1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

2181 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 6. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2181

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

— 2182

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2183

Point of order Possible partiality of the Chairman. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2184

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

On vote 6. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2185

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

— 2185

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2186

Point of order Irregularity in division. Mr. Gibson — 2186

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 2187

Point of order Possible partiality of the Chairman. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

On vote 6. Mrs. Jordan — 2190

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

— 2190

Point of order Possible inaccuracies in Chairman's report to Speaker. Mr. Smith

— 2192

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates

On vote 6. Division on vote 6 — 2193

On vote 7. Mr. McClelland — 2193

Point of order Correction of Mr. Speaker's statement on microphone cut off.

Mr. Bennett — 2206

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker. In the debate this afternoon, it is possible that I

might have used the term "Clerk of the House" in a way in which

I would not wish to have done so. I in no way wish to leave the

inference with the House that I was casting any dispersions on

his conduct. I have the highest regard for these gentlemen.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much for those words. I think

that you all know that the work done by the Clerks is for all

of us.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

continued.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, on a point of

privilege, I was unable to introduce some guests who were in

the galleries, things went so fast. Usually in the evening

nobody is introduced here. I have the privilege tonight of

introducing three guests — two from my riding and one from the

riding of Fort George. Mr. Fred Speckeen is from Prince George,

and Mr. and Mrs. Dingwall are from Vanderhoof. I wish everybody

here would welcome them.

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

the debate this afternoon on vote 6 seemed to zero in, at least

in the last half of the afternoon, on one relatively small item

in the total vote, but an important one. That item was the

Provincial Marketing Board.

The Members will recall, I believe, that last year we did

pass amendments to the Natural Products Marketing Act, which

provided for a provincial marketing board. Members, I am sure,

will recall during that debate quite a bit of discussion as to

just what would be the role of the Provincial Marketing Board,

what authority it would have.

In particular, a lot of Members expressed some concern at the time that the

purpose in setting up the Provincial Marketing Board was really to try to deal

with something that had happened in the past. They were concerned that it might

be used in that way and wanted the assurance of the government that it was not

intended that way. During the discussion I tried to make it plain that the way

the legislation was written made it quite clear that there was no intention

of dealing with something that had happened in the past, something that did

give rise to a court case. I want to repeat that assurance. If it becomes necessary

during the evening, I can read from the legislation just to remind the Members,

but I hope that won't be necessary.

The question of staff has been commented on. I think it

should also be made quite clear that the figure of 165 in this

vote does not include the members of the Provincial Marketing

Board. The legislation called for a board to be set up of up to

10 members. Five members of that board have, indeed, been named

and are serving as the Provincial Marketing Board. That is as

many as have been named up to this point. None of the 165

staff members included in this vote work on the Provincial

Marketing Board.

As far as markets, the item under "activity" in the top half

where the figure for markets appears is seven people and

$495,220. This is the activity of the markets branch itself.

You will note the second-from-the-bottom item, B.C. food

promotion, $250,000. This is a large part of the activity of

the markets branch.

I thought perhaps with this clarification the Members would

be prepared to enter into questions about the activities of the

department under vote 6, and some kind of an analysis of just

what the government is doing, what it proposes under vote

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Why don't you

answer the questions that you were asked?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe (I can be

corrected on this and I will certainly make not of any

questions that are asked) the only questions that I have not

answered to this point are questions dealing with the trial. I

will not be dealing any further with that issue. I made it

quite plain this afternoon that as far as I was concerned

everything I had to say on that subject was said in court. I

prefer to leave it that way. But any other questions that the

Members care to ask I will do my best to answer.

MR. BENNETT: You're telling us what questions we can

ask.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

Interjection.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Go ahead.

[ Page 2182 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wondered if the

Minister would send us over a list of the questions that are

okay to ask.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think the Member could do with a lot of

help in asking questions but....

MR. BENNETT: You could do with a lot of help in

answering.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Member for

North Okanagan.

MR. BENNETT: You have selective amnesia.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I find the Minister's actions and

comments at the opening of this debate following the dinner

hour most extraordinary — in fact, completely unbelievable. He

says that he thinks the gist of this afternoon's debate zeroed

in on one item, if I can remember his statement correctly — one

rather small item. Then he wasn't sure if it was the Natural

Products Marketing Act we were debating or the child of that

Act, which is the Provincial Marketing Board.

It is incredible that he's missed the whole point of this

afternoon's debate, the whole point of other debate on his

estimates, the whole point of a court case and the whole point

of a debate in this session last year. The point missed is his

failure to clarify misunderstandings — which he likes to call

them....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds

I would ask the Hon. Member to deal only with the items that

are contained in this vote — the money that is set down there

and the purposes for which this money is intended to be spent —

nothing else. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the effectiveness

of the Provincial Marketing Board, to which the Minister

referred just a few minutes ago, is going to be completely

jeopardized by this Minister's failure to answer the questions

we've posed to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the future of marketing boards....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not discussing marketing boards

generally. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member has been out of order, and probably

the other Members have been to some extent, too. I think the Chair has been

a little too lax; therefore we will confine our remarks to the times we have

listed in the vote and the purposes for which that money is intended to be spent.

Either the money is too much, not enough or whatever. Would the Hon. Member

address herself to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you have just claimed that the

Chair has been lax. I would suggest that the Chair has been

inconsistent, but not lax. It is as if the Chairman treats this

Legislature and democracy like an upside-down cake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: The top for the government and the bottom for

the opposition...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: ...and all that's left of democracy in this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote

or take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: I'll speak to the vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One or the other: speak to the vote or take

your seat!

MRS. JORDAN: Oh!

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): No need to be

nasty about it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, obviously the Chair is suffering

from pangs of guilt. When we reviewed the debate earlier this

afternoon....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you speak to the vote or take your seat?

Order! We will not have debate on the Chair's conduct. You will

speak to the vote or take your seat!

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to the vote.

I'd like to ask the Minister how he is going to provide

impartial and respected administration for the Provincial

Marketing Board as long as there is some cloud surrounding his

testimony...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote or

take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: ...and his administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon.

[ Page 2183 ]

Member speak to the vote or take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I did. I suggest that his whole

administration is in jeopardy as it relates to the Provincial

Marketing Board which he just talked about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not discussing the

Minister; we are discussing $100,000 under this particular

item. Would the Hon. Member speak about that $100,000 and not

about the Minister?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, are you denying the fact

that the Minister is responsible for the administration of this

$100,000?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you are just asking for

trouble.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: You are going to abuse the privileges of this

House again as Chairman....

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

again if she is intending to speak to this vote or not. So far

you have been almost totally out of order. Would the Hon.

Member speak to the vote or take her seat?

MRS. JORDAN: It's funny, after I left the House I listened

to the debate and the subject came up and was not out of order

then. But we accept your inconsistency, Mr. Chairman.

I'll ask the Minister another question in relation to

beekeeping in the province. Would he please advise the House

what procedures or what steps he has taken to respond to the

request of the beekeepers that he allots some funds on the

basis of their viable units to provide fencing against invasion

by bears when the colonies are out in the orchards.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal

more trouble with bears in various parts of the province — at

least the beekeepers have in particular. The livestock owners

have as well.

This year we have provided an amount of $19,000, included in this vote, that

will be used for a series of projects — some of them experimental and some of

them controlled — in an attempt to find the best way. They have tried many ways

and, unfortunately, when bears do get a taste of honey it's almost impossible

to devise a means of keeping them out. Some of the experiments or programmes

tried last year included using a chain-link fencing around beehives that were

packed very close together — a large number of hives packed immediate to each

other — and even there the bears were able to get in on top and wreck the hives

from inside and destroy the fencing as well.

So it's not an easy problem. Last year the amount provided

for this was $2,000. We have recognized how much more of a

problem it is now by increasing this amount to $19,000.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, as a further follow-up to the

question: is the Minister aware — and I'm sure he must be — that

Alberta has felt that providing incentive and money for

chain-link fences are worthwhile? I believe, if I'm correct,

they have made available $100 per colony per beekeeper.

Manitoba has made available $75 per colony — and I certainly

stand to be corrected on those figures — in order to develop

chain-link fencing. They seem to feel that until a better way

is developed, the assistance that a beekeeper needs is not

income assurance but protection for his ability to earn his own

livelihood.

My understanding is that the association in British Columbia

strongly favours this now as an immediate reaction to an

immediate problem for which there is no cure at the moment and

to help them over this difficult time. I wonder why, when it's

an immediate problem, the Minister is embarking on long-term

thinking. Why not give them some incentive now?

Is the Minister going to answer?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll defer to the Minister if he wants to

answer that question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I can't answer while there is

somebody on their feet. So far, the beekeepers' association in

B.C. has not seen fit to make that particular request. They

have come forward with some different ideas for controlling

bees. We have met with them; we have considered all of them. To

this point they haven't suggested that we adopt the Alberta

plan, which is relatively new in Alberta. I think the Member

asking this question is well aware of it but perhaps some of

the other Members aren't. Beekeeping is much more of an

industry in the Province of Alberta than it is in B.C. We're

learning. We are further behind than they are. It is a much

more important industry there, but we are learning from their

experience. We are trying some things on our own. We are

listening to our association and I think we are doing quite

well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I rise on a

[ Page 2184 ]

point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in the testimony of Mr.

Link in the case of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board,

at the proceedings of trial, dated December 18, in which

cross-examination took place on one Mr. Link about a meeting in

the Premier's office, the witness, Mr. Link, in his own

cross-examination said in answer to the question of how many of

those were handed out and to whom:

"So we have to count first the total number in attendance.

That was — I start at the side of Mr. Stupich who was sitting

behind the desk with Mr. Barrett — Mr. Hartley Dent, Mr.

Nunweiler, Mr. McLatchie, Mr. Don Lewis, Mr. Barrett, Mr.

Samson, Mr. Savo Kovachich and myself."

Now this fact of your presence at that meeting did not come

out until the testimony of that court. The question,

therefore, as to whether or not this court case should be

appealed, the question as to whether a grave injustice has been

done to certain people obviously affects you.

You took it

upon yourself earlier today, Mr. Chairman, to rule out of order

any attempt to question whether the money put aside for

professional services would be used for the appeal of the case

in the Kovachich judgment by Mr. Justice Hinkson. You failed to

point out at the time that you yourself had a very personal

interest in not having this matter raised. Now, Mr. Chairman, I

feel that under the circumstances....

HON. A. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Do you know what the

case is about?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, yes. Leave it to the parties. As

the Attorney-General has posed the question, the case is about whether

or not the two affidavits filed in this house last year were accurate

or otherwise on the question of these things that took place in this

meeting, among others. And now we find in the testimony of Mr. Link,

the verbatim transcriptof which I believe I tabled in the House some time ago, that

the Chairman of this committee was personally involved.

Furthermore, since that time, the Chairman of this committee

has been taking decisions which are clearly considered by

certain Members of this House to be highly partisan and very

questionable on the question of the appeal of this case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I have the gist of the Hon. Member's

point of order; there is no further explanation required. The

point has been well made. The point of order is clearly whether

the Chair is in a position of a conflict of interest. In the

judgment of the Chair there is no conflict of interest. The

Chair applies the rules equally to all according to the rules

of this House.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, May I...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have made a ruling. The Hon. Member

may challenge it or he can take his seat or....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there is an elemental

principle of justice which I think I should put to you, and

that is that one does not judge one's own case.

MR. McCLELLAND: Hear, hear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And you were doing that. And, therefore,

you are involved in this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You have a personal interest in not

having any more questioning on it. Then you are saying that it

is not a point of order and you yourself have decided yourself

that you are totally impartial. This is as phony as the

proverbial $3 bill, because you've not been impartial.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter may be settled only

by challenging the ruling of the Chair. Will the Hon. Member

challenge the ruling or sit down?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The matter may be settled, Mr. Chairman,

by....

[ Page 2185 ]

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? The

point is whether the Hon. Member is going to obey the standing

orders of the House. Order, please. I order the Hon. Member to

be seated.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was one question asked

by the Member during the course of his remarks; that is the

question whether any money in this vote under the heading

"consultants" would be used for a court case. I can give him

the assurance that none of the funds in this vote will be used

for any court case. That's not the purpose, and I tried to make

that clear in my opening remarks. I am not sure whether he was

here to hear them but it certainly is not the purpose of this

vote to use funds for any court case.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that the Minister has been able to

make a statement about the use of this money for legal fees and

to do so thoroughly unchallenged by the Chair, perhaps the same

courtesy will be extended to other Members.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no problem here. The

Hon. Minister was responding to a question that was asked

earlier under this particular vote — how this money was to be....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly, and if he has responded to a

question asked earlier, it's clearly in order to continue

discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! It is not clearly in order to raise a

subject in detail which is not related to this particular item.

Rather, the question should be asked: what items are covered by

this money? Then, if it's indicated that certain things are

covered, you can proceed with the discussion; but otherwise we

don't know if it's relevant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's also up to the

opposition to raise things that should be covered under this

particular sum of money. You are unfortunately partisan and

interested in the outcome of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You have to be!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member attacking

the Chair? Are you attacking the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm pointing out to the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It is the custom of

parliamentary rules, if you are attacking the Chair on the

basis of partiality, that this should be done by a proper

motion. It should certainly not be done in committee. If the

Hon. Member is convinced that the Chairman is not impartial, he

should do it on a substantive motion. I'd ask the Hon. Member

to proceed with the vote or to take his seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the

Chairman should not be either Stupich, Barrett, Dent,

Nunweiler, Lewis...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...because they're all involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is too!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Parliamentary rules require that if there is a

charge of partiality, the Hon. Member should put a substantive

motion on the order paper. The Chair has already ruled that

this is not a point of order and the Hon. Member should proceed

with the vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, up to now your special

interest in whether or not this subject should be discussed has

not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? Now shall

vote 6 pass? The Hon. Member is clearly persisting in speaking

in a manner that is out of order under the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it's down there in black

and white....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't care what the Hon.

[ Page 2186 ]

Member's opinions are! The rules have to be followed!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the court

action referred to is an action by the B.C. marketing board to

collect certain moneys in the form of levies from certain

producers. The Chairman has no interest whatsoever in that case

and it is really stretching the limits of credibility, you

know, to suggest so. I would say that there's just no interest.

Let's be sensible for a few minutes, eh?

Interjections.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): On a point of

order. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have your ruling

challenged.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of Supply,

considering vote 6, the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) questioned my partiality as the Chairman. I

ruled that this was not a matter to be discussed in committee

but rather should be done by a substantive motion. Then the

Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings)

challenged my ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The question the Chair has to determine is

whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Gorst

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nunweiler

Lauk

Radford

Young

Lea

King

Levi

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

NAYS — 14

Cummings

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Fraser

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gibson

Gardom

Schroeder

Morrison

Curtis

McClelland

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on

a point of order, quite a serious one I fear. Pursuant to

standing order 16(2) — I'll just read the last part: No Member

shall enter or leave the House during the stating of the

question, nor leave the House after the final stating of the

question until the division has been fully taken, and every

Member present shall vote." Mr. Speaker, the Chairman was

present and did not vote.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is mistaken on that

point. It's been traditional for the Chairman whose ruling has

been challenged not to vote.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, that may well be, but the

tradition is then, surely, that he withdraw from the chamber.

The standing order is quite clear: "...every Member present

shall vote." I suggest that anyone with that kind of knowledge

of the rules is not fit to be chairman, and the vote just taken

is annulled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon.

Member that I think it was obvious that he was not in his seat,

and you must vote from your place?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the standing order reads: "...every Member present shall vote." There is no question but that

the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) was present. Your Honour

has eyes to tell you that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I myself didn't notice whether

he was in or out, but I point out to the Hon. Member that it

would matter not a bit because the Hon. Member was neither

counted nor did he vote, and that, I think, was the proper

course for him to follow.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the standing order suggests that he

must vote.

[ Page 2187 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Now may I suggest to you that you're asking him

to take a position on the matter in which he was

challenged?

MR. GIBSON: Or leave the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Or leave the

room.

MR. GIBSON: The standing order is quite clear: "...every Member present must vote." I ask your Honour to

nullify that vote.

MR. SPEAKER: What do you propose? In a practical sense, what

do you propose?

AN HON. MEMBER: Redo it.

MR. GIBSON: Obviously the Chairman must withdraw if he does

not propose to vote. That's fair, and the Chairman of the House

ought to know the rules that well.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Member's feeling of

the fitness of things is not satisfied, I'd be glad to take the

vote over again. Is it the will of the House that I do so?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I asked the House if it wanted

to take the vote again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want to take the vote again?

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: I will take the vote again so that everyone can

be completely satisfied with the propriety of the whole

affair.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, will you ring the division bell

again?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division.

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Gorst

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nunweiler

Lauk

Radford

Young

Lea

King

Levi

Steves

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

NAYS — 15

Cummings

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Fraser

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Gardom

Schroeder

Morrison

Curtis

McClelland

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A point of order. Mr. Speaker,

under rule 9 of our rules you are charged with the duty of

preserving order and decorum and shall decide questions of

order. Well, on the question of order and decorum, on which I

regret I have had to offend this House once today, the question

has come up of a conflict of interest of the Chairman in making

decisions relevant to the possible appeal of a lawsuit.

The reason for this comes, Mr. Speaker, because of a

testimony at the original trial where it was revealed for the

first time that the Chairman of this committee was present at a

meeting in the office of the Premier at which time certain

decisions were taken vis-à-vis northern egg producers.

Therefore the whole question of whether the lawsuit should be

appealed, the whole question of whether the matter should be

reopened in this House, obviously is a question in which he

himself has an interest. Now just for the record....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member know what

having an interest means in parliamentary law?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but it is not the same as in legal;

that's why I'm so glad you raised the issue. It's not a

question of a financial interest; it's a question of political

interest.

Here we have the problem of not only making sure that

justice be done, but also that it appears to be

[ Page 2188 ]

done. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am appealing to you under

rule 9 of this House to exercise your authority to make sure

that this House, and this House in committee, is given a

chairman who, indeed, cannot be in any way implicated or

referred to in this particular lawsuit in question, and that

means a chairman other than the chairman who has been heading

up this committee this afternoon as well as so far this

evening. He must appear to be, as well as be, above all

suspicion of reproach. The fact of the matter is the chairman

in question has been named in testimony as being present at a

meeting which obviously would be affected by any further

discussion of this matter. Therefore I appeal to you, Mr.

Speaker, to make sure that this House, indeed, does have an

impartial chairman for the remainder of the evening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order. On the point raised

by that very learned Member, may I say two things? First, the

Chairman, because he was present at a meeting, has no interest

in the case. The parties in that case are plainly known and

there is no possible interest.

Secondly this whole thing, this whole afternoon, this whole

evening, is just politics.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me finish. The time for appeal for

this particular case has expired. It is a total waste of time

and total ignorance by that Member and a political game that is

being played here. We should get on with the estimates of the

people of British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the lawyer's

talk of the Attorney-General, may I point out that we are

discussing what takes place in this House. We are talking about

whether or not the government should have appealed a case which

the Attorney-General knows must be appealed if, indeed, the

testimony of the Premier in this House was accurate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I interrupt to say that the

Hon. Member appears to be arguing a case. I think the basic

problem he has raised is whether it is decorous for a Chairman

of the Whole House to conduct where the subject is vote 6.

Therefore the question one addresses one's mind to is what vote

6 is about and whether, indeed, it has anything to do with the

lawsuit that took place some two and a half years ago. That had

to do with a different marketing board, if I remember

correctly. If that is so, even if he were a witness, not being

a party to it, not having any pecuniary interest in the

matter, then it is very difficult to say there is a conflict of

interest, because "interest" in parliamentary terms means some

pecuniary interest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Legal, not parliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think you will find that if

you look in our own rules, the subject of interest is defined.

It is under the standing orders that deals with that; where a

Member has an interest, he must declare his interest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What page?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would have to look it up. I think we

can find it easily enough.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question of interest has

been raised entirely in the legal sense of financial interest.

I put the case to you. The Chairman and the government have

made perfectly clear their interest in not having any further

discussion. That is not necessarily a financial interest. It is

interest in the commonly accepted wording of people who are not

learned in the law such as yourself. I think that is the

general assumption we've got to take in this House, that we use

the ordinary meaning of words and not the legalistic approach

of yourself and the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say with great respect that the word as

used in parliamentary law in regard to interest is having a

personal interest of a kind that involves one's pocket, as it

were, against one's convictions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that is one

interpretation of the

word.

MR. SPEAKER: Look at standing order 18, I think you will see

it clearly set out in standing order 18.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That deals with one particular type of

interest.

MR. SPEAKER: But that is the only interest that I can see

that we are discussing here: conflict of interest.

Now may I point out a further thing? I wish to finish my

point. Then you can listen to that, perhaps.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Go right ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: The second point is that not only is the type

of interest referred to in standing order 18 not present in

this situation but you also have to address yourself to the

question of whether vote

[ Page 2189 ]

has anything to do with the Egg Marketing Board and also the

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act which were

the subjects of the trial. Neither has to do with the vote that

is presently before us, on which the general rule is that you

must discuss that vote and whether the sum of money allocated

for it is sufficient or not. To introduce and inject, as it

were, into that subject something totally alien to it, and to

try to debate the conduct of a Minister which should properly

be done during that Minister's estimates, is really trying to

rehash history rather than to address oneself to the year to

come and how much money should be spent on the Provincial

Marketing Board, which is the subject of this estimate — if

that is a subject to which the Hon. Member is referring.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There are others to do with administration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just refer you to

the last sentence of vote 6 which states: "Legislation and

regulations pertaining to the inspection, orderly marketing,

and promotion, of British Columbia-grown farm products are

administered and conducted with the programme."

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but if the Hon. Member would take the

trouble to read the Act that was passed by this House, he would

perceive immediately that there is no way that the

administration of that is taken out of the hands of the

Provincial Marketing Board and the administrators of it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure. Your dilemma, Mr. Speaker, is that

you come in and, of course, have only partial knowledge of what

went on before in committee. In committee it was accepted that

the Minister of Agriculture could make statements with respect

to item 20, professional services. He made a lengthy statement

on the question of professional services and what was

involved.

We would like the same liberty, which is being denied us by

a Chairman who may not have a financial interest but has a very

direct political interest in not having any further discussions

on the question of the appeal of the Kovachich case.

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member what he intends to

mean by the words "professional services"? What does he take it

to mean? There are 20 employees hired for that. Is he

suggesting they had something to do with something other than

professional services to the production and marketing

programme?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the words "professional

services" cover a number of things. Obviously, rather than

discuss it with you, as you are not a member of the committee,

we should discuss it with the Minister. But we should discuss

it with the Minister in committee with a Chairman in the chair

who has no concern whatsoever and can without fear or favour

make decisions as to whether certain subjects should be

discussed — legal professional services, medical professional

services, technical professional services, or whatever.

MR. SPEAKER: I wouldn't dispute with the Hon. Member that it

would be quite proper to ask questions about what that means,

and I wouldn't dispute with him for a minute that where it

gives the figure 20 for the previous year it must have meant

employees, because that's what the brackets around those

figures mean. Therefore to question the Minister on that

subject would be most appropriate. But to suggest that it has

something to do with a lawsuit, which appears to be what the

Hon. Member is directing himself to, would be stretching beyond

all recognition the purpose of estimates and this particular

vote. In the circumstances, I must say that he has not brought

to my attention matters that can be construed as being a lack

of decorum in the committee in regard to the Chairman's

function or that he has indeed any conflict of interest that

has been made apparent to me.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, first on the question of

whether 20 refers to the number of people — it does not. It's a

code number, apparently. Otherwise, there is a tremendous

number of people in that department that the Minister has not

talked of.

The second point is important. You can reject the point of

order if you wish, but the fact is that if we are to operate in

this legislature in committee we are going to have to operate

with some assurance that we have a Chairman who does not have

any interest in having certain things discussed or not having

things discussed and we have a Chairman who, in the opinion of

the opposition, does have an interest in having certain things

suppressed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has not made his point clear to

me, at least on this matter. I say this. There are two things

that in any parliament must function. That is that the Chair

must be treated with respect and must not be accused, without a

substantive motion, of bias or in any way challenged with

respect to its propriety in its rulings. There is a proper way

to challenge a ruling. That's the first point. The second is

that when in any parliament that is civilized a Chairman asks a

Member to sit down for some reason, it also is required.

Those are two things that have apparently escaped

[ Page 2190 ]

the notice of some Members, and I suggest to you

that those are the two things that should be treated immediately with

consideration by this House in protecting the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in considering this I just suggest

to you that this afternoon, as a result of the actions of this

Chairman, two Hon. Members of this House felt constrained to carry on

the debate over the objections of a Chairman to a point where it was

necessary for Your Honour to support the Chairman's ruling. These were

Members of two different parties who did not do this lightly. I think

it must be said in fairness that the question of the credibility and

impartiality of a Chairman immediately arises when a serious event

takes place.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the basic thing that must be

remembered is that one essential order that must be in all cases

complied with is to sit down when the Chairman rises. I think the Hon.

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) knows that this would

not be tolerated in Ottawa — the idea of standing on your feet when the

Speaker or the Chairman is on his feet. The other thing that would not

be tolerated for a minute and would lead to immediate expulsion is

refusing to obey an order of the Chair. Those two things must be done

and any attempt to attack the Chair for bias is a breach and a contempt

of the House. I say that it's very dangerous to the future of the

parliamentary system. If you don't like some of the things that are

done, you know the proper way to do it is by motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a farce.

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

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

continued.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I regret very

much the prolonging of this debate. Our party believes that

agriculture is one of the most vital industries in this

province. We believe that the producers of this province have

been asked, through the land freeze and through the production

of food for our citizens and through the role they are being

asked to play, both through their work and the use of their

land in environmental management, to bear more than their fair

share of society's burdens. We feel that this type of debate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is making a

point of order, would the Hon. Member make a point of order?

Otherwise, would you speak to the vote?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

And it's probably most applicable — the fact that this

debate is being prolonged through the Minister failing to

answer questions — in the Provincial Marketing Board itself. As

I pointed out in earlier debates and as other Members have

pointed out in earlier debates, this is an all-powerful board

set up by the Minister, and its rulings are supreme over nearly

every other piece of legislation relating to agriculture in

this Legislature. It is supreme over all voluntary agricultural

organizations, it is supreme over all marketing boards, and it

is supreme over all producers. It is essential that the

Minister administrating this board should be above question in

relation to the office he holds.

I mentioned the resignation earlier this afternoon of two

members on the advisory food council. I recognize that it's not

under this vote, Mr. Chairman, but it's essential to come in.

If you'll just bear with me I can show you why this relates to

this evening's debate, because there was a news release that

came out on April 29, 1975, with a number of points in it from

the advisory food council. Heading: "Advisory Food Council Kept

Active." There are a number of points and they say:

"Also, a recommendation has gone forward to Agriculture Minister

David D. Stupich, encouraging the government to pursue the initial

study of food imports into British Columbia and their subsequent

distribution. Council is reviewing" — this is the advisory food council

itself — "policies of the marketing board concerning out-of-province

competition, cost pricing structure and supply and demand."

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have pointed out, discussing the

Provincial Marketing Board and its powers, that in light of the

Minister's failure to satisfy this Legislature in relation to

his conduct, both in the court and in....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is out of order

again. I would ask her to return to the vote.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll try, Mr. Chairman.

It leaves the Minister in a position where the charges that

he can manipulate the Provincial Marketing Board and its powers

are open to a certain amount of credibility. Now the question

must arise: in view of the charges against the Minister by two

members who resigned from this other board, who in fact is

supreme in this whole area of control of marketing boards? How

far is this Minister prepared to go in manipulating one arm of

his department with the other arm of his department?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon.

[ Page 2191 ]

Member is clearly discussing a matter which is properly

brought up under vote 3 — that is, the conduct of the

Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! What we are considering here is the

expenditure of $100,000, the purpose for that $100,000 under

code 20, for vote 6. Would the Hon. Member please speak to that

particular code or vote if she's discussing the Provincial

Marketing Board?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

If the council, in reviewing marketing boards, makes a

recommendation to the Provincial Marketing Board — and this is

just a supposition — that marketing boards should be curtailed

in their activities, that marketing board, the Provincial

Marketing Board, is supreme in its power, and the only person

to whom producers, who would be subject to their ruling, have

to appeal to is the Minister. In that case, surely, it is

incumbent upon this government to see that that Minister's word

is above reproach.

You can see, Mr. Chairman, that the entwining of the power

in the hands of this Minister is very great through this

Provincial Marketing Board. Because of the fact that the

Minister is refusing to answer questions as to his competence

and impartiality in administering the marketing board, then the

question must arise in the producers' minds and in our minds:

how reliable can he be to any suggestions that are made by

other boards to this all-supreme power?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is apparent that the Hon.

Member is really discussing the conduct of the Minister himself

rather than this particular proposed appropriation of $100,000.

Would the Hon. Member confine her remarks to the proposed

appropriation of $100,000?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of this Minister's

administrative ability in certain sectors of his office, $100,000 is too much in the hands of an incompetent Minister in

terms of his....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Once again I would ask the Hon. Member

to desist from discussing the conduct of the Minister under

this vote. We are not considering the conduct of the Minister

under this vote, but rather we are considering this particular

code item of $100,000.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to pose another question to the Minister. Is this

the face of the Premier the time that he pointed his finger at that Minister

and said if he doesn't do what he's ordered to do his head will roll?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. The Hon. Minister on a

point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you trust this man? Would you defend this

man, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The truth is sometimes very repetitious and

tedious....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! A Member is making a point of order. It

is the practice that when a Member rises to his feet on a point

of order, the other Member takes a seat.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to observe

that the Member keeps questioning my competence and wants me to

answer a question about my competence. I'd like to remind the

House that in the period of 10 minutes they voted my salary,

and that was their opportunity to question my competence. It

was passed in 10 minutes.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

MRS. JORDAN: If the Minister would stop lecturing the House and answer

some questions, we wouldn't be having this prolonged debate. I suggest that

the Minister is skipping and skating around, avoiding the fact that we want

these questions answered. The court wants these questions answered. The Minister

knows that with the Chair running interference for him, with the selective closure

in operation in this House, all he has to do is sit there; he'll be saved by

the bell, and he won't have to answer any questions about the administering

of the Provincial Marketing Board and this $100,000. He knows that that socialist

bell that's going to save him is designed to hide the facts from the public

of British Columbia, and it's designed to hide the facts from this Legislature,

and it's designed to...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...protect Ministers who won't answer

questions, who can't stand the heat of their actions.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're on vote 6, and you are not

talking to vote 6. I ask you either to speak to vote 6 or take

your place.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

[ Page 2192 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How does he know what vote we're on when he

can't even find it in the book?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I would like to know how the Chairman knew

what vote we were on when he can't find it in the book.

I'd like to ask the Minister, through you, a question.

It's one simple question which would help restore confidence in

his ability to administer No. 20 of vote 6, $100,000 for the

Provincial Marketing Board. Can the Minister deny in this House

the recollection of the defendants in this court case...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...in which he...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...was a witness...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am going to call for the Speaker.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee has been dealing with vote 6.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) insists on speaking

on vote 5 and has been ruled out of order two or three times. I

want you to rule on whether or not she should continue on that

basis.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Would the Hon. Member either speak to vote 6 or refrain from

speaking, because if she is not going to speak to it, she is

obviously out of order. It means that I have to order her to

withdraw again. I would hope that rather than go through that

unsavory exercise, she would address herself to vote 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How else can you discuss it?

MR. SPEAKER: The problem is, as I understand it from what has already

been said, that the Minister's competence or his actions are properly discussed

under his salary, and that is already passed. That was the opportunity that

we have in parliament to deal with that particular subject.

I suggest to you that because you want to talk about

something is not sufficient reason to talk about it. You have

to have a parliamentary peg to hang it on. In view of what has

been going on, I see that that has not been happening. The

Chair has tried to bring the Member to order. The Member

refuses to be brought to order and persists on a course that is

obviously out of order. Now parliament cannot continue in that

fashion, and I ask the Hon. Member: is she determined to pursue

her course, or is she prepared to address herself to the rules

of the House?

The Hon. Member for North Peace River on a point of

order.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. It occurs to me that the procedure that took place in

committee, prior to the time that you were called to the chair,

is not quite as suggested to you by the Hon. Member who

occupied the chair as the Chairman (Mr. Liden).

First of all, he never suggested to the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that she was dealing with vote 5

and not vote 6. Secondly, he called her to order about two or

three times, and each time she yielded the floor to the

Chairman and listened to what he had to say.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Selective recall.

MR. SMITH: Now there was no suggestion that she was on the

wrong vote, or dealing with the wrong vote, until he reported

to you, Sir.

MR. BENNETT: We know who's an expert in selective

recall.

MR. SMITH: Now we don't expect that the Speaker is to know

everything that takes place in committee, because you yourself

have said that you have no knowledge of what takes place.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think I said earlier that I hadn't been

listening to what had been going on in committee on the

previous occasion.

MR. SMITH: Certainly there should be fairness to all Members

of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I pointed out that the House has no knowledge

of what happens in committee, not that the Speaker does or

doesn't.

[ Page 2193 ]

MR. SMITH: I suggest to you that there was no mention to the

Hon. Member for North Okanagan that she was dealing with vote 5

in place of vote 6. That suggestion was never made to anyone on

the floor of this House until the Chairman got up to report to

you.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if there is any confusion on the issue,

then obviously we should give the Hon. Member another chance to

demonstrate that she can talk on vote 6.

HON. MR. STUPICH: On a point of order. I did interrupt and

pointed out to the speaker that if she wanted to discuss my

competence it should be done under vote 3, the Minister's

salary. I pointed out also that the House passed vote 3, which

is the vote where they could discuss my competency, in the

space of 10 minutes. That was drawn to the Member's attention.

She persisted in her remarks after that was drawn to her

attention.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we've had an explanation that it wasn't

drawn to the Hon. Member's attention, that she was wrongly

speaking on vote 6, and that she was, in effect, speaking to

vote 5. If there is any doubt on the matter, I think I should

call the Chairman back and we could proceed. Perhaps the Hon.

Member can address herself to vote 6.

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

chair.

Vote 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Anderson, G.H. Hartley

Nimsick

Barnes

Kelly

Nunweiler

Calder

King

Radford

Cummings

Lauk

Rolston

D'Arcy

Lea

Sanford

Dent

Levi

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lewis

Steves

Gorst

Lockstead

Strachan

Hall

Macdonald

Stupich

Webster

Young

NAYS — 15

Bennett

Phillips

Gibson

Fraser

Schroeder

McGeer

Jordan

Smith

Williams, L.A.

McClelland

Anderson, D.A.

Curtis

Morrison

Gardom

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

On vote 7: general and financial services, $48,388,601.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister suggested that I

raise questions about the feasibility study of the proposed

poultry-processing plant in the interior under this vote.

Really, I would just repeat the questions I asked before. Will

the feasibility studies be made public if they're available? If

not, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether those feasibility

studies did show that the plant wouldn't be economically viable

without some government help of one kind or another, whether it

was a redirection of quota into that area or something else —

some kind of direct government intervention in order to make

the whole proposition economically viable, and whether or not

the government intends in one way or another to supplement the

plant with government aid from consolidated revenue if it isn't

economically viable once it is open.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out earlier,

the feasibility studies were done by staff. They showed that

the plant would not be a money-maker. It would not break even

for the first three years of operation; it would be a number of

years before it could hope to break even. It could only be

justified on the basis I mentioned earlier: with the disease

problem in the Fraser Valley, the importance of breaking up

this heavy concentration of poultry industry in one area of the

province could only be justified if it were government policy

to insist that there be some spread of the poultry production

of the province into other areas of the province. But the

reports were generally optimistic that in a period of time the

growth of population in that area, the growth of production in

that area and the replacement of the outside supplies would

make it economically feasible.

The direct contributions from consolidated revenue — there

are no plans to make direct contributions. The procedure would

be to guarantee financing in the first three years.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, could I ask what the

projections were for the loses in the first three years? How

much were they?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't remember the

figures. I am quite prepared to make that information available

if the Member wants it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Just a couple of short questions

to the Minister. Regarding the beef producers joining the farm

assurance programme, I

[ Page 2194 ]

read a lot in the press but I don't read anything that any

agreement has been reached. I was wondering if the Minister is

ready to tell us where it's at and when an agreement will be

reached. These people are in bad trouble.

The other question that I have is this. It says in this vote

that you administer the leased properties under the Land

Commission Act. There is a property 25 miles south of Prince

George that has been purchased by the Land Commission. It has

been advertised to lease it out. I would like a report from the

Minister. Did they get any applicants to lease this property?

If they did, what kind of arrangements were reached?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Just a second, Mr. Chairman, to

emphasize here. Unfortunately this vote refers to "world food

relief," which I think is just a misunderstanding. We

have had a committee that has done some excellent work for

many, many years. There has been a committee with the Deputy

Minister of Agriculture as chairman for really a long time

before this government. It really has been into world

development and relief, not really world food relief.

It would certainly be my hope and I would ask the question

of the Minister that this Legislature be much more interested

in world development. Surely we are not into the old business

of bags of rice to Biafra or food relief. I would hope that is

not the emphasis of this House but that the emphasis is on

world development, which really means self-sufficiency in the

Third World.

I would just emphasize under this vote, Mr. Chairman, that

if real justice and real competency...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. ROLSTON: ...in other words, self-sufficiency...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Let the Member for Dewdney

continue.

MR. ROLSTON: ...is to be seen in the Third World...and

the Third World is not just down in Latin America; the Third

World could even be here in British Columbia....

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: No, sir, this is under this vote here. There is

$5 million which....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for Dewdney may continue.

He's dealing with this vote.

MR. ROLSTON: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

leave the impression that great as this $5 million is, and I

think it is a very exciting new emphasis in this budget, a much

greater emphasis would be that this be development, that this

be competency, that this be.... If it is following a disaster,

Mr. Chairman, it is largely to help a depressed area really

rebuild and get on its feet.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to get clarification through you

to the Minister that this is a straight $5 million budget. The

way it appears here in the estimates, it certainly looks clear

to me. It is not just the interest on $5 million, but a

straight budgetary item, which I certainly assume will be

increased next year as a straight shot of money.

I am delighted there already has been some consultation with

private agencies that will also raise money. It is my hope that

there will be a real spin-off in this very excellent exercise

in world development and relief. The private agencies' money,

especially that of the churches, which raised $1.7 million last

year through the five major churches — Roman Catholic,

Anglican, United, Presbyterian, and Lutheran — will be doubled

by the non-government organizations in CIDA. The money could be

matched by this particular vote here and then that whole chunk

would be doubled by CIDA, so that you really quadruple the

original money in the private sector. I think it is very

important that not just the government does this, but that it

really be a catalyst to the private sector, which is doing a

lot of very good work in world development.

It means a lot of development. It means a lot of

advertising. It means, for this to really be beneficial, that

there should be advertising and there should be a sharing

between government, CIDA and the private sectors so that there

is throughout the whole province a feeling of involvement in

rural development.

It would interest the House that the City of Nelson, for

instance, is committed to $5,000 in world development. The

school children in those schools there are going to go out to

clean up that town and they are going to do $5,000 worth of

cleanup for the City of Nelson. They will then get the money

from the City of Nelson. There will be at least that much

raised by the private sector of Nelson, which is $10,000, plus

$10,000 from the world development programme of this

government. That is $20,000 and that, of course, becomes

$40,000 through the NGO and CIDA.

So I just make an appeal that tonight, as we look at this

section of the vote, there be real spin-off in education. World

food relief is paternalistic and not

[ Page

2195 ]

really long-term growth to the Third World. It should be

world development.

Of course, I would draw the attention of the House to the

phenomenal increase in farm income assurance. I suppose in this

whole budget probably the biggest increase in any

section of

the provincial budget, $27 million, has meant a fantastic boost

to the farmers in my area. The largest swine farm in British

Columbia is up behind Mission. Certainly the dairy farmers....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): All those

rich farmers.

MR. ROLSTON: All those rich farmers? You know, I hear

lawyers are $60 an hour. I've never heard of a lawyer going

cheaper than $60 an hour.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: $60. Well, when they go around looking for

legal services, I hear that.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. ROLSTON: Anyway, I've yet to meet the swine farmer that

makes $60 an hour.

But this is a phenomenal increase, Mr. Chairman. I think it

really has meant stability to the agriculture people in the

Fraser Valley and, I believe, to the rest of the province as

well.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, the item under

this vote I'd like to refer to appears in both sections as

agricultural credit and farm credit. I hope to make an appeal

to the Minister. I'm sorry to see the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) didn't sit in his seat,

because he's been involved in this problem I've had over

agricultural credit for the last year or so.

When the agriculture committee was travelling, we did

receive some briefs from a group of food producers in the

province who so far are not covered under any of our

agricultural programmes, mainly the agricultural credit system.

I'm speaking now of the fish farmers in the province. They are

a small group. The biggest one is in Mission, but they'll be

having some close competition from the Kamloops riding pretty

soon, Mr. Member, because the industry is growing. It has grown

a tremendous amount in the United States and in other parts of

Canada and is now on the upgrade in British Columbia. But to be

a successful operation they do have to have the same type of

credit that other types of food producers enjoy.

It was my understanding that when the farm credit Act was brought in it was

to be for, in general, any purpose, any good purpose that led to the production

of more food. Fish is recognized as a good source of protein. But we find that

when we try to get assistance for this group of food producers in the province

under the Agricultural Credit Act they are not covered by the Department of

Agriculture because they are not considered farmers at the present time. The

Department of Recreation and Conservation are the people that this group comes

under with their fisheries branch. Yet the fisheries branch has no money to

make them any loans. If it came under the Department of Agriculture, the Agriculture

department does not have any fish biologists to go out and inspect the operations.

Therefore it still sits in limbo between the Department of Agriculture and the

Department of Recreation and Conservation. It is in with Recreation and Conservation,

who have no funds to assist them.

Now it can be said by some people that if someone is raising

fish they're really not farmers. But I'd kind of question the

definition of a farmer now because the traditional description

of a farmer simply doesn't exist any more.

We visited one place with the agriculture committee in the

Okanagan where a man with only 20 acres produced over a million

pounds of milk a year. He bought all the feed, put it through

the cattle and simply had enough land to get rid of the manure.

This to me isn't the traditional type of dairy farm. I think

I'd put the egg producers in the same classification. While it

was part of a farm operation, it has now become very

specialized. You buy birds, you buy feed, put the feed through

the birds and take the eggs away. That to me is no more of a

farmer than a fish farmer. It certainly doesn't produce a

higher quality of protein.

I think this is a new industry, Mr. Minister; it is a new

industry that needs assistance and deserves assistance. They

are not asking for something for nothing — simply the same

treatment under the Agricultural Credit Act that other food

producers get.

I would suggest to you tonight that if the two Ministries

could get together, you could extend the benefits of the farm

Agricultural Credit Act to these food producers and use the

services of the biologist with the Fish and Game department to

do an inspection of the premises for your people and make a

report on whether it is a good operation or not and worthy of

the extension of credit or not. As I said before, I realize

they are a small group, but they are growing. Certainly if we

can encourage them, we will find that we will be able to have

not only trout but various other kinds of excellent fish

protein food on the tables at a reasonable price in British

Columbia. That will help the consumers and certainly help

establish another industry with the spin-offs of supply to this

industry that inevitably occur.

[ Page 2196 ]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, there are some questions

being asked by the milk producers regarding the farm income assurance programme,

which programme they welcomed when it first arrived on the scene. I think some

98 per cent of the producers in my area subscribed to the farm income assurance

plan as it affects milk producers. However, after one year's operation they

were faced with some severe cutbacks, and the question they are asking is: why

was the cutback necessary? Perhaps they have some suggestions through their

Member as to how these setbacks would needed to have been experienced. For instance,

for the information of those Members in the House who are not aware how the

farm income assurance programme works, it works like an insurance programme

where there is a premium paid, but in the instance of the milk producers there

is a breakdown of the premium. It is broken into three parts: a third share

is picked up by increased prices to the consumer; one-third. of it is picked

up by the farmer himself; and one-third is picked up by the government, as I

understand. This was as given to me by the milk producers.

The share paid by the farmer was 20 cents per unit, per cwt.

Now that has been increased in this second year, as my

information is, to 30 cents. However, the cost itself, that is

the premium itself, is not allowed in the actual cost of

production. As a result it affects the computation of the

amount of assurance that is incoming. Not only is that item not

allowed but apparently some maintenance costs are no longer

deductible and, as a result, they affect the amount of

assurance that is collectible.

Cost of equipment — specialized equipment such as haymaking

equipment — is not being considered, so say the milk producers.

The computation is based on a dry lot or a constant-feed basis

where the base price is some $88 per ton for hay, and some $130

a ton for grain. As a result, there is not an allowance for the

cost of equipment that the farmer has standing by for

production of grain or hay. As a result, in our area, the

reduction has been, as the Minister knows, an average of some

$200 per month.

It may well be argued that the assurance programme was

offering too great an income during its first year of

operation. It could be argued. However, the farmers did sign a

five-year agreement and began to make some of their financial

commitments on the basis of their experienced income. Now after

a year's operation they are going to have these cutbacks which

are going to affect them in some of their commitments. I am

hoping that the Minister has given this his greatest

consideration.

The question which automatically comes to the ones who are caught in the pinch

is that they signed a five-year agreement, and now the sponsor of the programme,

the provincial government itself, seems to be reneging on the programme. They

want to know whether or not they are held to their full five-year programme.

Or can they opt out now that programme is no longer what they expected it to

be?

Then the second question is: how does the plan affect

production? The Minister is also aware that there are

production pressures other than just the local quotas. There is

also a federal market share-quota which they refer to as the

MSQ. If production exceeds the federal market share-quota, my

information is that there is $1.50 per cwt, which is levied as

almost a fine for overproduction. The farmers say that the only

way they can overcome this is by producing even more milk. So

from the department we have a letter in March which says that

the plant facilities are no longer capable of handling the

production.

The farmers gave me these statistics that the January, 1975,

production, as a result of the pressures of these quotas, was

already higher than the June, 1974, production, and the June

production is the natural peak of milk production in the dairy

business. If that is true, given the same herds, given the same

production fluctuations, what will the production be this June?

How does the Minister presume to handle the great production

that has been forced by the farmers trying to recoup losses

because of that $1.50 they are losing on the price of their

milk because of the MSQ?

There was a further question as to the quota-building

programme, and that was that a quota-building programme is

established at 25 per cent of 120 per cent production in any

six months. But the six months break happens to come on July 1,

and if they start before July 1, apparently they can start

building their quota as of July 1, and this again ensures only

overproduction.

The farmers have some questions and suggested I ask the

questions in the House, and perhaps the Minister can

explain.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) asked questions about the beef income assurance plan. I

know that to him, representing a constituency where there are

quite a number of beef producers, it seems as though the

discussions have been going on for a very long time. But

relatively they have not.

For example, in the case of the greenhouse cucumber and

tomato growers, the discussions have been going on since

February, 1974. Some of these programmes, depending on the

nature of the programme and the nature of the commodity under

review, do take a long time. I hope tomorrow to be able to

announce that the tomato and cucumber one is in place,

depending on final deliberations. I hope to be able to announce

that one.

[ Page 2197 ]

Another discussion that has been going on for a very long

time is with the broiler hatching-egg income assurance

programme.

The beef has actually not been going on very long compared

to some of these others. Moreover, it is a very big one, so it

is taking a great deal of time and we are taking a great deal

of care with it. Nevertheless, I expect to be able to announce,

within the next two weeks, that we have reached agreement.

There have been discussions going on and figures were

bandied about between my staff and the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture committee. Some of the figures are very high. I did

get involved in the discussions myself. A proposal was made to

the cattlemen last week which they are now considering. It is

not a final position on our part; neither is it on theirs. It

is meant to be a negotiating one. But I think the areas of

disagreement now are so fine I would expect within two weeks to

be able to announce agreement on the beef income assurance

programme.

The property south of Prince George; I know of one area in

the vicinity of Prince George that was acquired for a community

pasture area. You must be thinking of another one. This one was

a very large ranch that was purchased for a community pasture

area, and the advertisements were to the people who wanted to

make use of that community pasture, advising them to form an

association and that management of the community pasture would

be turned over to the cattlemen using this particular pasture.

If that is the one you are thinking of, then it will be managed

as a community pasture and there will be local control. If

there is another property...it's just possible that a smaller

place has been purchased. If you can find out something in more

detail, I would be quite pleased to look into that.

The Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) was asking about

the world food relief vote. I think it is worth recalling to

ourselves that the previous Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) of this

province quite a number of years ago set up a programme and

called it the Premier's Fund for World Relief, I believe, and

invited participation from the community. I think it is not to

the credit of the people of British Columbia that in something

like five years the government fund, at the invitation of the

Premier, was matched to the extent of something like $1,000.

That's all that the people of British Columbia were prepared to

put in, at the previous Premier's invitation, to this capital

fund for world food relieve.

I think now there is more of an awareness in the community of the need for

this kind of a programme. Certainly the correspondence I have had would indicate

that people generally are much more ready to become involved in this kind of

a programme. In including it in estimates as an amount of money that will be

spent rather than a fund that will be accumulated and only the interest spent,

we're hoping that the total community will become very interested in the programme

and that they will be prepared to match the government grant to the extent of

$4 million, which would provide a total of $8 million, on top of the other $1

million in this vote.

So of the figure of $5 million, then $1 million would be

spent unconditionally, with $4 million available for matching,

and the emphasis, as the Hon. Member for Dewdney suggested,

will be on trying to assist nations to develop their own food

resources and techniques. We might even in this programme use

staff from the Department of Agriculture to help work out some

of our programmes.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Certainly it is a much expanded programme over the previous

one, which was dependent upon the interest only on a $5 million

fund. We are getting suggestions from the community, and an

interdepartmental committee is working on it. We hope soon to

have a preliminary draft of regulations.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) is pursuing

his quest for a fish farm under the Agricultural Credit Act.

Certainly it is food.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture in their 1971 convention.... Oh, no, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, the

House committee, recommended that the name of the department be

changed to "Food and Agriculture." Then we would be properly

involved in fish farming.

The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) is making

certain in his own way, both privately and publicly on the

floor of the House, that the Hon. Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and myself do get together to make

whatever changes are necessary for us to be able to assist the

people who are producing food, as he suggested in his

remarks.

The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) asked about

the dairy income assurance programme. Some pluses, some

minuses. As he said, increases in milk production. I have a

clipping here from Country Life , March, 1975, on the

annual meeting of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers. At that

time they were pleased to note that there was an increase in

milk production of nearly 5 per cent. It has been much more

now, as you say in your remarks; the increase has been much

more notable since then.

I'd say that if it had not been for the income assurance

plan that was made available to dairy farmers in December of

1973, if not by last winter then certainly by next winter

consumers would not have been asking how much the price of a

quart of milk was but where they could get a quart of milk. We

were running dangerously....

[ Page 2198 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: There is now. But at that time, when we

brought in that plan, milk production was dropping even in B.C.

Everywhere else in Canada and everywhere else on the continent,

even in B.C., the indications were that milk production was

going to drop. So the farm income assurance programme as

applied to the dairy industry did reverse that trend in the

Province of British Columbia and we do now have a surplus.

Facilities owned by the Fraser Valley Milk Producers for

processing milk that have been unused for some time — almost

never — are now in use. As you say, there is this question not

of worrying now about where we're going find milk but what

we're going to do with milk. The surplus is not a serious

question yet but there are some questions about it.

With respect to the premiums on the income assurance, your

information isn't quite correct. It's not a third, a third, a

third. The price that the consumer pays is really determined by

the Milk Board when it sets the price that the producer gets in

accordance with the formula. The price to the consumer then

varies as does that old historic formula. The premium is paid

two-thirds by the government and one-third by the producers. In

the case of the dairy income assurance plan, it was different

from all of the other plans in that the premium was considered

as one of the costs of production, so the farmers really didn't

pay the premium out of their own pocket. In that one way in

particular, the dairy income assurance plan was out of step

with the other plans.

In discussions with the central committee of the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture, we expressed our concern about this,

our desire to bring all of the plans into step with each other.

We had the agreement of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's

central bargaining committee that this was a desirable

goal.

We met with them and discussed a couple of other issues, one

of them being the rate allowed for farm labour — that is, the

operator's own labour which initially was $4. We agreed that in

the period of 15 months running from January of 1975 to March

of 1976, the rate will progressively move from $4 to $6 an hour

for the operator labour. It perhaps falls far short of what

people are getting in other industries but, nevertheless, was

an important increase.

At the time the discussion was that when we brought this in and agreed that

everybody would get it, not just the dairymen, we would also bring all the plans

into step in that the dairymen would pay the premium rather than having it added

on, as has been the case in the past. However, I communicated this to the dairy

committee rather than leaving it to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture's central

committee to do the work for me, if you like, to take the responsibility off

my hands. I was chastised by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture central bargaining

committee for taking this on myself but was supported by the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture in this action. So they liked the results; they feel that I should

have let them carry the ball rather than doing it myself.

The maintenance again is an adjustment that brings the dairy

programme in line with all the others. The allowance for

maintenance has been cut back to bring it in line with the

others.

The MSQ? That is a federal quota. For any income assurance

plan there must be some production supply management. We have

supply management for the No. I milk, the fluid milk, through

our own provincially controlled quota system. You made

reference to that as well. The federal has supply management

for the industrial milk, the milk that has been manufactured

for powdered milk, cottage cheese, butter and all of those

products. They have their supply management programme. There is

a quota that is allocated to the whole of British Columbia that

is divided among the producers in British Columbia and

controlled by our Milk Board.

If a producer is determined to produce not only his

provincial quota but also to produce this total amount of

allocated MSQ, the federal quota, and to produce more besides,

what we have said is that we will not pick up what the federal

government deducts from you for producing over the quota. You

may do it if you choose, but the producer who produces within

this provincial quota, plus his MSQ, is the one that is

managing his enterprise in the best way, I feel, and certainly

making less problems in total because he's operating within the

total quota.

As far as quota building is concerned, the formula is

changed from time to time because the No. 1 quota depends upon

the consumption of fluid milk. What months are used, the

formula, the number of years that it takes to build it: all of

these things are adjusted to try to make the No. 1 quota come

as close as we can to the actual consumption of fluid milk.

MR. SCHROEDER: I am sure the Minister must have been aware,

though, that in his computation the end result was going to be

a smaller income for the individual farmer. Was the motivation

to renegotiate the whole plan established by the conclusion

that the Minister had made that the farmers were already

gaining too much? Was that the idea? Was it deemed necessary to

renegotiate the entire plan so as to put the dairy producer

more in step with other producers, or was the fact that the

milk plan was taking more dollars out of general revenue than

had been anticipated...? As you know, Mr. Minister, it was at

first anticipated that the plan would cost between $7

[ Page 2199 ]

million and $9 million, and it ended up costing more like

$13 million or $14 million. I don't know whether the figures

are complete and totally tabulated as yet, but I notice that

the programme for the next year is some $27 million.

Is the Minister satisfied that the dairy producer, under the

renegotiated plan, is making an adequate income, even though

it's $200 per month less than it was the previous year; that

costs to the farmer have increased, even over this past year?

Does the Minister not realize that he is putting the farmer in

some kind of a bind? The farmer has to recoup his losses. He

has to at least make enough income to cover his commitments

that he has made on the basis of what he believed was a

five-year contract. Is the Minister satisfied that we can put

this added pressure on to a commodity group that has been

suffering — admittedly suffering — over the past few years; that

we see now scurrying about over-producing, trying to find some

way to make both ends meet, hoping that in the next year this

contract can be renegotiated again and that their income can be

brought up to something like the same level as it was over the

last year?

Surely the Minister must be aware of these pressures that

have been brought to bear. Can he give us any assurance that

next year these will be renegotiated again to a more

satisfactory level?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, of course, there's always pressure,

but the prime pressure, I think, the thing that was concerning

me more than the amount of dollars involved, was the question

of bringing the programme into step with the other three

programmes that were in place at that time — not because it was

one of four, but because we had another seven applications in.

So instead of being one out of step of a group of four, it

would be one out of step out of a group of 11.

If we were imposing this one change without making any other

adjustments, then even that might have not been reason enough

to go ahead at that time. However, since we were timing it with

the increase in labour rates in discussion with the central

bargaining committee of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture,

there was agreement reached that this could be done. It wasn't

done in a heavy-handed way or by one side only. Certainly we

pressed our point of view. We did get their support and the

president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture supported what

we were doing at this annual meeting of the Fraser Valley Milk

Producers. I wasn't there, but I heard very good reports about

the way he supported this move.

So I think the dairymen understand it, and the dairymen accept it. Certainly,

I have had no reactions from any individual dairymen against it. I've had questions.

I've answered the questions. But they haven't really been questions that were

attacking the programme at all. They like the programme. They're quite prepared

to continue to participate in it. The fact that the labour rate went up seemed

to be enough to satisfy them that we were dealing fairly with agriculture in

total. I think they liked the idea that the whole of the agricultural industry

was being treated on a fair basis, as compared to each other.

MR. SCHROEDER: Just this one short follow-up, and that is

that perhaps the reason why you haven't heard from individual

farmers is that they were together. The chairman of the

meeting, a Mr. Reynolds by name, told some 350 people who were

present not to make any waves because if they did perhaps they

would lose negotiating strength with the government. As a

result, this is likely why you haven't heard from individual

farmers. You'll likely hear from them as a group.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

follow up the comments made by the Minister about world relief.

After the throne speech there was a substantial amount — I

don't know if other MLAs received the correspondence — but

quite a few people wrote to me expressing a very approving

feeling that the government was taking some initiative; but

tonight I am a little stunned. I hope I didn't hear correctly.

But I gather that the $5 million figure is $1 million for sure

and $4 million if that $4 million is matched from other

sources.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As it is matched. We wouldn't wait to get

$4 million before we put any of the $4 million in; as it is

matched, on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the question I want to get very clear in

my mind at this late hour in the evening is: if it isn't

matched, what does the government do with the $4 million that

it was prepared to match? I think if, in fact, the rather

miserable record of public response which the Minister referred

to in previous years is unfortunately the experience we have

now, I presume that that government $4 million will not be made

available.

I don't wish to be unduly harsh on the government that

apparently decided on that one-four formula for various reasons

presumably. But I would have to say that out of a $3.2 billion

budget this province has, and we've destroyed 26 million eggs

and we've got God knows how many turkeys in cold storage, I

just have to repeat the rather pathetic plea which has never

had a satisfactory answer, not just in this province but in

Canada: how is it that our world relief cannot be more

effective by making surpluses available to foreign countries

without in any way endangering the stable economy of the

[ Page 2200 ]

producer? It just seems to me that when we can have world

banks to try and prevent the world from getting into a

financial slump like 1929 and we've got all kinds of

complicated formulas in a vast number of areas of human

endeavour and we've got technology that stuns the average

individual, the man in the street, it just leaves me completely

puzzled that apparently we can produce various surpluses,

sometimes by accident, but even then we destroy the eggs or we

kill the calves or we put the turkeys in cold storage.

I just wonder about two things: first of all, are we not

being really cheap to come forward with a throne speech which

suggests initiatives in the area of world relief, and really we

might finish up providing one miserable million dollars out of

a $3.2 billion budget? That's point No. 1.

As an aside to that, I wondered if we were to have specific

legislation to cover this expenditure or are we simply

approving that expenditure in this vote without any specific

legislation spelling out the mechanism by which the money will

be spent? The Minister did mention that there is much more

mileage out of the dollar if we make it available to countries

in need to promote their own agricultural efficiency. I agree

with that entirely. But, of course, there are countries in the

world where millions of people are starving. To tell them that

if they just hang on for a year or two we'll teach them how to

produce their own food is not much help if they are dead six

weeks from now. That's part of the question.

For the second part of the question take eggs for an

example. During the war I know that we survived in the United

Kingdom because of egg powder. It didn't taste very good but it

was calories and it was very much appreciated. I wonder, for

example, if there is any world relief programme that we could

contribute to when we have a surplus of eggs. We could make the

eggs available either in this country to be converted to powder

and sent as powder or at least find some mechanism to use the

eggs so somebody could eat the eggs.

It just seems incredible to me that in such a highly

sophisticated world that we claim to be living in, certainly in

the western world, and we talk about the trials and

tribulations of the Third World, we somehow destroy 26 million

eggs or whatever it was.

I'm not trying to be smart and criticize the marketing boards or CEMA or anybody

else. I'm just saying in a non-partisan way that surely there has to be some

way, if we're serious in our intentions about world food relief, that this kind

of thing shouldn't happen, regardless of which government is in in this province

or in Ontario or in Ottawa or anywhere else. I just feel that in debating world

food relief, we have tended to think purely in terms of dollars and in the formula

that might or might not be used to determine how many dollars we will make available.

I am much more concerned that it's a combination of both dollars and some more

judicious use of surpluses, which perhaps sometimes are unpredictable.

I've heard so many times in this session of the Legislature

in different parts of different debates the tremendously

difficult problem it is to have orderly marketing. By orderly

marketing we mean the right amount of product and the right

kind of return to the producer and a fair deal to the consumer.

That seems to be like chasing the Holy Grail. You just never

really get it and it's something beyond our reach. But one of

the side effects is surpluses. I just feel very unhappy that in

talking about world food relief we just seem to be talking

about dollars. I think the real challenge is to convert these

dollars more effectively into the judicious use of surpluses we

seem to have all around us. I wonder if the Minister could

perhaps clarify my confusion.

HON. MR. STUPICH: With respect to the $4 million, I'm not

concerned about the hypothetical question that perhaps the

community won't raise this. I'm quite satisfied that the

community will. The community right now in the Province of

British Columbia is probably raising that amount and even

more.

It is just a matter of tying in the projects that are

currently going in the community with a programme that the

provincial government is prepared to be identified with. I

think this is part of it: getting the publicity as this money

is raised to make the whole community aware of what is going on

and to make the whole community feel that it is aware of the

total programme and the good it is doing.

Beyond that, to the extent that we raise money in the

province by putting in provincial government revenues and

getting the communities to match it, it is likely then that we

can get the federal government to match our total

contributions, which multiplies the dollars available for the

total programme again.

I think the suggestion of the $4 million that would be

something that would be available and would be matched will

simply give more publicity to the total programme and will mean

more money under this programme, under the federal government,

and probably will mean even more money than that, because the

organizations out in the community are not likely to stop on

the day they reach their target as part of this $4 million. I

am hoping that this will be, by the time we get through the

year, a very large and very worthwhile programme.

With respect to surpluses, I don't think you really meant

that. The Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) on an earlier

vote was talking about the surpluses that we currently have on

some agricultural products, and blamed the marketing boards to

some extent. I agree with him. The marketing boards are here to work for supply management. Whenever we

[ Page 2201 ]

have a surplus that is an embarrassing surplus — and

certainly the 18 million eggs that were destroyed was a surplus

that reached embarrassing proportions — we should not look on

this particular programme as a way of bailing ourselves out of

something that has happened because somebody has mismanaged

something in the community. Certainly the previous programme of

world food relief was used in some cases for emergency food

programmes, and the new programme will as well. But we don't

want to plan to raise money so that when we happen to have

overproduced something — that is overproduced to the extent

that the marketing board have not done their job properly — we

don't want to plan a financial programme that will bail

ourselves out of conditions like that and encourage these sorts

of things to happen. I'm sure you weren't thinking of that.

MR. WALLACE: No, I didn't mean that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Certainly it will be used for emergency

food programmes, but the emphasis will still be on helping

those nations that need it to develop their own food

supplies.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I would like, too,

to comment on the aid programme. I am very much concerned, as

is the Member for Oak Bay, about how the aid programme is going

to be carried out. I am pleased to hear the Minister suggest

that there will be a very large community input. I think this

is very important to develop that kind of emphasis in the

community so people really feel they are part of this programme

and are able to participate in it thoroughly. I think that the

community will be able to come forward and raise the $4 million

to match our money. Then we could get the funds from the

federal government. But I am hopeful that if they aren't able

to, we will be able to keep any additional of the $4 million

over for next year so that the money would still be available

when it was matched by the community at large.

I would like, however, to comment on one aspect of it, and

this is that this grant, as I understand it, is not to have any

strings attached. I hope that this will be borne out by the

Minister, because in Alberta and other areas aid programmes

have had little riders in them that the aid must have so much

machinery or so much agricultural produce from Alberta. I am

hoping that this won't be the case with this aid project from

B.C. — that, in effect, we will sponsor redevelopment projects

initiated from within the receiving countries and would try to

say: okay, we are selling so much of B.C. produce, and that's a

rider in it. I don't think this is the case, and I hope that it

will not be.

The main thing that I wanted to get up tonight to question the Minister on

is the status in my own riding and in Delta Riding of the request from the B.C.

Coast Vegetable Co-op for a grant and assistance from the government in building

a plant for manufacturing potato chips.

On December 23 of last year, the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) and I met with the farmers from Delta and Richmond and

the lower Fraser Valley area who grow potatoes for chips. When

they outlined a programme to help gain them some economic

independence in the processing of potatoes, they also felt that

if they could build this potato chipping plant, they eventually

could encourage a number of secondary agricultural industries

to relocate along with them. They were looking into sites in

the Delta area whereby eventually the waste materials from the

processing of potatoes could be fed to beef cattle; then the

waste material from the beef cattle could be returned to the

land in fertilizers. Then, of course, you would be totally

recycling your agricultural production because the fertilized

fields would then produce more potatoes and so on. You get a

complete cycle without any waste materials going into the

river.

I think it is a very good idea. However, the plant is going

to cost them about $9 million to get off the ground. I

understand they have asked for assistance. One of the reasons

they need this assistance — and they are looking for

independence — is because right now, under the vertically

integrated agricultural industry, under agribusiness, if you

don't have a contract to grow potato chipping potatoes, while

it is not too bad in B.C. yet, in other parts of Canada some

monopolies have taken over the potato chipping industry and the

farmers are tied to whatever they can get from them.

I'll give you an example of what has happened recently in

New Brunswick. McCain's Foods, which does potato chipping

there and is also a major chip manufacturer in B.C., has a

virtual monopoly in New Brunswick. Recently they offered the

farmers $2.40 a cwt for chipping potatoes when, to break even,

they needed $3.00 a cwt.

Not only that, but with 350,000 tons of potatoes in storage

as of February 1 of this year, they were actually importing

potatoes — first 11,000 tons October 9 last year and later

8,000 tons January 31 this year. The local farmers were told

not to bother bringing their potatoes into the factory while

the American potatoes were coming in. So when I talk about

vertical integration, this is what the farmers are faced

with.

The farmers in B.C. who are producing potatoes in the Fraser

Valley are much concerned that they want to be able to be

independent and they want to be able to go on producing

chipping potatoes. They feel there is a greater market

available than what is being provided for at the present time.

I know that they have been making some market analysis to see

if they can get into the business. They feel they can. I

[ Page 2202 ]

think the Minister was going to look into this and see what

market was available. So I would like to know exactly what the

status is at the present time, how we are making out in

encouraging the co-op to get started with the processing of

potatoes in the Fraser Valley.

MRS. JORDAN: Entering this part of the debate later than the

other speakers, I certainly would like to reaffirm our interest

and confidence in world food relief. I don't want to be

repetitive in terms of what other Members have said, because I

think we all feel very deeply, as I am sure most British

Columbians do, even if they don't act on it all the time, of

the need in this day and age to solve this problem of

international bureaucracy and political walls that have to be

broken down in order to get food from a country that is

overproducing into the hands of the people who need it.

I am sure the Minister is concerned. I would suggest that it

has to be a paramount thought of every Agriculture Minister in

Canada, and in the States as well, that in this day and age

when we can put people on the moon, when we can accomplish all

sorts of miracles, surely we can find a way to put

overproduction of food in one country into the hands of those

who are starving to death in another country.

It always amazes me that with this type of barrier, in terms

of political barriers and in terms of transportation barriers,

more hasn't been done by all wealthy countries to break them

down. I think when we see a world food conference...and I

don't wish to be unduly critical, but when we see them sitting

around gourmet meals discussing this problem and yielding to

political pressures, I think our priorities are in the wrong

place.

I would hope that the day would come when in British

Columbia, for example, we are encouraging more and more

production in basic food commodities — milk, meat, eggs —

simply because we have been able to break down the barriers

that exist now between the lands of plenty and the lands of

nothing. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I could bring to this

Minister's attention anything in relation to his remarks on

this World Relief Fund that I would first be most disturbed if

the words of the Member for Mission and Haney were taken too

seriously. I would hate to see a great deal of this fund spent

on advertising. This party would like to feel this $5 million

is being transferred into food for people, not into advertising

and promotional programmes. While we certainly appreciate the

Minister's multiplicity factor in terms of getting public funds

and federal funds, let's not let the mechanics of multiplicity

defeat and overshadow the needs of these people — Biafra, for

example.

Mr. Minister, when this programme was announced in the budget — and it has

been in existence for some time and the Minister spoke in this debate in glowing

terms about it — I feel most concerned that there have been no real regulations

laid down. I am sure other MLAs are. I certainly am getting a lot of correspondence

from church groups and interested citizens who want to get on with the job and

they are being stymied at this time by the Minister's own department because

there appears to be a lack of co-ordination in terms of bringing into effect

this programme. They need application forms, Mr. Minister; they need direction

now. How can they meet your criteria? How can they take the money they have

in their hands now and put it into food for people today? — not next month or

six months or eight months from now. I certainly don't expect the Minister to

work miracles, but I do believe, knowing what was going on, that the Minister

should have had directions available for people so that they can know what to

do.

When I think back to the war, as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) did in terms of eggs, there was an experiment done in

the Okanagan of compressing apples. They turned out to be very,

very fine sheets of compressed apples that had excellent

keeping qualities, were highly nutritious, could be transported

in bulk and could be distributed very easily. I wonder if this

isn't an area we should be investigating for the future. I also

wonder if the Minister would advise the House of what research

is going on in British Columbia, along or jointly with the

federal government, as to foods that could be rendered easily

transportable to these countries.

I'd like to mention the income assurance programme for a

moment in relation to my colleague's comments and the

Minister's comments to suggest that one of the concerns of the

producer is that there has been a shifting of ground rules in

these negotiations.

The Minister mentioned that it seemed very long and,

indeed, that's very true. In the cattlemen's association, for

example, the Minister's department was phoning bankers around

the province to extend credit to producers. The producers were

borrowing money on the strength of the fact that the department

had indicated the money would be available. At that time the

amount available appeared to be common knowledge and the banks

loaned this money on this basis.

In the meantime, the producers were compounding their debt

loads in light of the difficult market conditions and also in

light of the fact that the Minister was indicating that there

would be assistance coming and that they shouldn't be trying to

push their cattle on to the market.

Indeed, there were negotiations and it was understood that

the two negotiating groups, the cattlemen's negotiating group

from the association

[ Page 2203 ]

and the government negotiating group, had almost come

together with one or two minor differences as to whether the

1974 plan should be paid on the basis of heads to market or

pounds.

Mr. Minister, the shock came on Friday, April 11 in

Vancouver. The Deputy Minister made it very clear to the

negotiating committee from the cattlemen's association that the

ground rules for the whole negotiations would be changed and

that there would not be the amount of money for 1974 available

that had been initially indicated. If I am correct, I

understand that some of the changes that were to be made and

were indicated at that time would be that there was no

management fee, no return on investment and no cost of labour

for 1974 under the income assurance programme.

What concerned them was that the negotiations had been

taking place on the basis of the government's own formula and

that this change was a very direct change in the formula. I'm

not speaking of the change in the model because I think this is

something that hasn't really been of too much concern. But the

whole formula was changed and it was changed without mutual

consent of the two parties.

This brings to light another concern. When the original

agreement was signed by the commodity groups or signed by the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture on behalf of the commodity

groups, they and the commodity groups understood that there

could be no major changes in the agreement without mutual

consent. It was during the prolonged periods of negotiation

that it became evident that they had misunderstood and that the

Minister did take upon himself the prerogative of changing

basic ground rules and basic concepts of the agreement without

mutual consent. This concerned them.

Now, Mr. Minister, much to everyone's delight, just two

weeks ago now, I believe it is, all of a sudden the whole set

of ground rules changed again. As I say, the producers came out

absolutely delighted because the negotiating picture is back to

the original amount, approximately $22 million for 1974 and

1975. But they are quite stunned by this, and everyone wants to

know why the Minister delayed the negotiations, why orders were

given and acted upon to completely change the ground rules.

This put the producers to tremendous anxiety. The negotiating

committees had a great deal of difficulty in explaining the

situation to their own Members, and then all of a sudden the

Minister has switched back again. As I say, I am very pleased

he has, but there have been so many conflicting statements in

these negotiations made by the Minister — for example, in

Keremeos — which didn't gybe with statements made in Victoria. It

has been this soft-shoe shuffle that has concerned them.

My colleague mentioned the situation with the milk producers were the programme

was really very rich to begin with and is now being cut back. Our party certainly

believes that there should be equity with all commodity groups. But, again,

the producers are asking if that was just a carrot to get everyone to accept

this programme. When are the ground rules going to be changed again? The producers

believe they are entering into a five-year contract with room for certain negotiations

by mutual consent. They are very concerned as to what the Minister's next step

is going to be.

I think the Minister could make clear to this House tonight

why there developed such a negative attitude with so many

conflicting statements, and all of a sudden again the coffers

were full. It would appear that there is going to be the money

needed to meet the original commitment to the producers.

I have specific questions on income assurance. I would ask

the Minister: what is the deficit position of these funds for

the fruit growers for 1973? Will there be an excess for 1974?

Will that balance the deficit for 1973? What does he believe is

his estimate for income assurance for the year 1974?

Is the Minister relying on any benefits from the federal

government to help meet the overall commitment?

Could the Minister advise the House whether income assurance

will affect the eligibility of hog producers and dairy

producers in British Columbia for any support programmes

brought in by the federal government? I understand that the

Minister had predicated — and I mentioned this in one of my

earlier presentations on this subject — some of the meeting of

the commitment of an overall programme to, for example, cattle

producers on the federal government bringing in a beef support

programme. This is, I understand, not to take place. Even if it

did take place, British Columbia producers would be ineligible

because of the income assurance programme, if they accept it.

So would the Minister advise if he anticipates a shortfall over

the next 1974-75 fiscal year for income assurance, and what

that shortfall will be on the basis of his overall present

estimates?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Richmond

(Mr. Steves) asked about the food aid programme and whether or

not there would be the sort of strings on it that other

provinces have seen fit to place — that is, that they must use

produce grown in that province and must use equipment

manufactured in that province. The programme previously has run

without any strings. I anticipate no change in that respect.

There will be no such strings on the B.C. programme, not as....

MR. WALLACE: Legislation?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, it's not legislation. We

[ Page 2204 ]

are voting on it; as we pass this vote, we pass that $5

million. The regulations, as I said, are currently being drawn

up and are being discussed with the various groups that have

cooperated with us in the past — CUSO, for example, and

organizations that have come to us with projects which in

the past have been funded out of the interest from the $5

million perpetual fund that was there previously. These same

groups have been coming to our department and making their

suggestions as to how they feel the new regulations should be

drafted and how they might best fit into it.

I appreciate the concern the Hon. Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) has that the regulations are not ready yet. I

know this is a problem. However, I will be quite frank now and

say that it was not intended, when we first thought of

increasing the amount of money for this programme, that there

would be something in estimates.

The pressure on us in correspondence late in 1974 and early

in 1975, almost right up until the time budget went to print,

was for an increase in the perpetual funds. The figures

suggested each time in most of these letters was that we double

the perpetual fund, from $5 million up to $10 million, which

would have meant, instead of having something like $400,000

available annually, that we would have $800,000 available

annually. That was the suggestion we were getting from all

sides.

It was almost at the last moment that the Premier and

Minister of Finance, in looking at the volume of correspondence

we were getting and measuring the public opinion on this, felt

that perhaps the public would be prepared to do something much

more bold than simply add to that perpetual fund, and would be

prepared to participate in a programme such as this. There was

no preliminary work done on this. It was almost a last-minute

decision to do something much more than was anticipated up

until that time. So, sorry the regulations aren't ready. They

are not ready in part because we didn't start soon enough,

because of a last-minute decision, and in part because we are

getting information and advice from Members in the House and

from people outside in the community who are talking to us and

who want to get their ideas into this programme.

With respect to the facility being planned by the Lower Mainland Vegetable

Marketing Board, it was an exciting prospect and one that I would like to have

supported. It called for production of something like 50,000 tons of potatoes

for potato chips, which was just about three times what my marketing branch

could see being sold in the Province of British Columbia. We weren't quite ready.

We had to make the decision within days, I think something like 10 days, when

it was first presented to us. We had to approve the project and get it rolling

right away because it was time to order their seed. We just weren't ready to

commit in total $11 million in investment in this plant on such short notice.

We are working now with various farmer groups trying to get

them all together in one project rather than having several

trying to get the Lower Mainland Vegetable Marketing Board

working with the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board, working

with the Cloverdale Lettuce Co-op, working with the Lower

Mainland Farmers Co-op — all of these into one plan. That way

we think we can get going, hopefully, by next spring.

With respect to the advertising and publicity for the world

food programme, when I was thinking of publicity — and I think

this is one place where we might count upon the news media —

what I meant was news releases rather than advertising such a

programme. I think if we are able to announce through a news

release from time to time the extent to which the community is

participating in this programme, that is really all the

publicity we will need. I am hoping that there won't by any

money spent on advertising this particular programme.

The beef income assurance plan. From the beginning, the

amount of money available, within the context of the money that

we are considering right now, $27 million for income assurance,

was from $7 million to $8 million. That amount has never

changed in these figures before us. That was always the amount

I had in mind with respect to the beef income assurance

plan.

Many calculations were made as to how that amount might be

spent to best advantage to assist the beef producers in a

meaningful income assurance plan rather than a straight subsidy

or straight assistance programme. Many proposals were made by

both sides. Positions were taken by both sides from time to

time. Positions were changed during the course of negotiations

which are still going on. I make no apologies for any positions

that were changed by anyone in my department. I think the

cattlemen on their part would not apologize or try to explain

any of the various positions that they took. We have been

negotiating, and it's been hard negotiation, trying to make

that figure fit a programme that we can live with from then on.

I think we're very close to agreeing on a programme that both

parties will feel is a good programme for the industry.

The deficit for the fruit industry for 1973 covered only apples. The Member

put a question on the order paper and received an answer. I believe something

in excess of $2.8 million was the total cost to the government of the apple

income assurance programme. We don't have the figures yet because apples are

still being sold. We don't know what the price will be; we can't work it out.

As far as the soft fruits are concerned that have been completed — the pears

aren't yet — they are in a break-even position. The apples, we are optimistic,

will be very close to a

[ Page

2205 ]

break-even position for the 1974 crop.

I believe that answers all the questions that were

asked.

MR. PHILLIPS: With regard to the $100,000 for tax payments

of lease lands, is this going to cover all of the land that the

Land Commission owns, whether it's leased or whether you

haven't got it leased out? And on what basis will these taxes

be paid to various communities?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I guess the government policy over

the years has been and still is that the amount paid will be

comparable to the local tax situation. But we're not leaving

ourselves open to special assessments that we're afraid some

taxing authorities might place on us. So if we feel the tax

levy imposed is a fair one, then the amount paid will be the

same as is being levied on similar landowners in that

community.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Premier controls the assessment

authority now, so how could you be open to unilateral

assessment? You have 8,000 acres that the Land Commission has

purchased, and if you take the 8,000 acres into the $100,000,

you're coming up with approximate taxes of $12.50 an acre;

HON. MR. STUPICH: About $6,000 of that is the community

pasture — very low-value land up in the Prince George area, in

unorganized territory. There's very low tax on that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is assuring me that

the taxes paid on this lease land will be equitable and that

none of the communities in which you have purchased land will

suffer any loss of revenue because the land is owned by the

government. Is the Minister assuring me that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That they'll suffer no loss of revenue by

virtue of the fact that the ownership has changed from private

to government?

MR. PHILLIPS: Right.

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as the Land Commission land, the

land that they own — yes, I'll assure you of that.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about school taxes on this land?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There'll be no loss of revenue by virtue

of the fact that ownership has changed from private ownership

to Land Commission ownership.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just another point that I'd like

to ask the Minister about with regard to agriculture and rural

development. You have $5,172,787. Just what phase of your

operation does this cover? Is this money for community

pastures, or is it to help with assistance for rural

electrification, changing over from...?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are you asking if the community pasture

programme is included in the ARDA vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you mind explaining to me exactly

what that $5 million is for?

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the general ARDA programme as

opposed to special ARDA. The general ARDA programme is a co —

operative, provincial-federal programme. It's used for

irrigation, for land acquisition and improvement for community

pasture development.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has the change-over of community pastures,

grazing lands taken...? The Department of Agriculture's taken

that over from the Department of Forests, has it not? Are you

not taking over community pastures? Are you not taking over the

operation of community pastures?

HON. MR. STUPICH : Yes, but not from Forests. They never had

the operation of community pastures.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it was under the Department of

Forests.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Community pastures?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Community pastures are a