in

the House today and tell us that he is going to do everything within

his power to see to it that the poultry industry isn't taken further

down the chute than it is now. Stand up and say that the government is

going to give some support to the people who can put together the

poultry industry in this province — for their sake and for the sake of

the consumers.

I rode over on the ferry with two poultry

producers and one marketing person the day before the minister made his

statement. They were coming over here to see the minister. Do you know

what they were talking to me about? They were hoping that they could

get support to put together a new co-op that would be like Pan Ready in

the chicken business; they would like to duplicate that in the turkey

business. Did they get any support? Well, we didn't see very much

evidence. The very next day the minister got up and announced that they

were going to FIRA to ask that Cargill be permitted to buy the turkey

processor.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: You do a good job of sitting over there and making a lot of noise.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

I'll sit down when I'm prepared to. I would hope when I sit down, Mr.

Chairman, that that minister gets up and tells us something that might

be positive, rather than those ridiculous remarks that he makes from

his chair, indicating to me that he has absolutely no sense of

responsibility toward his portfolio — none whatsoever.

the minister is serious, then he can stand up in the House today and

say that the government will back a B.C. co-op in this province. It's

not sold out now. The Foreign Investment Review Agency has not had time

to change its mind again. So let the minister stand up and say that

he's going to support a turkey producers' co-op, that would at least

assist this province in keeping its own direction and its own ability

to head toward the objective. That objective surely must be:

mâitres chez nous — masters in our own home. That's what we'd like to be — masters

in our own home. All those snide little remarks across the way don't

diminish the argument for that in any way, shape or form.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In regard to the question raised by the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) — who is not here at the present time — going back to 1975,

Pan Ready poultry offered $3 million conditional wholly on government

guarantees for the amount of funds. They didn't have sufficient in the

way of equity. They were looking at a total government guarantee. The

Cargill offer on Panco was $3.3 million plus accounts receivable of

$2.7 up to $6 million at that time. This is just a response to the

member for Nanaimo.

In regard to giving some support to the poultry industry — I think the member

for New Westminster commented on this just a few minutes ago — I don't know

what he calls the support that we gave to the industry in regard to filing our

objection to the purchase of Maplewood by Cargill at the insistence of the turkey

board, the broiler board and Pan Ready Poultry. That is support that we gave

at that time only to find that when the chips were down we didn't have that

indication from them to buy. I don't know whether or not support means giving

$780,000 to Pan Ready Poultry for the acquisition of the Sooke plant of Maplewood.

I guess he doesn't consider that support. That was done in a short period

of time to facilitate the sale of the Maplewood plant at Sooke and to assist

in resolving the financial situation that the Maplewood company was in. I guess

it wasn't support when we contributed to a sales program to move the surplus

turkey and cooperated with the processors and the producers in providing a promotional

program that cost us $75,000. We responded very quickly to that.

What

that member would like — if the truth were known — would be to see a

state-owned turkey processing plant stamped that this is the product of

a socialist government. They bought Panco Poultry under the guise of

saving jobs, a number of years ago. And when they acquired it not only

did they own the processing plant but they owned land and farms. They

were in contravention of their own Natural Products Marketing Act, as

the member knows full well. They acquired those assets for one basic

reason: the socialist approach of state involvement in industry,

commerce and finance. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) nods his head. Very strong feelings about that. That is the

approach that is taken by that party as to how you resolve the

problems. Let the government get involved; let the government run it;

let the government control it. I ask you all: where is the opportunity

for the individual when the government finally gets into state

ownership in regards to turkey processing, to manufacturing and the

financial field? Where is the personal feeling? Where is the

opportunity? There are members over there who are in business for

themselves. I think the member for New Westminster was an independent

insurance agent. Is that correct?

MR. COCKE: No.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm sorry. What were you at that time, before you got involved?

MR. COCKE: Manager of B.C. for Dominion Life.

[ Page

2539 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

It's a free enterprise operation, I guess. He's out there and he's his

own man in the field, but he enjoys the socialist approach because they

seem to think that this is the way to convince the people. You convince

the people that you can solve all their problems for them if the

government gets involved. I just suggest to them that it's awfully

short-sighted when you get the state involved to the extent that you'd

like to get it involved.

All we've talked about is whether

or not this government got involved. Did we give assistance? Did we

give support to the industry? I've indicated on a number of occasions

how much support and effort we put into it. In regard to the Cargill

purchase of the Maplewood plant and what commitments they've made to

FIRA, I can tell the members again — and I'm repeating myself because

I've said this story before, but I'll continue to say it — that they've

sent to the Foreign Investment Review Agency their commitment. Let me

just comment from the telegram.

I TRUST THAT OTTAWA HAS INFORMED YOU OF SUBSTANTIAL UNDERTAKINGS

WE HAVE GIVEN TO FIRA TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON OUR ACQUISITION OF CLEARBROOK. THESE

UNDERTAKINGS INCLUDE OFFERING EMPLOYMENT TO ALL EXISTING EMPLOYEES AT CLEARBROOK

AND WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF ACQUISITION INCREASING EMPLOYMENT AT CLEARBROOK BY HIRING

AT LEAST 80 NEW EMPLOYEES, BY MODERNIZING THE CLEARBROOK AND PANCO POULTRY PLANTS

BY MAKING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF ACQUISITION OF AT LEAST $1.25

MILLION; A POSITIVE RATIONALIZATION OF THE POULTRY PROCESSING INDUSTRY IN BRITISH

COLUMBIA INCREASED EMPLOYMENT IN THE ABBOTSFORD AREA AND GREATER JOB STABILITY

AT BOTH CLEARBROOK AND PANCO POULTRY PLANTS: A MODERN SPECIALIZED BROILER PROCESSING

PLANT USING THE LATEST TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES: A MODERN SPECIALIZED TURKEY,

SPENT FOWL AND FURTHER PROCESSING PLANT USING THE LATEST TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES.

Those

are commitments not made to me, not in conversation, but in commitments

made to the Foreign Investment Review Agency in Ottawa. I'd suggest to

the members over there — and they know full well — that those

commitments aren't made lightly by any corporation, whether it be

multinational, private or public. Those are commitments made to a

government agency in Ottawa, and I'm sure they are well thought out

before a commitment like that is made to that agency.

So,

Mr. Chairman, in response to the member: yes, we've given considerable

support to the poultry industry of this province, and we'll continue to

do so. We have attempted to resolve the problem. As I have said before

and will continue to say, I'm concerned about turkey production in this

province, and without a processing plant the primary producer is at

risk. I've taken some heat in regard to changing our position with

FIRA. In changing that position I'm looking first to the primary

producer to ensure that we have a growing and a prosperous poultry

industry in this province.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate hearing the minister explain to

the House the philosophy of our party when it comes to incursions into the agricultural

industry, manufacturing and the resource sector. I want to tell you, it would

be a lie to suggest in this House or anywhere else that the New Democratic Party

has ever taken over by nationalization or by expropriation any private firm

in the province of British Columbia. It is a lie to say that, Mr. Chairman,

because that has never happened. We indeed purchased on the open market a number

of enterprises when we felt the public interest would be served by having a

public presence in that particular area, and of course the one agricultural

plant was such an occasion.

Interjections.

MR. KING:

Listen to them, Mr. Chairman! Listen to them pipe and snipe away over

there — all those little people who pay lip-service to free enterprise.

But guess who expropriated private enterprise in the province of

British Columbia? Not the New Democratic Party; W.A.C. Bennett's Social

Credit government arbitrarily expropriated B.C. Electric and Black Ball

Ferries. Those great free enterprisers in their party intruded into the

market and denied those private sector employers access to the courts

to gain compensation, as you well know. They are the bogus free

enterprisers, Mr. Chairman, who did all of those things and now suggest

that our only approach to government administration is to take over

some company — a thing we've never done, Mr. Chairman. That is a Social

Credit characteristic.

If they find public ownership so

repugnant, if that offends their tender free enterprise sensitivities,

I want to ask: when are they going to divest themselves of the B.C.

Ferry Corporation, a public agency created by Social Credit? When are

they going to give away the 90 percent of the forest land in the

province of British Columbia that is owned by the public, Mr. Chairman?

If they can't stand the people of this province owning any resources,

then when are they going to give away the rest of the province like

they're giving away the agricultural industry? It's crass nonsense, and

they know it — a phony argument altogether. It's not even an accurate

argument, and as I say, it's kind of shocking to hear the minister get

up and offer that as a defence today.

What did the

government do when a very large Canadian company — my employer, as a

matter of fact — that little corporate entity, CP Rail, journeyed out

to British Columbia indicating an interest in acquiring majority shares

in MacMillan Bloedel? The Premier, the leader of the government, ran

around screaming: "British Columbia is not for sale." The great

defender of the public interest in the province of British Columbia

wouldn't allow one of our forest industries to be sold to an eastern

Canadian firm — not a multinational, but a Canadian firm. But now here

they all blithely apply the rubber stamp to the sale of Panco Poultry

to Cargill, one of the largest multinationals in the agricultural

industry, with a chequered past record in terms of their corporate

citizenship. Now they all fidget around in their discomfiture on the

other side and try to manufacture red herrings to justify this abuse of

the public trust that they hold as government of the province, Mr.

Chairman — sorry performance!

We recognized, and we warned

the government when they sold Panco Poultry to Cargill, that that was

the thin edge of the wedge, and that increasing problems would flow

from that decision. The Vancouver Province , in its editorial,

takes a similar point of view, that the minister — and he made that

decision — was the architect of his own problems. They're not

socialists at the Vancouver Province ; they just recognize that

the public interest in the province of British Columbia was not being

well served by letting a monopoly and a cartel take root in this

province with ministerial and government blessing. What are you going

to do, Mr. Minister — call them socialists too, and shrug off the

validity of their argu-

[ Page 2540 ]

ment

on the basis that they're wild-eyed socialists? Or, as he suggested a

while ago: "The people across the House want to torpedo the turkeys."

That was a very rational response coming from the Minister of

Agriculture, wasn't it? A very profound statement. No wonder his

assistant deputy minister left the chamber, Mr. Chairman, because that

kind of response must be embarrassing to his staff, if not to his

government.

The minister finally gave figures on the

difference between the offer made by Cargill for Panco and the offer

made by Pan Ready. He indicates that Pan Ready offered $3 million and

asked for government guarantees. He indicates that Cargill offered $3.3

million plus their accumulated receipts; I think it amounted to about

$6 million. Well, I want to suggest to the minister that perhaps a $3

million investment by the government in the province of British

Columbia would have been a very small investment to make to ensure that

dominance in the agricultural industry stayed in Canadian hands,

preferably British Columbia hands.

When he reversed his

position and decided to give full support to Cargill's bid for Panco,

that was the very root and the very foundation of his problems today.

We in the opposition are concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to

see complete domination of the market. As my colleague for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has pointed out, it will probably grow from

turkey processing to feeds and other areas of the agricultural

industry. It certainly doesn't serve the interests of the consumer or

the producer in the province of British Columbia to operate at the

sufferance of a large, multinational corporation, which has no basic

roots or allegiance to this nation.

We don't mind some

foreign investment, but it should be kept to a minimum, and it should

be in all cases controlled — the majority shares should be controlled

in Canada. That's a reasonable objective, and an objective, I would

suggest, that is espoused by every major democratic state in the world

today. It's got nothing to do with socialism or free enterprise; it's

got to do with good common sense and a commonsense approach to business

in the province. These are the things we are questioning the minister

for.

I would certainly appreciate it, as my colleague for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has indicated, if the minister would be a bit

more forthcoming with the House, and would table the documents that he

transmitted to FIRA when the review of Cargill's application to

purchase Panco was made. If the minister feels that he has done the

right thing, then he should not be reluctant to table in this House any

correspondence which he had on the matter. I think it would assist the

opposition greatly in understanding why the minister came to the

conclusion that he did. But he shouldn't try and throw red herrings in

the way of the valid questions which the opposition has put before the

House today.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm amazed at the remarks

of the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. He went back so far as to

drag up the sale of B.C. Electric, when it was expropriated by this

government, using it as a situation where we stand for private

enterprise yet we expropriate a private company. What he did not say —

which is consistent with all the projects of this government, when such

was the case — was that when B.C. Electric were faced with the

requirement of developing a new power policy taking in all of British

Columbia — taking in the northern part of British Columbia, the Peace

and the Columbia, the two-river policy — they were given the

opportunity to do that. British Columbia had to expand, and the

government said to them: "Would you go and do that?" Yes, they would,

but they asked first of all to have certain government guarantees.

There were no guarantees from our government. They would not move into

this area. Also, they suggested that the government.... Let me tell

that hon. member, the strong suggestion by the B.C. Legislature at that

time was: "You go ahead and develop the Peace and the Columbia and

we'll keep the Vancouver market." These are the things that cause

government to move. Because today in British Columbia he must recognize

the fact of the properness of this move, when we have a postage stamp

rate for power — the same price in Prince George as it is in Vancouver.

How anybody can knock this process is beyond me.

It's not in

this debate, but I think it should be made known that these fallacious

arguments are not true. Then again, to add a little more insult, we

hear from him: "What about the B.C. Ferries? Are you going to sell them

to private enterprise?" Well, of course, we'd sell them to private

enterprise if anybody would buy them. But nobody will buy the ferries,

because they are a losing proposition. So the people must run them to

serve Vancouver Island and the other places the boats must s!o, How can

this be used in argument'? This is truly a fallacious argument,

extremely outside the sense and justice of this debate. I'm surprised a

member with the intelligence of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

King) would drag those two out, because it's not correct; it's wrong.

Furthermore,

he insults the multinationals. Why? Because they do not have an

allegiance to the country? That's exactly correct. Multinationals have

no allegiance to any country, and that's a well-known fact. Because of

that, they are not a danger to British Columbia. Because of that,

they're workable here. I'll give you an example.

I hear a

lot of laughter to my right, but there's no sense to it. Let me tell

you a story which I hope has been resolved. Some years ago, when I was

privileged to be on the General Motors council, I was sitting in a

council meeting in Detroit. At that time the premier of the day, Mr.

Bourassa, brought out Bill 101, which dictated that all business will

be done in French. This corporation was building a large operation at

Three Rivers, and I said to the president: "What are you going to do

if, in time" — and it was talked about then — "Quebec secedes from

Canada?" I'm glad at this time.... What a great joy it is that this

is maybe behind us, that we are progressing and that Quebec is now part

of Canada. And I hope that we will progress and the great

French-speaking Canadians will become a solid part of us. I hope we're

on the road to this point. But at that time this was in doubt. What did

the president reply? He said: "That's no problem. We're used to dealing

with foreign governments."

Mr. Chairman, what I'm pointing out is multinationals are safe to deal with. But when he brings out the point.... That

same member who has left now; he couldn't take it. You could see that.

He left, because the argument is so fallacious — it's untrue. He says:

"My little company...." What's his little company? The Canadian

Pacific Railway is no little company. It's a huge corporation, and an

excellent corporation — let's not mistake that. But we could not

allow.... The Premier was correct in saying that British

Columbia is not for sale. But the two words he didn't add, which I'll

add — this may not have been in his mind, but it's in my mind: British

Columbia is not for sale to the eastern corporations.

[ Page

2541 ]

MR. BARBER: But it is for sale to Cargill.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

It's not for sale. We want our problems based here. We don't mind

multinationals. Now let's come to Cargill. He speaks of Cargill. I want

to commend the minister on the statements that he clearly and properly

made in this Legislature, and it should be sufficient to remove all

doubt from the sale. I know very little about it, but I spoke to him of

it. One of my constituents is very much involved, and on this day is

very concerned with her future. And he's concerned and he's worked

hard, day and night. He told me. I know the problems in resolving this

very difficult matter, but it cannot be resolved by the government

pouring in money. It cannot be resolved by government guarantees. But

when we have a purchaser such as Cargill — a multinational, yes, but

they have no allegiance to any country; they're only interested in

business procedure, and as a business procedure in British Columbia —

they'll become as much a British Columbian as any other British

Columbia corporation. That's what they're interested in: the business

available here. If there was no business here, they'd leave. That's the

way it is.

I want you to know that these multinationals are

not the strength of our economy; they're merely a part of our economy.

The strength of our economy is the little businessman, the little guy,

the little producer of turkeys, the little garage man, the little

manufacturer, the cottage industries. All these things together produce

the business of British Columbia. Certainly there is no danger in

Cargill. I approve what the minister has done and I'm concerned,

because some of my constituents are involved in the raising and

production of turkeys. It's very important that we nourish the

agriculture industry in British Columbia. I want you to know, Mr.

Chairman, that the industry in British Columbia is not a strong

industry. We're not the most favoured part of the world for agriculture

processing. It's a tough job to encourage and foster production of

agricultural products here, especially with the wages we have to pay.

It's all very well to say "produce turkeys and sell them," but are the

people of British Columbia prepared to pay the price that must be

demanded? That's the problem. We must produce economically. But a

corporation like Cargill has some answers to our problem, because

they'll be doing their business here and, as such, are British

Columbian within our walls. I say to you that I admire the minister's

stand on that subject. There's no other way to go at this time. You

cannot go any other way. The last thing we need is for the government

to meddle in this situation. I'm proud of the minister's attitude and

I'm proud of what he's doing. We must nurture the agricultural

industry. We must keep a strength in the poultry business. The only way

we can do it is by using the tools we have and by taking advantage of

the opportunities before us.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to

change the course of the debate for a few moments and make a proposal

for the creation of an office of urban agriculture. I will be debating

the Cargill matter at some time in the future, but at the moment I

would like to put forward a number of ideas which I hope the minister

will accept and be prepared to respond to at some time in the near

future.

This proposal for an office of urban agriculture would take into account a number of new ideas, a number of new

technologies and a number of new strategies which have become, I think,

more and more self evidently worthwhile, especially in the great urban

communities of North America. I think it's new territory. It's

certainly a new idea in this province. I'd like to put forward a couple

of new ideas on my own part, which I do not purport represent the

official policy of the New Democratic Party on this matter I speak for

myself and not for anyone else.

I would observe that one of

the reasons why the minister might want to consider the creation of an

office of urban agriculture is because it is reported that Canada

produces now less than 45 percent of its total food requirements. The

nation of Canada produces less than 45 percent of everything it needs

in terms of food. I'd like to point out as well that by the mid-1980s

Mexico and California will themselves be net importers of food. The

particular dependence which British Columbia has always had on them as

sources of supply will be made more difficult to maintain because of

growth problems and growth patterns in Mexico and California. World

population growth continues unchecked. The demands on Californian and

Mexican foodstuffs from other than British Columbia sources will also

increase by the turn of the century. It's been calculated by the World

Health Organization that Mexico City will have a population in excess

of 55 million by the turn of the century. Within 20 years Mexico City

will be the largest city on the planet.

For people who look toward the future of the agricultural industry and to the

food needs of the people of British Columbia. It's clearly foolishness to

continue to pretend that we can rely on Mexican imports. Twenty years from now

those imports will simply not be available at the price or on the scale that

they currently are. Why is that? Because of Mexican needs. Mexican demand

and Mexican population will have increased so dramatically by the turn of the

century that we will not have proper call on that food; the Mexican people

will have first call, and that's how it should be.

Because

of that, I think it's necessary that the ministry be prepared to

examine new strategies for food production in this province. It's

necessary for the minister to exercise personal leadership. It's

necessary for this government to use some wit and some imagination in

order to involve urban citizens as well as rural citizens in the

production of food in British Columbia. I'm persuaded that

city dwellers are capable of solving some of their own food

problems. I know there is evidence that this is the case, increasingly

so in some of the great cities of the United States. Later on in this

debate I propose to discuss and would be happy to table documentation to that fact.

think an office of urban agriculture could serve four great purposes.

The first of these is to create and make available for the purpose of

public debate and public information alternative food production

strategies that involve the city dweller as well as the rural citizen

in this province. An office of urban agriculture could describe and

promote alternative and appropriate technologies for food production in

the urban centres of British Columbia — I'll be illustrating those in a

few moments. An office of urban agriculture could begin to change

attitudes among the people of British Columbia, in order that

especially city dwellers accept co-responsibility for food production

in this province. There are a number of publications which relate to

this matter. For the benefit of those who read Hansard . I'll

refer quickly to them. These are among the documents that the

minister might want to consult if he decides to take a look this

proposal for an office of urban agriculture. These include books,

publications and journals: The Guide to Community Garden Orga-

[ Page 2542 ]

nizing ,

published by Gardens For All, Inc., Box 371, Shelburne, Vt.;

"Information Sheets for Organizers," published by the Council of

Environmental Quality of New York City, which has been heavily involved

in promoting urban agriculture, Box 673, Canal Street Station, New York

City; An Organizing Guide for Neighbourhood Gardens in Your Community ,

published by the Cooperative Extension Services of the University of

New Hampshire. There are others, but those are the ones I'll refer to

for the moment.

It's important that public awareness be

established of the possibilities of urban agriculture in this country.

It's important that the people of British Columbia understand that our

reliance on Mexican and California sources cannot be maintained much

longer. It's important that people in the cities as well as in the

rural areas become more responsible for providing good and cheap food

for themselves. To continually rely on the rural communities of British

Columbia is a continuing mistake, in my own opinion. There are new

strategies and new technologies available. There are new opportunities

which could be coordinated by an office of urban agriculture.

That's

the first responsibility of such an office; the second is in the field

of housing and public design. I would propose that an office of urban

agriculture be empowered to help negotiate agreements with and among

the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the provincial Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing and those responsible for the national

building code. Why is this? Particularly because two of the relatively

new technologies for food production in urban communities involve the

necessary redesign of public and private buildings. I refer

specifically to roof gardens, and I'll be talking in a moment about

what's happened in Washington D.C. with tremendous success in the last

seven years in converting roofs to urban gardens that produce hundreds

of tons of food for the residents of those communities. I'll be talking

about design problems. But some authority has to accept responsibility

to coordinate CMHC, the Ministry of Housing and those responsible for

the national building code — some new thinking into the process. The

reason it's important from the viewpoint of design, of course, is

because if you're proposing to use rooftops in urban communities for

agricultural purposes, those rooftops must be able to bear the weight

and the stress. This is no technological problem; if we can put

swimming pools on rooftops, as Holiday Inns do all over the world, you

can certainly bear the burden of the extra weight involved in putting

on roof gardens. Nonetheless, it has to be done in a coordinated way.

An office of urban agriculture could help do that.

I think

there would be an especial interest in this kind of urban agriculture

among those persons who are themselves involved in the planning of, and

in living within, co-op housing, seniors' housing, certain condominiums

and other forms of public housing. I think CMHC would be interested in

these new technologies. I think seniors especially would be interested

because they would see this as an opportunity to provide for themselves

more and more cheaply available food — food, by the way, of better

quality than that trucked in from California or Mexico.

New

design requirements can also include opportunities not just for roof

gardens and solar greenhouses but also, of course, for the whole new

field of hydroponics. This too is a matter of building code and

building regulation; this too has to be coordinated in a thoughtful,

imaginative and farsighted way if we are to take advantage of these new

affordable and appropriate technologies. These new technologies offer

opportunities for urban dwellers to become more responsible and more

self-reliant as consumers. This is an important social goal as well as

a practical one.

I'd like to point out that there are, of

course, problems involved in significant urban roof gardening. We have

a Canadian precedent; it's been going now for some years in Montreal.

I'll be talking about it in a moment. But briefly, an office of urban

agriculture could help people, who want to get into these new forms of

food production, understand that the problems in cities include the

problems of wind, which are considerable on rooftop gardens...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's a lot of wind coming from over there.

MR. BARBER: Oh, shut up. Just shut up.

...problems of water; the problems of heat in the summer; the obvious

problems of public design; the ability of the roof to maintain the

stress and the weight of urban agriculture; and the other related

problems of coordinating.

I want to talk about an experience

that McGill University, in the St. Urbain district of downtown

Montreal, has had since May 1975. The University Settlement Community

Centre, which is affiliated with the Department of Agriculture at the

University of Montreal, began an extremely important experiment to find

out whether or not, in Canadian urban settings, urban agriculture could

succeed. On the roof of this rather large building in the St. Urbain

district they built balustrades, entrance ways, and staircases and

finally established some 250 gardening plots on the entire roof area at

the university. They built three greenhouses, established a compost bin

and built three cold frames. Since that time some 80 people have

worked, part-time and full-time, to find out whether or not, in the

heart of Montreal, people, in this case in the university community,

might become co-responsible as urban dwellers for their own food. They

discovered, strangely, that the principal problems in Montreal are not

wind, cold, rain or all those things that you might expect in that

climate. To their amazement they discovered it was an easy matter, with

any foresight, to overcome those problems. The chief problem they had

in Montreal — the Chairman may be amused to discover — was damage done

by squirrels. Anyone who knows the city of Montreal knows that

squirrels are everywhere, and it's a charming aspect of life in that

community. Nonetheless, the squirrels also like to eat the products of

the garden. So they had several problems and several remedies in order

to keep the squirrels off the roof garden. But the University of McGill

reports that such a project could in fact succeed, and did succeed. The

University of McGill has documentation to support the claim that this

Canadian experiment in urban agriculture was affordable, was practical,

and was apparently successful. The squirrels are no longer a factor; I

don't know what they did with them.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This

surely is one of the new strategies for urban food production that's

worth some study. An office of urban agriculture could be held

responsible for that second major function.

A third major

function for such an office involves the promotion of new technologies.

In my own city, in the neighbourhood of Fernwood, people are now

building a community solar greenhouse. It will finally be located on the

[ Page 2543 ]

roof

of the new neighbourhood centre on Gladstone Avenue. Solar greenhouses

differ from conventional greenhouses in a number of ways. They tend to

be much better insulated. They tend not to rely on outside fuel sources

for heat. They tend to be tremendously more efficient than our ordinary

hog-fuel or diesel-powered greenhouses. Solar greenhouses tend to be

low-cost and low-energy-demanding units. Solar greenhouses differ from

conventional greenhouses in many ways, and the new technologies cheaply

and widely available today make solar greenhouses affordable by many

individuals and certainly on the part of many community groups.

The

University of Montreal, for instance, in the same experiment, was able

to use waste heat from its building, pipe it up through the roof and

use that to compensate on those days when solar greenhouses were not

able to provide enough of their own heat through direction of the sun's

rays.

Solar greenhouses are astonishingly productive

facilities. Per acre, they are reported to be anywhere from 5 to 14

times more efficient than ordinary greenhouses, and certainly than

ordinary plots of land simply out in a rural community. Solar

greenhouses, properly maintained and managed, and properly built in the

first place, are significant sources of good food for the people who

care to use them.

The major work on this subject is

published. of course, by the Rodale Press. A guy called McCullough has

published a number of books on the subject; he's well respected in the

field.

Another of the tasks of an office of urban

agriculture would be to examine the technology, the affordability. the

placement and the precedent of solar greenhouses as they have been

employed casually, and with not much planning, across Canada and the

United States in the last ten years, since this kind of technology

became popular and available.

Another form of new technology that could and should be widely promoted by

an office of urban agriculture is, of course, hydroponics. For the benefit of

members who might not be familiar with the term, it describes raising food without

soil. It works. Tomatoes are espec