1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4421 ]

CONTENTS

Routine procedure

Oral questions

Teacher–school trustee dispute. Mr. Bennett — 4421

Possible lay-off of B.C. Rail employees. Mr. L.A. Williams — 4421

Tabling of rent increase report. Mr. Wallace — 4421

Personnel involved in ICBC land purchases Mr. Phillips — 4422

Gabriola Island ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 4423

New Gottesman Newsprint Contract. Mr. Gibson — 4423

Reopening of YMCA building for housing. Mrs. Jordan — 4424

Commercial advertising on B.C. Ferries. Mr. Morrison — 4424

Canadian publications on B.C. Ferries. Mr. McClelland — 4424

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill 155).

Second reading.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4425

Mr. Schroeder — 4428

Mr. Wallace — 4430

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4435

Mr. Gibson — 4436

Mr. Richter — 4441

Mr. Lewis — 4445

Mr. Gardom — 4448

Mr. Smith — 4450

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, visiting the

Legislature today from the City of Revelstoke are two long-time

residents, Mr. and Mrs. Parker. Mr. Parker is the father of the

Mayor of Revelstoke, Sid Parker. Mrs. Parker is the mother of a

sitting MLA in this House, Doug Kelly from Omineca.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to introduce to the House two good Tories who

are seated on the floor of the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Wallace: As far as I know, they're going to keep

in their seats…. Mr. Michael Meighen who is the national

president of the Progressive Conservative Association and who

is the grandson of Arthur Meighen, who was Prime Minister in

the 1920s, also Mr. Ian Green who is a special assistant to our

national leader, Mr. Robert Stanfield. I'd like the House to

welcome them.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a

group of….

Interjections. (Laughter.)

Mr. Curtis: …students who are with us today. Sorry

to disappoint the House, Mr. Speaker.

These students are from Parklands Secondary School on the

northern part of the Saanich Peninsula, and they're accompanied

by Mr. Cross. They're in the gallery and they will be observing

our deliberations for about an hour.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

I too would like to bid a special welcome to a number of

students who braved the waters of Georgia Strait today to come

to see this House in action — a number from Point Grey High

School in the great riding of Vancouver–Point Grey. Their

motto, Mr. Speaker, is Honor Ante Honores — honour before

honours — which I think might be of some very good advice to

the cabinet Ministers when they next consider some of their

splendiferous advertising programmes.

Oral questions.

TEACHER-SCHOOL TRUSTEE DISPUTE

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader Of The Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Education: due to the interruption

in the educational services to some of the students of this

province, due to the dispute, or the inability of the teachers

and the school trustees to get together, could the Minister

advise this House what action her office is taking, or she is

taking, to bring the two parties together?

Hon. E. E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): To the

Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker: I am having a meeting in my office

tonight at 6 o'clock with the representative of the B.C.

Teachers Federation, and following that, with the B.C. School

Trustees Association at which I hope to have a report from both

of them, I will decide then what course of action it will be

necessary for me to take. Whether I find myself in a position

of taking some action or not, will depend on the report that I

receive from those groups tonight.

Mr. Bennett: Supplemental then. Will the Minister

then advise this House tomorrow if she intends, if they're

unable to get together, to take direct action?

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry, that question would be ruled

out, I think. It's speculative.

POSSIBLE LAY-OFF

OF B.C. RAIL EMPLOYEES

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): It was

yesterday's question and I've forgotten already. (Laughter.)

No, I remember.

To the Premier as president of the British Columbia Railway:

if the dispute currently progressing with the shopcraft

industries results in a general shutdown of the B.C. Rail

operation, will those employees who are not directly

participants in the dispute be laid off?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question is speculative the

way it's been asked. It's really a hypothetical question and it

obviously anticipates events.

TABLING OF RENT

INCREASE REPORT

Mr. Wallace: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General:

will the report of Professor Cragg's investigation into rent

increases be tabled in the Legislature before second reading of

Bill 169?

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker,

that's asking about something that

[ Page 4422 ]

might happen in the future.

An Hon. Member: Oh, come on Alec!

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: He has submitted preliminary

reports; his final report has just been received. I haven't

even had a chance to read that. To what extent it varies from

the earlier reports or press comment, I don't know, but I would

think that all information should be available to Members

during the course of the passage of that bill, so that they can

make a judicious decision on this very important matter.

Mr. Wallace: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can I take

the Minister's last comment then, that he will make available

to the House the same information as he used to base the

decision regarding the rent increases? Otherwise intelligent

debate is very much impossible from this side of the House

without that kind of basic information.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Well, even with it, it may be

speculative as to…. (Laughter.)

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, through

you to the Attorney-General, do I take his reply to mean that

he introduced the legislation yesterday without the final

report of the gentleman in question?

Mr. Speaker: I think that also has already been

answered.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, it hasn't.

Mr. Speaker: You said: "I take it," therefore

you're coming to a conclusion from his statement, and that

appears to be what happened.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Well, the answer is yes, but

after preliminary reports, after long meetings face to face,

examinations, after calling in other economists and experts in

this field. So in terms of the final thing in its final form,

the answer is yes. It was not available to me until…. It has

just arrived.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Will the Hon. Attorney-General

table the report from Clarkson and Gordon, chartered

accountants, on the same subject?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I'll consider that because that

again is something that has just arrived.

PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN

ICBC LAND PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address

a question to the Hon. Minister of Transportation and Communication in charge

of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I'd like to ask the Minister

if it was employees of ICBC or civil servants from the Department of Public

Works who negotiated the land purchases where the claim centres for ICBC were

constructed.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister Of Transport And

Communications): It seems to me I answered this fairly

fully once previously, but my recollection was that Johnson

Associates, I think, were involved in the negotiations for land

purchase. I remember I made a fairly lengthy report on Johnson

Associates. There may have been some Department of Public Works

people involved, I couldn't answer that directly.

Mr. Phillips: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Was it employees from the Department of Public Works or

architects hired by the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia who designed and let the contracts for the

construction of these same claims centres?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, the architectural work was

done within the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and

the contracts were let by the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

Mr. Phillips: Final supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. I'd like to ask the Minister if the cost of

construction for these claim centres was paid for out of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, or was it paid for

by the Department of Public Works. And if it was paid for by

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, is it included

in the estimated $40,283,000 capital expenditures estimated in

the report from the Insurance Corporation as of July?

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, which question do you wish

answered first?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that

they were included in the capital costs that were shown in the

annual report tabled in this House in this session, and they

will be shown in the annual report tabled in this House at the

next session.

Mr. Phillips: Then the Minister does agree that the

startup costs are going to be in the vicinity of $60

million.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I can't answer those questions at

all; they're purely hypothetical. At no time did I make a

report in July.

[ Page 4423 ]

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Members that

you should not really seek information on matters that are set

forth in public documents that are available in this House….

. .

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's right.

Mr. Speaker: …and available in all the reports of

public corporations.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: And he's not quoting from any

report I made either.

Mr. Phillips: On a point of order, I can hardly ask

questions of documents which have not to date been tabled in

this House, so it's very difficult for me to ask. But it is

certainly proper for me to ask questions of the Minister so

that the public can know about their Insurance Corporation. The

Minister has said time and time again: "It's the people's

corporation."

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, I think the Hon. Member was

asking questions which are obviously ones set out in public

documents at the moment.

Mr. Phillips: Well, then, I'll ask a further

question, Mr. Speaker. What are the startup costs estimated to

be for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to

date?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I haven't the figures to date.

I've already informed you. I've tabled an annual report; there

will be a further annual report. And I would remind you, Mr.

Member, that the Premier has given a commitment to the public

accounts committee as to what will happen as soon as the year

ends. You'll get the information. You may not like it, but

you'll get it.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker….

Mr. Speaker: Let someone else have the floor,

please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

GABRIOLA ISLAND

FERRY TERMINAL

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) with respect to British Columbia Ferries and the Gabriola

Island ferry terminal. A number of weeks have passed since the Minister was

last quoted on this subject. I believe, if he was quoted correctly, at that

time he felt that one of four sites on Gabriola Island would be employed for

the new terminal.

Can the Minister inform the House if he or his department is

further along in planning and design of that location?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: You're quoting from an erroneous

Daily Colonist story. Mr. Member, you'll recollect that I made

public. a report to the regional district which advocated one

of four sites. That's still the situation. The whole matter is

now in the hands of the Environment and Land Use Committee, and

I'm waiting to hear from the Environment and Land Use Committee

before any decision can be made.

Mr. Curtis: Is there a time frame within which this

work will be undertaken? Do you have a target date in your

department for completion of design and start of construction

for that terminal?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, we cannot start design or

construction until after we've received the report from the

Environment and Land Use Committee. Therefore, until we get

that report, we can't put any target date into our….

Mr. Curtis: And on the other side of that route — the

mainland — can the Minister inform the House if any firm

decision has been reached there with respect to a new terminal

to ease Horseshoe Bay?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, As far as I know that's in the

hands of the Environment and Land Use Committee too.

NEW GOTTESMAN NEWSPRINT

CONTRACT

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. During the Minister's estimates he advised the House

that a new contract was being negotiated with Gottesman

International. I wonder if he could tell us if that has now

been concluded.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister Of Lands, Forests And Water

Resources): There have been modifications, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gibson: Now that there are new arrangements in

effect, I wonder if the Minister would table the contract now

that the commercial confidentiality is past.

Hon. Mr. Williams: I will take that matter under

advisement, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4424 ]

REOPENING OF YWCA

BUILDING FOR HOUSING

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Speaking of the

acute housing shortage, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my

question to the Minister of Human Resources.

In view of the fact that the Minister virtually pulled the

plug on the YWCA at the north end of the Granville Street

bridge in Vancouver and closed it, and there are 15 to 20 women

a day knocking on the doors seeking accommodation, and the

building is standing empty doing nothing, would the Minister

open this building on an emergency basis so that it can be used

for accommodation on a three-month lease basis so there could

be some security for those operating the building?

Hon. N. Levi (Minister Of Human Resources): Taken as

notice.

COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING

ON B.C. FERRIES

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my

question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. Has the Minister or any person within the B.C.

Ferry Authority advised any people within the hotel and motel

industry that brochures will no longer be displayed on B.C.

Ferries? If so, why?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: He's a chocolate bar.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Probably, probably.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, no. (Laughter.) I was

answering your friend (Mr. Phillips) in the front row. He's

pretty hot stuff since he moved into the front row.

Mr. Speaker, in all probability someone within the ferries

department has advised the hotel and motel owners that

brochures will no longer be carried on the ferry system. I was

advised of that a week or two ago.

Mr. Morrison: Could the Minister then advise us what

the specific policy will be regarding advertising on the

ferries — not just theirs but all advertising? Do you have a

specific policy?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: The policy until now has been that

no commercial enterprise be allowed to advertise other than

motels and hotels. That has been the policy.

Mr. Morrison: Now you're eliminating them.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes. We've been under continuous

pressure from other commercial enterprises to allow brochures

for this, that and every other thing. When you say, "Well, we

don't allow commercial enterprises to advertise," they

say, "Well, the motels are." It was just getting so large and

there was so much demand for every variety of advertising, it

was impossible to keep up to it.

CANADIAN PUBLICATIONS

ON B.C. FERRIES

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): On the same subject as

applies on the ferries. Would the Minister advise us whether or

not there's also a policy being developed of discrimination

against Canadian publications?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, as a matter of fact, a

complete reverse. It was always my instructions not only to

favour Canadian publications but to favour British Columbia

publications.

Mr. McClelland: Well, is the Minister aware that at

least one Canadian-British Columbian publication, the B.C.

Horseman magazine, has been withdrawn from the ferries

and has been turned over to a local distributor in Victoria who

has a policy of not handling Canadian publications. So there's

one British Columbia publication which has been on the ferries

for about a year and which has now been withdrawn.

I'd ask you if you are aware that this local distributor

does not carry very many Canadian publications. If the ferries

go through that distributor, then Canadian and British Columbia

will, in fact, be discriminated against.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, I think, my friend, there

aren't very many Canadian publications anyway, but that's due

to other reasons.

Mr. McClelland: That has nothing to do with it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I've already indicated to the House what my instructions

have been. If the Member would like to send me over the material he has, I will

certainly check it out.

[ Page

4425 ]

Mr. McClelland: I've just told you about that.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Send it over.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): Public

bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on Bill

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

(continued)

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We had

a lengthy debate on the need to stand this debate over

yesterday, which I'm pleased to say was defeated because I

think we should get on with the task of considering the extent

to which this government has seen fit to respond in Bill 165 to

the needs of the agricultural community and to the consumers in

the Province of British Columbia. I was frankly sorry to hear

what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had to say

yesterday in his contribution to this debate concerning the

prospect that the consumer interest would be served with this

legislation.

When he engaged briefly and with some heat in the debate to

stand the bill aside for six months, he made it quite clear

that the bill has been available to marketing boards for

examination for something like eight months. At least he said

it was available to those marketing boards who wished to take

the advantage of the opportunity of making contributions

towards this legislation.

I find this to be of singular interest, Mr. Speaker, because

I'm not aware as a member of the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture that the Minister or his department offered to the

consumers or to the producers or to the marketing boards, or to

anybody else in British Columbia, the opportunity of making

contributions to changes in the natural products marketing

legislation in this province. I trust that when the Minister

has the opportunity of again standing on his feet in this

debate and closing it, he will be able to satisfy me as to the

extent that he did make known his department's decision to

proceed with amending legislation.

During his first remarks in the debate he indicated quite

clearly that he was satisfied with the bill, and he was

satisfied with the arguments that he was presenting in support

of the bill. In the course of those arguments he said: "I don't

deny that there should be some consumer interest in marketing

legislation." And he urged that there be more consumer support

for marketing board legislation.

For one, I would like to know how he could possibly involve consumer interest

and consumer support in Bill 165 when in no way has he indicated that such legislation

was being contemplated by his department and when he has provided no forum whereby

any person who has the consumers' interest at heart could make representations

to the Minister or his staff as to what this bill should include.

He says that the motivation for the legislation was to give

bargaining power to producer groups in the province. Bargaining

power. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that with the

experience we have had with marketing boards in British

Columbia, what the legislation should be doing is giving some

bargaining power to the consumers in this province. The

consumers, when they go to the marketplace to acquire those

agricultural products which are regulated in this province,

have to pay the price or go home with their shopping bags

empty.

Where is the bargaining that takes place? What opportunity

is there for bargaining as far as the consumer is concerned in

this particular area? It's not like labour or management

bargaining. It's just pay up or stop eating. Some bargain.

The legislation, as I said yesterday, is really only a

rehash of what we already have on the statute books in this

province. The legislation in

section 2 sets out specifically

the purpose and the intent of the Act, and there is nothing in

the stated purpose and intent of the Act to indicate any

concern on the part of the Minister or of the government that

the interests of the consumers of British Columbia should be

promoted. There's no question that as a Member of the

agricultural committee…and I think that I could say without

fear of contradiction that there is unanimity in that committee

that we want the farmers in the Province of British Columbia to

enjoy an appropriate return for their investment and their

labour. I don't think there's anybody in the House that

disagrees with that statement.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms.

Young) said when she engaged in this debate yesterday, that's

not the way in which marketing boards in British Columbia

have functioned in the past. The consumers' interest has been

ignored. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Minister of Consumer

Services said that some of them — meaning marketing boards — "have not taken into consideration the public interest. They

have not been subjected to market pressures. They have not

taken into consideration — in fact they have flouted — the

consumer interest."

That's a very, very harsh but, nonetheless, I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, accurate assessment of the performance of some of the

marketing boards in British Columbia. Yet there is not spelled

out in this legislation in any way a policy or a statement of

purpose or intent which will change that situation in British

Columbia.

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that we have the mechanism, in the new

provincial board to be appointed by the

[ Page 4426 ]

government, which might permit the control of marketing

boards so that they would conduct themselves more in the public

interest. We have the mechanism; the words are there. But, Mr.

Speaker, we did not have from the Minister of Agriculture,

whose bill this is, any clear statement of his policy or of the

policy of the government which would satisfy me — that in

establishing the provincial board it would carry out government

policy which had the consumers' interest at heart. As a matter

of fact, just the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture made it quite clear in his

remarks that this marketing legislation, this superboard, in

its control of marketing boards of British Columbia, would have

as its sole, overriding responsibility the assurance that the

producing segment, namely the farmer, would receive his proper

return for his effort.

This, Mr. Speaker, must be without consideration of the

interest of the rest of the community. Yet startlingly enough,

the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services indicated yesterday that

she supported this legislation. She supported this legislation

without that clear statement of policy, without that clear

indication from the Minister of Agriculture, that there was

going to be anything different than what we have had before. That Minister went at some length to detail the problems which

have been currently publicized with respect to egg marketing in

Canada.

She said that Manitoba eggs were coming into the Province of

British Columbia 10 cents a dozen cheaper than B.C. eggs, and

doing very well in the marketplace. I would think, Mr. Speaker,

that they would do very well in the marketplace. But this bill

and this legislation, because of its striking similarity to

legislation currently on the statute books, is designed to

prevent just that from happening, to keep Manitoba eggs out of

British Columbia — and to do so for the sole purpose of

protecting egg producers in B.C.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with the Hon.

Minister of Agriculture that too much attention is being paid

and focused upon this particular problem of egg marketing. But

it happens to be a clear example of the failure of the

marketing board concept.

There is nothing in this legislation to indicate any change. In fact, we're

getting from the Minister of Agriculture what we've had from Members of this

government time after time over recent months: the suggestion that, somehow

or other, we in this House and the people of British Columbia should trust them.

"We're establishing a superboard and we're going to appoint all the Members

to that board. Trust us to appoint members who somehow or other will carry out

a policy that will be in the best interest of the producer and the consumer;"

and "trust us to do this," Mr. Speaker, "when the Minister who is to have the

responsibility for the administration of the superboard, the Minister of Agriculture,

has clearly indicated that his policy is prepared to make the consumer interest

secondary to that of the producer segment."

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister had really done a job, he would

have ensured, before bringing this particular bill on the floor

of the House, that he received input not only from producers

and marketing boards, as I said earlier, but from consumers, so

that he could have given a statement of intent and purpose

which clearly indicated to the people of British Columbia and

to this superboard that it was the intention of this

Legislature, regardless of what government policy might be,

that that superboard in the conduct of its responsibilities

would consider the interests of the entire community. That

surely must be our responsibility here.

We are not a lobby for the producers, and we are not a lobby

for the consumers. The people of British Columbia are entitled

to be served equally by all Members of this House. In the

legislation that we pass we must serve the interests of all

British Columbians equally, and this we do not do in Bill

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is going to perpetuate a situation

which has unfortunately arisen in the Province of British

Columbia, whereby the producer and the consumer, the producer

and the transporter of the product, the producer and the person

who stores the product, the producer and the retailer, the

retailer and the consumer, will continue to be in conflict.

Controversy will continue to rage in this province because of

Bill 165 and the inept draughtsmanship of the Minister of

Agriculture and the officials of his department.

That is why I suggested yesterday, and I renew my suggestion

and my challenge to the Minister today, that upon the

completion of the second reading debate of this legislation, he

send this bill for deliberation to the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture or, alternatively, to a special

committee of this House for section-by-section consideration

with the opportunity to receive representations from all

persons interested in and affected by this legislation, so that

we may bring back recommendations for its amendment and the

production of legislation which will more appropriately serve

all of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer Services in the course

of her remarks made reference to the Forbes report, suggesting

that it was one of a number of reports. What I can't understand

is how those reports could be in existence, how they could be

available to the Minister of Agriculture, and yet how he could

bring forth legislation which so clearly ignores the summaries

and conclusions reached in the Forbes report and those other

documents which deal

[ Page 4427 ]

with the same subject.

It is quite clear that the Minister has absolutely ignored

the Forbes recommendations. I wish to deal with one of the

issues raised by Mr. Forbes, and very clearly delineated in his

report, as to the consequences of the present system we have — that is, the restrictions that marketing boards place upon

production. They do it through the quota system. The boards, in

effect, give to certain individuals in our community a monopoly

to produce foodstuffs.

If I may pause for a moment, Mr. Speaker…. When you

consider the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture

yesterday in talking about the starving people in Bangladesh,

when you consider what we all know happens in our own grocery

stores when our senior citizens, and those on fixed, low

incomes go and attempt to buy food for their families, how can

we possibly support legislation which will perpetuate a system

whereby producers raise foodstuffs on a monopoly basis,

restricted as to how much they can grow, how much they can

produce, how much they can transport and make available to the

market? That's what this legislation does.

But it has another consequence which runs counter to even

the best interests of the producer segment, and it is this

vicious quota system. When you give somebody a monopoly, a

quota right to produce — and I don't care whether it is eggs or

broiler chickens or what it may be — if you can only produce so

many and no more, then not only do you lose the efficiencies

which can come from scale, but you begin to assign a value to

this right to produce, a value to this right that is given to

you by the marketing board which is established as a scheme

under legislation of this province.

If you move out of the business and find someone to acquire

your farm, your manufacturing plant — in the case of egg

producers that is what it is: a manufacturing plant, a very

efficient one — you find someone to buy your manufacturing

plant, and along with it you sell your quota. That only means

that the person who acquires your manufacturing plant has to

pay a little more for the quota. It becomes an added cost for

him to go into the business and, therefore, an added cost that

he expects to recoup out of what he produces and, therefore, an

added factor to be taken into account by marketing boards in

determining what price the farmer should get for his product in

order to ensure that he gets a proper return on his cost.

So the marketing board system, which limits production by the establishment

of quotas, in turn accelerates the cost of the product itself. And the wheel

turns one time further, Mr. Speaker, because when the costs of production rise

for other reasons — and let's take eggs — it takes more to feed the chickens.

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) certainly knows that this is the case. It

costs more to feed your chickens to produce the eggs. The marketing board says,

quite obviously, that you have got to get more for your eggs.

You increase the price of the eggs and, lo and behold, do

you know what happens, Mr. Speaker? The evidence is quite

clear. You also increase the value of the quota. So as the

price goes up, the quota becomes more valuable, and somebody

who acquires the quota has got to charge more in order to get

their return; and it goes on and on under the marketing board

system.

There is nothing in this legislation to indicate that the

government proposes to stop those practices. Oh, we are given

the right of appeal. I must make a comment about the right of

appeal.

Any person in the Province of British Columbia who is

dissatisfied with any action or order of any of the marketing

boards which shall be established under this legislation has

the right to appeal to the marketing board, to the superboard.

It's easy to give the right of appeal. But, Mr. Speaker, there

are no guidelines in this legislation to be given by this

Legislature to this superboard as to the attitude they should

take when dealing with any matter of appeal. If the appeal

comes from a consumer group against the activities of a

marketing board, what are the guidelines? What approach is the

superboard going to take to that appeal?

If they read clearly what the Hon. Minister of Agriculture

has said in Hansard , and they take that as their

guideline, then the consumer organization can expect to get

pretty brief treatment from this right of appeal, because the

policy laid down in the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture

is that the producer is the one who is to be supported by this

legislation.

Conflict with the consumer; the producer wins. That's what

we've had before.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe that the farming segment in

British Columbia and the rest of Canada requires the support of

all the people in this country. I happen to believe that there

is grave danger if the farmers leave the land because it is no

longer worth their while to continue in an occupation which is

a difficult one, that we will all suffer.

I happen to believe, in light of national and international

concern being raised about the ability of this world to feed

its growing population, that the farming community should be

supported. I happen to believe that we need orderly

marketing.

I happen to agree with what the Minister said in his press

release on December 1 — that marketing boards have the

potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural policy.

I believe they do have the potential, but, Mr. Speaker, the

legislation which establishes those boards, if it is going to

make it possible for those boards to realize that potential,

must contain provisions different from what we have in Bill

[ Page 4428 ]

As was said yesterday by many speakers, Bill 165 is a voice

of the '30s coming to us in the '70s.

An Hon. Member: It's a first in Canada — come on!

Mr. L.A. Williams: Is the voice of the '30s coming to

us in the '70s? I think it is time that the Department of

Agriculture modernized its whole thinking with respect to

marketing boards and the potential they have for agriculture in

British Columbia and Canada.

I think that we can take this bill in committee and build

out of it something which will really be a step forward for the

producers and the consumers. But if the Minister insists on

pressing forward with this legislation, if he is prepared to

send it to a committee of this whole House and deal with it as

other legislation of great significance to the people of

British Columbia has been dealt with in the past, if the

government is prepared to use its majority to ram Bill 165 down

the throats of the people of British Columbia, then it will be

a retrogressive step not only for the farmers but also for the

consumers of B.C.

The controversies will continue to rage and the difficulties

in which the farming community finds itself in today will be

multiplied, not lessened. It's difficult to support the policy

of this legislation and the principles which so clearly stand

out in this legislation — and I haven't talked about the

dictatorial rights that are being given to certain segments of

the people of this province. Others will deal with that.

But the Minister has the opportunity of giving to this

Legislature the power to do something worthwhile, and he can

only fulfill that responsibility if this matter is handled

appropriately in committee.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, in the

principle of Bill 165, the Natural Products Marketing Act, I

see in study of the bill a clear-cut case of conflict of

interest if this bill is left in the hands of this

administration, not because of the philosophy of the

administration, but because of its track record. I'd like in

these next few moments to substantiate that statement — a

severe case of conflict of interest.

In the first instance, the bill establishes a three-level

marketing device which depends on the lowest level for all of

the input, for the initiation of the programmes that are

supposed to make marketing in British Columbia work. It's the

commissions who are supposed to be the idea people; and without

referring to any section, the word "initiate" occurs over and

over again but only as it pertains to the responsibilities and

duties of a marketing commission.

Then we move up from the level of the marketing commission to the marketing

board — the general marketing board. The language changes immediately when it

comes to the area of the responsibility of the marketing board. And these are

the kinds of words that are used: to regulate; to regulate production; to regulate

packaging; and to regulate distribution. Nothing said there about initiating

programmes. The key word is "regulate".

There are others: to determine; to determine grade or class;

to license; to collect; to exempt; to cancel; to inspect; to

fix prices; to authorize. I like these: to search; to seize; to

delegate; and to make regulation. This is the second level of

this marketing device.

Once again, the feeling is left with the marketing boards

that they do have some say in the direction of marketing in

British Columbia. The responsibility of regulation is left with

them.

But then we move to the third level of this marketing

device, and there isn't a really good name for it — I've heard

it called the superboard, but the bill simply calls it the

British Columbia marketing board. Look at the language that's

involved in the responsibilities of the superboard. Its

responsibilities are: to appoint; to appoint boards — even the

boards that I have already mentioned.

The superboard appoints the boards of the next level, Mr.

Speaker. Not only do they appoint the personnel who are on the

boards, they appoint the very existence of the board itself.

Then in addition they approve or disapprove of the schemes — schemes that have filtered up by some mystic process of osmosis

from the lowest level, from the commission. And they've been

regulated, and licensed, and determined, and exempted, and

cancelled, and inspected, and authorized by the next level. By

some miracle it has arrived at the superboard level and there

they are approved or disapproved.

There, at the higher level, the Members will be interested

to know that the existence and function of the marketing board

is authorized. The regulations, which the boards believed was

their responsibility, suddenly are foisted into the superboard

responsibilities, and they authorize the regulation. It is the

superboard that has the responsibility and the privilege of

asking for a plebiscite to find out whether or not the public

is really in favour of the action of the boards, further

diluting the responsibility of the marketing board.

I find further that the superboard's responsibility is "to

terminate" or "to annul" — terminate not just schemes and

plans, but to terminate the marketing boards at the lower level

themselves — and further "to impose penalties."

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Why is it necessary for me to talk about the various

responsibilities of these boards? It is because it is tin these

responsibilities that the conflict eventually

[ Page 4429 ]

What powers does the superboard, the British Columbia

marketing board, really have? It has the power to create itself

and to appoint its own members. That is, this appointment made

through the cabinet. No guidelines are laid down in the bill as

to the basics for that appointment, so the cabinet makes the

appointment to create a superboard that has the powers, Mr.

Speaker, which I have just outlined for you. It is very clear,

at least in my opinion, that it is the producers who must have

representation on that superboard, otherwise the jurisdiction

is separated from the producer. The producer does not have the

input and does not even have the ability to pass the expertise

on to the superboard.

But where does the conflict occur? The conflict occurs in

here: the producers must have representation on the superboard.

Who are the producers? Well, first of all, you have the

individual farmer, or the individual producer. He not only

deserves representation on that board, but I must insist that

he has representation on the superboard.

Then who else is there that comes under the category of a

producer? It is the cooperative farmer; not just the

individual, but the cooperative farmer. Then you have the farm

corporations, and in addition to these, if we want to control

the flow and the distribution of product entirely, we must also

give consideration to import, which is really a federal

responsibility, but would have to be given some input into this

superboard control otherwise we wouldn't be controlling all of

the marketed product, but we would only be controlling a part

of it. So the imports become a part of that group called

producers.

But lo and behold if this government, this administration,

if the New Democratic Party philosophy is left in power, in this list of producers comes

the provincial government itself. As a result, the provincial

government, who through its cabinet appoints all of the

individuals on the superboard, then has a clumsy position in

its appointment, it has a fantastic responsibility, and it has

a direct conflict of interest. And you say to me, Mr. Speaker,

how does this conflict work?

I notice that in the definition of product, any "natural

product" is defined as an agricultural product, a product of

the forests, a product of the sea, lake or river, or any food

or drink that derives from these natural products. The House is

already aware that this government has already engaged itself

in the business of ranching, in the business of poultry, and in

the business, certainly, of forest products.

An Hon. Member: And wine.

Mr. Schroeder: Here, then, is the conflict, Mr. Speaker: one producer

— that is, one fifth of the number of producers that I have already mentioned

to you — one producer appoints all the representation to all the boards, including

the superboard. This is dangerous in the light of the statements that were made

some time back by the Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) who said this, and

I refer to a reported speech, when he talked about information that pertains

to marketing. He said simply this: "Publicly-owned firms should have access on a priority

basis," and he cited some examples: "If rail cars are

required by Can-Cel, the province should provide them. If chips

or timber are required by Kootenay Forest Products, then the

government should allocate them."

Get a load of this: "If new technology or marketing

information becomes available through the efforts of government

sponsored research, then that technology and that information

should be made available exclusively to publicly-owned

industries." Do you see the conflict? Here we have a

superboard, having been appointed by cabinet, who through one

of the members of the party insists that if marketing

information or expertise is available, then it will not be

disseminated to the entire marketing board, but preference will

be given to the publicly-owned sector. As a result, there is a

fantastic conflict which I don't think the government wants to

see in this bill.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister Of Public Works): You're

against….

Mr. Schroeder: By the government, I mean the

people.

You have special treatment for government-operated

concerns as regards expertise, as regards transportation, as

regards technology and as regards marketing information. All

other operations take second place, if we are to take this as

an example, and I must remind you that forestry products are

one of the products that comes under this marketing scheme. It

is in forest products that the Member for Port Alberni clearly

stated to us that special treatment — preferential treatment — would be given to the public sector.

The conflict is clearly there. Here's how it works: the

marketing commission comes up with a marketing plan; the board

which is just over it sets up a marketing scheme; the

superboard adopts the scheme to its own advantage, being an

appointee of the provincial government. This bill gives the

power to terminate or annul any scheme or to dissolve the

responsible marketing board itself. As a result, the

opportunity for conflict of interest is clearly there. I say

that the marketing board at this superboard level is entirely

unnecessary and gives to this government, particularly in the

hands of the NDP philosophy, gives to this government, who is

already dilly-dallying in the production itself, gives to them

the opportunity to be accused of conflict of interest. As a

result, we have to oppose the bill.

[ Page 4430 ]

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Working very

hard.

Mr. Schroeder: Deny the fact, though.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): It sounds as though you

need medical help today, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: You need medical help.

Deputy Speaker: Almost over it.

Mr. Wallace: We discussed whether this bill should be

reviewed in six months time yesterday, and voted against the

suggestion for the very reason, at least in this party, that it

wouldn't be any better a bill in six months, or six years, for

that matter. I would like to correct an implication left by the

Minister yesterday that because we're unhappy with the bill,

we're opposed to marketing boards. This is the popular approach

that is often taken in debate in this House — that because you're against the bill, you're against each and every

principle of the bill.

I would like to make it very plain that we are very much in

favour of measures which will bring about orderly marketing of

food products, in particular. But since food is such a vital

commodity, if not the most vital commodity in our life, then

there has to be the widest possible participation in any

marketing procedures by all segments of our society. I was

somewhat disappointed yesterday by the Minister's — again an

implication — that because people are not worried about the

starvation in Bangladesh, our marketing system can't be all

that bad. I think he was confusing two completely different

issues.

I certainly think it's nothing less than a national disgrace

that this country, claiming to be a middle power, claiming to

be a country that believes in non-violence and believes in the

welfare and the development of less fortunate countries — for

whatever reason, bureaucratic bungling or otherwise — should be

destroying 28 million eggs when the rest of the world is

starving. And I didn't like the light-hearted way in which that

particular point was dismissed yesterday by the Minister.

Two wrongs never make a right. Just because there are some

valid points in explaining the difficulties of marketing eggs

in this country, I think that it is nothing less than a

disastrous insult to the human race that a country with the

wealth, and the talent, and the know-how, and the technology,

and the people, should so lightly dismiss that tragic example

of the waste of food. All the Minister seemed to do in relation

to the destruction of calves was to say, "Well, they don't have

the right to strike." Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think we're

confusing issues.

I know very well that those who carried out these actions would not wish to

do so when they were focusing attention on the fact that the marketing of meat

is inadequate and inefficient and has many flaws. But to slaughter calves when

there is starvation in the world is not defensible on any grounds, anymore than

the pursuit of violence in the course of one's objectives. I think, if there's

nothing else that this debate should have brought to the forefront, it is the

fact that this is not a provincial problem and it is not a national problem

— it's a world-wide problem.

When one thinks back a year or two and remembers that the

federal government paid farmers not to grow wheat. We know that

the population is increasing, and when we know that food

demands all around the world are destined inevitably to

increase, and we brag about the technological advances in this

so-called global village — and if ever there was an ironic

phrase that is bandied around this country but never really

acted upon, it is the global village — I just have to ask: are

we zeroing in effectively, or on a wide enough basis, on the

problems that are contained in this bill.

I have come to the sorry conclusion by saying that we're

being extremely parochial, extremely selfish and, frankly,

rather indifferent to problems far beyond the local problems of

marketing eggs or turkeys or oysters, or anything else in

British Columbia.

I'm trying to make these points to show that there's every

reason in the world why there should be some orderly marketing

in British Columbia. But the problem goes far beyond that. It

goes far beyond seeking this kind of solution, which simply

sets up one more type of bureaucratic administration to solve a

problem which I think the facts and some of the incidents which

have been mentioned in this debate show very clearly the need

for something far more detailed and investigative in nature

than just another piece of legislation to set up another

superboard to solve problems which, as I say, are obviously way

beyond just the local needs of the marketing situation in

British Columbia.

I would like to repeat that we must have some attempt

through the vehicle of marketing boards to provide fair play.

We talk about a fair return to the producers. I think that

Professor Forbes, however he may have been maligned by speeches

in this House yesterday, made one point painfully clear and

logical — that it has to be fair not only to the farmer, but to

the producer and the consumer. I think that while this bill is

inadequate, and since we oppose it for a variety of reasons

that I'll touch on very briefly, above all other things this

bill does not even define the kind of solution which the

Minister apparently believes in. There are press reports by the

square yard talking about the interests of the producers and

the consumers and the degree to which this issue must be

treated on a basis beyond simply the farmer.

In the bill there's absolutely no definition at all

[ Page 4431 ]

giving a guarantee in the bill as to who the consumers and

other interested parties will be, how they will be chosen or

what particular number out of the 10 will, in fact, represent

interests other than the producer interest. The Minister has

made the point on more than one occasion — and I respect his

position — that the aim of this government is to produce for

the farmer or the egg producer, or whoever is in the situation

of producing food, a fairer return for his efforts. I think

this is a reasonable goal, Mr. Speaker, just as long as we

don't finish up with artificially inflated prices over which it

appears the consumer has little or no control whatever.

Mr. L.A. Williams: None at all.

Mr. Wallace: "None at all," as the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound has said.

I think it's interesting to put into the record a statement

that appeared in an editorial in The Vancouver Sun on

July 28. It just points out that Canadian farm earnings are

expected to top $4 billion this year — that's referring to the

year 1974 — an increase of 186 per cent in the money going into

farmers' pockets since 1970.

Total labour income…. I'm comparing it with labour income

which will also be quoted as gross. The Financial Times

reports that total labour income over that same period rose a

more modest 37 per cent.

Statistics Canada reports that during the first five months

of this year cash farm income in B.C. reached $125 million — up

from $90 million in the corresponding period in 1973. That is

an increase of 40 per cent. It may well be, and I'm sure

there's some validity to the argument, that the farmers are

doing a bit of catching up in regard to their income. But I

think that….

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): How about the costs?

Mr. Wallace: Yes, the costs have gone up also. But

the costs have gone up for everybody who's doing business. The

point I'm trying to make is that we may have reached the point

where farmers have been given a much fairer return than they

were receiving in years gone by. But the system under which

their products are being marketed may well provide for

continuing manipulation of prices to the serious distress of

the consumer, and particularly the consumer of a low

income.

We've often talked about the citizens' right to health care, which we all agree

upon — that one should not be denied health care because one cannot afford it.

But even health care surely has to come second to food. If you can't afford

to buy food, then you can't likely even manage to survive. Of course, one leads

to another: poor nutrition leads to poor health. And that's an added cost for

the province.

An Hon. Member: We should have food care as well as

Medicare.

Mr. Wallace: Well, that may be not such a bad idea:

we should have food care along with Medicare and Pharmacare.

But seriously, Mr. Speaker….

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister Of Agriculture): Farmer

care?

Mr. Wallace: Not farmer care, Pharmacare. I think

that farmer care is in good hands; it's in the hands of the

farmer. That's one of the reasons that on this side of the

House we wonder if it doesn't make it reasonable to question

whether people have complete control of their own capacity to

create their own income by selling a product through such a

monopolistic approach as marketing where only farmers are on

the board. One has to wonder whether to even the best motivated

farmer that would create a conflict of interest and a tendency

to manipulate price.

The Consumers Association of Canada, I think, put it very

well. As the editorial went on to say: "The association isn't

asking anything so horrendous and hostile to doctrinaire

socialist thinking as a free market." Heaven forbid! It wants

immediate consumer representation on marketing boards and

hearings before increases. It doesn't think there should be so

much power vested in board members who have a financial

interest at stake. I think that spells out the problem, and I

don't think this bill spells out the answer.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Wallace: I must say, as I mentioned briefly in

comments yesterday, that I thought the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young), showed a rare measure of courage in

political public life when she came out swinging, one might

say, against the egg marketing board. I was so impressed by the

news release from her department dated October 7 that I took

great care to keep the release, because I thought it would be

very useful in this debate. And I think it's proving to be very

useful.

The most important comment that I think the Minister made

is: "It is obvious that the B.C. Egg Marketing Board as

presently constituted and operated has lost its credibility in

the eyes of the general public."

The Minister goes on to say that she recalls a former egg

producer being interviewed on television when the price of

Grade A large went up to 98 cents. She says: "We consumers have

been subjected to several price hikes in the preceding months,

but this

[ Page 4432 ]

was the last straw." She said in that interview that the

first two price increases were justified due to the increased

feed and labour costs. That's the costs that the Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) interjected about a minute ago. But the

Minister goes on to say, "The final increase to 98 cents was

totally unjustified. There was no reason for it except that the

egg marketing board decided to take everything that the traffic

would bear."

Oh, dear, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of socialist

accusation we get about free enterprise all the time — that

what's wrong with free enterprise is that the enterprises

charge what the market will bear. But what's overlooked is that

in the free enterprise system there's competition, and you

can't charge what the market will bear when you have honest

competition. I think that in our debate….

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): Honest competition.

Mr. Wallace: Honest competition. That's right, Mr.

Member for Kamloops. Honest competition. That's all we on this

side of the House ever ask for. But we do want competition. We

do want competition.

Now who should be the board or vehicle to decide what is

honest and dishonest competition? That is a separate issue.

Under the present marketing system there is no competition. We

free enterprisers, in selling and dealing with other

commodities, believe that the marketplace is the place where

the competition should take place and where the price should be

decided by competition.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Oh, yes, I do, Mr. Mines Minister (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick). I do believe that; don't have any fear about

that.

I started, however, by saying that in the area of food and

health care we have to take a different approach because of the

fact that the people who provide the food and grow the food are

entitled to a fair return.

The evidence is there that consumers are sick and tired of

reading this kind of publicity in the newspaper, particularly

when it comes from a Minister of the cabinet who knows a great

deal about the precise actions and pricing arrangements on the

Egg Marketing Board. The public are asking questions and they

want action and they want some kind of legislation which will

give them more protection than presently exists.

I think it was very disappointing indeed that after this courageous outburst

by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) and the evidence that

she's not prepared to sit idly by and go along with whatever seems to be politically

desirable, yesterday she turned around 180 degrees and just buckled under to

the promise of the contents of this bill, which I don't think promise the kind

of action which the Minister was seeking.

Even the Minister of Agriculture himself back in July

publicly said he would welcome a price review system. I'm not

certain whether he felt that it should start as far back as the

marketing boards or whether it should be concentrated on the

supermarkets, but I think the evidence is very clear that it

should be both.

One of the reasons I so strongly oppose this bill is that it

really isn't going to solve anything. It's going to give a

false sense of assurance to the public that one more

super-duper bureaucratic board will do to the marketing boards

what they are not responsibly doing themselves. That is to

safeguard both the interests of the producer and the

consumer.

It's my feeling that while the consumer is entitled to fair

play, he's not entitled to feather-bedding. That was a word we

used to use in the old country when the farmers in Britain got

up on their hind legs and danced and screamed and said they

were not getting a fair deal. The government of that day, which

was also a socialist government, went overboard. Before you

knew it, every farmer and his brother were being feather-bedded

to death and guaranteed costs of this, that and the other. I

see the same kind of trend developing here in British

Columbia.

There's certainly a demonstrated need to look at the

marketing board system, but the way in which it should be

handled is not by this kind of legislation in Bill 165. The

need is for a detailed review of marketing on a wide front,

involving all the products that are presently marketed by the

10 boards, and then legislation after a detailed study of what

the problems are.

I hope for a greater degree of cooperation and rapport

between provincial and federal levels. As I said earlier on, I

think the biggest and most distressing factor in this debate is, if there was proper

provincial-federal cooperation through such organizations as

CEMA, surely, with the good will which I know we all have in

this House, there should be some way of making sure that food

finally finds its way to those who need it rather than having

it destroyed at a time when there is starvation in many comers

of the globe.

So the bill just doesn't begin to solve the problem.

The Minister said there was need for community support of

this legislation. I think more appropriate words would be a

need for community trust. I think the community will support

measures which clearly demonstrate that there will be fairer

mechanisms and fair treatment for both the producer and the

consumer. Justice will not only be done but will be seen to be

done.

Again, with this further layer of bureaucracy and

[ Page 4433 ]

with all the growth of government in all provinces and all

levels of government, I think people are generally simply

becoming cynical at the kind of gobbledygook that government

turn out in a rather plastic attempt to prove that that

government is protecting the citizen or the consumer.

Never mind protecting the consumer regarding the price of a

product; look at some of the measures in this bill in regard to

invasion of the freedom of an individual. There are powers in

this bill which are just unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. We'll get

into them when we get clause by clause debate.

This provincial board has power to "designate any person" — that's one of the phrases. In parts of the bill, in particular,

we have the power to stop and search a vehicle without a search

warrant and seize and confiscate the product. Then, if later on

a hearing shows that they made a mistake, whatever is left of

the product can be returned to the producer. Big deal!

Big-hearted Arthur we are! Right indeed that we should take

this kind of power, invade somebody's privacy, seize their

product and then, after you do a proper investigation, find out

that maybe they weren't breaking the law after all. They can

have their rotten eggs back or their rotted cabbages or

whatever it is.

The kind of phraseology in this bill! Apart from the fact

that I'm against the bill anyway for the reasons I've

mentioned, to take a look at this bill and see some of the

phraseology is just Orwellian.

"….if, during an inspection or examination, it appears

that this Act or the regulations (are being violated)….

"….seize and take away, for the purpose of evidence

"…stop and detain any vehicle, any person on its

behalf so designated…."

Who is this any person? Is the nearest Joe Blotch who

happens to be around when they want to take action against a

vehicle? Is it the local NDP organizer? Or is it the human

resources committee? Who is it? "Any person."

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): The organizer.

Mr. Wallace: I know that the community resource

boards have been given a wide spectrum of authority. Within

the terminology of this bill, they could certainly be

designated to be the ones to stop, search and seize

vehicles.

The Attorney-General always smiles when we get onto this.

I'm just waiting for the standard answer: "Oh, but this kind of

legislation is just a little bit of authority, just a little

power." He always comes back with the answer: "Well, of course,

this power exists in a lot of other legislation."

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Oh, I'm glad you rose to the bait, Mr.

Attorney-General. I don't care how long it has been in

legislation, or in this bill or any other bill; it is not the

kind of legislation that's appropriate for 1974. It's more

appropriate for 1984.

Mr. L.A. Williams: This power to search and seize is

not in the….

Mr. Wallace: Well, my colleague on my right from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) disputes that this power is

in the present bill. But this bill provides the kind of power

for the cabinet to designate "any person." It's those two

words. "Any person" means that the cabinet is given a

tremendous amount of authority to designate individuals who may

take the kind of power into their own hands without a search

warrant, which I thought was just unbelievable.

It was always my impression that we have basic freedoms

enshrined by tradition and otherwise in Canada. There are

certain basic protections which the individual has before he or

his possessions or his vehicle or any other possession can be

searched.

Another phrase: where the person designated "…has reasonable grounds to believe

that…."

Mr. Speaker, when individuals get harassed by a marketing

board or a sheriff or anyone, it was always my impression that

before this kind of action was permissible, there had to be

evidence. I always thought that prosecution and action and

interference with certain rights and freedoms was based on

evidence. The phraseology in this bill makes the evidence of

the most slender, transparent kind.

Where the member, so designated, "…has reasonable

grounds to believe that a provision or (an order)…is not

being complied with…or any person on its behalf designated…."

may do these various things.

There are other areas, too, which I think we can leave over

for the moment.

Another aspect, for example, is that a person can be

interfered with or stopped and detained. If the product was

grown in a different area than the area in which the marketing

rules apply, the burden of proof is on the possessor of the

product.

There again, it seems to me that we're reversing some pretty

basic ideas. I always thought that in this society you were

guilty until proved innocent — or innocent until proven guilty.

(Laughter.) This is what the bill says: you're guilty until

proven innocent. "The burden of proof shall be upon the accused

person." We've even got the word "accused" right here in the

legislation, Mr. Speaker, before the person has had any kind of

charge laid or anything, other than a rather unwarranted

measure of investigation

[ Page 4434 ]

by some designated person.

This seems to me again a complete contradiction of what is

basic in our system of justice, and that is that this bill,

under this particular section…. It's appropriately entitled

"Penalties Section." It sure is a penalty. It's just a penalty

for an individual to have this amount of interference by an

individual or individuals, designated by some faceless board of

bureaucrats.

This makes it very clear that if an individual is found with

a product in his vehicle, he's guilty until proven innocent. He

has to have the burden of proof that the product was grown at

some distance outside the area where he's been stopped. I just

don't like the use of those words "accused person,"

because the person at that point in the system surely shouldn't

be regarded as being accused of a crime.

I notice that the bill has considerable mention also, Mr.

Speaker, of constitutional concern. It's very obvious that the

bill's been written with some considerable apprehension by the

Minister, that a lot of it is ultra vires. Anticipating that

very fact, there are all kinds of long, wordy clauses which I'm

not sure I fully understand; but I'm sure the lawyers in our

midst understand them.

Certain parts of this bill the Minister already knows are

ultra vires, and he's sort of trying to scotch the problem — if

you'll pardon the word "scotch." He's trying to deal with the

problem before it arises. If this is the case, he knows very

well that certain sections will be declared ultra vires. The

bill goes on to state that any other parts that are not ultra

vires will carry the full weight of law.

Well, I just as a layman seem to think that must be a pretty

inefficient way to write legislation when you put in parts

which you're pretty sure will fall down on a constitutional

basis, but you'll put them in anyway, and you'll protect the

rest of the bill by saying that the parts that are not

questioned on a constitutional basis will be upheld.

I really feel that there are so many areas…. As I pointed

out initially, the bill itself — the concept — does not answer

the basic problem. Even if you analyse the bill in regard to

the method that has been adopted, it is fraught with dangerous

powers which should not be delegated by cabinet, in my view. It

is poorly draughted. It admits that it is probably

unconstitutional in parts.

The overall feeling of sheer desperation I get when I read this bill is that

we're just going to have another great big layer of bureaucratic government

participation and yet one more group of boards, commissions, agencies, and goodness

knows how many tax regulations and associated super-snoopers who can go around

arresting people, seizing their produce, searching their vehicle, and having

complete protection within the law if they make a mistake. That's the final

indignity and the affront which this bill carries out to the rights and freedoms

of the individual.

This paragraph is also appropriately entitled "Protection of

members of boards from actions." Not only do we have all this

bureaucracy and power and delegated authority, but when some of

these super-snoopers exceed their authority and make mistakes,

this bill gives them complete protection from any action by the

individual who has been so affronted and wrongly accused.

No, Mr. Speaker, this bill outstrips some of the bills we've

already discussed in this House; and there have been some

dandies — we all know that — where this government is power

hungry and seems to know no bounds in delegation of authority

to control the individual in society and at the same time

protect the person who carries out the accusing.

I just feel that having criticized this bill I should finish

by making some positive proposals. One of the elements in the

functioning of the marketing boards which has caused concern is

that no one really knows the degree to which the formula for

the cost of production is derived. This, in itself, seems to be

a source of disagreement even amongst the boards themselves. So

there has to be some vehicle or some mechanism whereby the cost

of production formula should be reviewed.

Secondly, there's no question whatever that consumers must

be involved in the decisions regarding marketing. As I

mentioned a moment ago, it's my impression from the Minister's

public comments that he believes in this. Mr. Speaker, the word

"consumer" isn't mentioned once in the whole bill. We're told

that 10 persons will be appointed, but the particular nature of

these 10 people, whether they'll be nine consumers and one

producer, or one consumer and nine something else, is left

completely undefined.

It seems to me, taking these two factors into account, that

there is real need for a detailed investigation of the whole

marketing system. I agree with the Minister that it should

include supermarkets and the retailing agencies as well as the

producers.

The consumer these days has growing concern and suspicion

that a great deal of manipulation of price goes on.

Supermarkets advertise specials where the price last week was

probably less than the special price this week. Now I don't

know to what degree that happens, but some cases have been

demonstrated.

I think that the very growth of consumer service legislation

in North America is actual and obvious proof of the need for

greater consumer involvement and supervision of the marketplace

generally. I don't think there could ever be a better time for

this government to take a real initiative and set up some

detailed investigation of marketing of natural products,

particularly since the Minister himself back in July agreed

that there was real need for a price

[ Page 4435 ]

inquiry.

For these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, we strongly oppose

this bill, and I would hope that the government might consider

some of these positive proposals which I've added.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I have listened for the last two days to the debate in regard to this bill dealing

with marketing boards. I have been one that has been critical of marketing boards

from time to time.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): That's before you

got $40,000 a year.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: I listened to the Hon. Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) yesterday, and he was trying to

take us back to the origin of marketing boards. I remember full

well why the first marketing board was formed. It was when the

people in the Okanagan sat on the railroad tracks and stopped

the trains and said: "Five cents a pound, or they rot on the

ground."

Mrs. Jordan: My grandfather was there.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: I'm sure he was, and I could be

your grandfather pretty near, I suppose…

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: …because I was there too.

Now at that time the farmer couldn't get five cents a pound

for his apples.

Mrs. Jordan: He couldn't get one cent a pound.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: The consumer benefited from it if

he had the money to buy. But you people over there have talked

for two days and you haven't given one alternative policy to

the Hon. Minister of Agriculture, who is trying to bring about

changes to correct some of the things that have happened over

the years.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Do you ever

accept any of our ideas?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Capitalism depends upon the

marketplace. This is the only way the producer of agricultural

products has to protect himself, and that's why the marketing

board was started — because capitalism at that time had fallen

down, failed to operate.

The demand is based on supply and demand — not on the need, but on the demand

of those who have enough money to purchase the goods.

The consumer has never been taken into consideration. The

consumer is the victim at every turn of the road. He's the

victim of high prices, of people trying to be greedy and to

make as much as they possibly can.

You know, we haven't learned anything from the Thirties.

We're still playing around with the same set of blocks that we

did at that time, to try and solve a problem that is inherent

in a system that we're operating under.

This is no panacea. This bill here is not going to be the

panacea either. I don't expect it will be, because I don't

think it's within the province's powers to solve all these

problems. You could have a better chance on the federal

field.

Back in the '30s, in order to keep up a false price

structure, they dumped 3.5 million pigs into the Mississippi;

they turned down every second row of cotton; they burned huge

piles of oranges. Not because the people had enough and didn't

need them; the people were going without and starving. And

there are people in the world today who are starving, while

only a few years ago we paid people not to plant wheat.

A few years before that we subsidized the price of butter — when we paid 59 cents a pound to the farmer for butter — and we

got such a huge supply of butter on hand that we didn't know

what to do with it. Under our system we couldn't ship that

butter at 25 cents a pound to India or to Africa or to South

America. The only place we could send it, without upsetting

their economy, was to a country that had a managed economy — that was Poland. That was the only place we could ship it for

25 cents a pound. We didn't give the consumer in Canada a

chance to buy that butter at 25 cents a pound, and many people

couldn't buy butter at the price that it was.

The same thing is happening today. In Quebec they killed the

calves because the farmer is not getting sufficient to look

after himself, and the only way that he can do that is try to

bring it to the attention of somebody. Very likely they will

end up with some sort of a marketing board there to try and up

the prices. If you up the farm prices, which is legitimate to

the farmer, you're going to up the price to the consumer.

So when I hear people ask where's the protection to the

consumer — the consumer has no protection; he hasn't had

protection, and he's not going to have protection….

Some Hon. Members: Under this bill, under this

bill.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: The consumer isn't going to be the

one that's going to be the most benefited.

When they set up the marketing boards originally,

[ Page 4436 ]

many of those marketing boards became little empires. They

did things that weren't in agreement with the people whom they

were serving. You got that with that vote you had with the tree

fruits board. This bill here is sort of an ombudsman over all

the different marketing boards, so they can appeal. Sort of an

ombudsman over all of them. It's a sincere attempt to try and

bring back and correct some of the things that have been done

wrong in the individual marketing boards over the years. This

is the only way that we can see.

I haven't heard one alternative policy put forward by the

loyal opposition or by the Liberal Party or by the large

Conservative Party that we've got in the House.

Mr. Wallace: You weren't listening; I finished up

with a proposal.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: When we think of trying to stop the

growth of foodstuff in a world that is crying with hunger, I

think it's a sacrilege. We've got to find someway…and I

don't think B.C. could do it alone, it's got to be done

country-wide and globular in order that the people of the world

will be able to enjoy some of these products that are grown.

Rather than stop the growth, we should be increasing the growth

of vegetables and fruits and different things so that these

people could live a little better. Let me tell you that many

people throughout the world, and many people in Canada…they

had to cut down even their use of eggs because they couldn't

afford to purchase them always — when the price goes up.

This is what they did back in the '30s. Don't forget that

we're playing with the same set of blocks that we did in the

'30s, and we're not getting any further — except that we're

trying to put a plastic band on the system that you people are

supporting all the time.

The people of the country…if they were ready to accept a

system that would solve these problems, then we could solve

them. But I don't think that time has arrived. Although, back

in the '30s I looked ahead and I thought that it wouldn't be

long before they would accept these changes. But these changes

are going to come and whether we like it or not — whether you

like it or not — we're going to change the economic system

where it will have human interest put before the making of

profits.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Mines has just given us an eloquent

account of many of the problems of agriculture, but then he

ends up calling this legislation a plastic band, which I'm

afraid it is. He said that we're still playing around with the

blocks of the '30s, and this is still playing around with the

blocks of the '30s. That's what this bill is doing, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm glad it's getting a careful examination because it's a

very important piece of legislation. It's important to our

freedoms, and the powers that it would cause this Legislature

to delegate and to re-delegate to the cabinet. It's important

to every consumer in this province. Something between 40 and 60

per cent of all the produce of agriculture that we consume goes

through a marketing board of one kind or another. Their

regulation is of enormous importance.

What the Minister has done here is to take an idea, which is

an idea of a supervisory board, and then propose a system of

implementation which is not good. The idea of a supervisory

board I personally believe to be a good one.

Much comment has been given to the Forbes report, and I'm

going to talk about that report a little bit later on. Let me

read the first of Professor Forbes' general recommendations. He

said:

"Steps should be taken immediately to direct and supervise

marketing boards at the provincial level to reduce the

undesirable side effects of board actions in arbitrary pricing,

undue supply restrictions, individual quota transfer ability,

undue restriction of entry and geographic restriction of

production, and to include adequate and effective access to

board decisions and representation of consumer and other

interests."

That's the idea, Mr. Speaker. That's the idea that maybe the

government started with in drawing up this legislation, but

that's not the implementation. That's not the bill we have in

front of us. Where are the measures to eliminate the

undesirable side effects, of board actions and arbitrary

pricing or undue supply restrictions and all the other things

Professor Forbes mentioned that should be dispensed with? It's

not in this legislation.

The implementation is bad. The government has a way of

taking an idea, playing around with it and making it into bad

policy, and they've done that here.

The first problem I see with the form of implementation is

the sweeping powers. I think the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) dealt very well with many of those powers in the bill.

But just to indicate the overwhelming blanket effect, it notes

here in

section 7(1): "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

make regulations" — stroke of a pen — "and may vest in the

Provincial board or any marketing board or commission such

authorities and powers as are considered necessary or advisable

with reference to the marketing…." Absolutely no boundary

or restriction on it, Mr. Speaker, just a complete blank

cheque.

Now as the Minister and, I'm sure, the Attorney-General well

knows, that wording is in the present legislation.

[ Page 4437 ]

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: The present legislation is more

severe.

Mr. Gibson: It's very similar. In fact, these things

have been carried forward in ways that should not have been

done. If this government meant what it said about being a

sunshine government…. The Attorney-General is having some

things to say and I hope he'll stand in his place and say them

about this Act.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): Why don't you

read the legislation?

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gibson: It's government by regulation, Mr.

Speaker, and that

part is a very bad thing.

Secondly there are no guidelines set forward, either in this

legislation or in the statement of the Minister in introducing

the legislation, as to how his new superboard should operate.

He hasn't indicated to us who will be on the board. Will it

simply be a group of friends of the government? To what extent,

to what percentage will it represent producers? To what

percentage consumers? How will the overall representation,

which must be parallel to representation of the public interest

which the government and the Legislature is suppose to look

after, how will this public interest be represented and be made

preeminent on this board?

Why has not the Minister said something in his policy

statement with respect to the use of pricing mechanisms by

marketing boards as income redistribution schemes for the

agricultural sector? Why has he not said something about

trading and profiteering in, quotas? Why is there not something

in the legislation about this? Why has he not said something or

put something in the guidelines for the provincial marketing

board which would state whether or not land and quota

capitalization costs should be built into the costing factor,

which puts us, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) outlined, on an ever-rising treadmill when

one builds costs into administered prices?

Why is there nothing in this legislation about information

disclosure — the right of public access to information

developed not just by the superboard but by the marketing

boards themselves? There's not even in the description of the

appeal process a provision that all of the documents provided

to the superboard concerning the appeal be made public. There's

no provision for public attendance or consumer representatives

at meetings of marketing boards.

The next problem with the implementation is that the Act is far too broad.

The definition of natural product is one that casts a very wide net. There's

no opportunity for producers to have a vote as, to whether or not they wish

to be constituted into a marketing board.

When I note that the definition of natural product includes

forests, I say to myself — and, Mr. Minister, I'd like you to

stand in your place and deny this — "Is this a backdoor into the

takeover of the forest industry? Is this a simple way of

putting a marketing board over every lumber mill in this

province and every pulp mill, saying, 'Those are your prices

and this is how much you're going to be allowed to produce this

month and there's who you're going to buy from and there's who

you're going to sell to'?” Those powers are all in the

board, Mr. Minister; the powers are all there in that Act.

The Minister indicates that that's an improper

interpretation. I'd like that Minister to stand in his place

right now and say on behalf of the government, "There's no

intention whatsoever in any way of using this Act in the forest

industry."

And if that's correct, will the government accept an

amendment to delete the word "forest" from this Act?

I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is back

in the House, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture

would care to reply to that. It's a question of utmost

importance. It's a backdoor into the forest industry, or could

be used in that way.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: I wish she was here to answer. The

Minister hasn't, in his statement introducing the bill,

grappled with many of the basic issues of agriculture.

He did give a complete defence of the boards, and I'd ask

him why he shouldn't admit that there may have been a few

things wrong with the way in which boards have operated in the

past. There are examples to come, but I point out at this point

that even his colleague, the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young) has been very vocal on this point — to her

credit.

The Minister made price comparisons of market-board products

to other selected food products and claimed that market board

increases had been mild by comparison. What he should have

done, of course, was not take a few highly-selected items like

sugar but rather have used for his comparison the general

consumer price index in food over the period he wanted to

compare and compared that with his marketing-board products.

Then he should have given us the answer. That defence was

thrown out the window by the Minister's lack of completeness

there.

In his introductory statement he did not give us reasons for

failing to proceed with the legislative committee that he

himself suggested setting up in a motion on the order paper. I

submit that one of the

[ Page 4438 ]

reasons for not proceeding with that committee was that it

might have gotten into areas very uncomfortable to the

government. It might have dealt with the calling of witnesses

who would have been embarrassing to the government. I wish the

Minister would deal with that point when he closes second

reading.

There has been a great deal of comment during this debate

about a report prepared by Professor James Forbes of the

University of British Columbia. I note that the Minister of

Consumer Affairs yesterday told us,

As far as Professor Forbes goes, I think Professor Forbes

has done a real service to British Columbia and to Canada for

bringing forward some very detailed and thoughtful analysis of

various boards.

I think that's a correct statement, Mr. Speaker. Professor

Forbes has produced an analysis which is not biased. It's

definitely not anti-marketing board. Indeed, it's for marketing

boards in the sense that it suggests many means to improve

their performance.

The report, I think, is of sufficient importance that I'm

going to read a few selected segments of it. Obviously, this is

very selected and doesn't do justice to the report because it's

a report of some 69 pages plus appendices. But in dealing with

the consumer interests he notes that the interests of marketing

boards are not coincident with those of consumers.

"One of the expressed objectives of any agricultural marketing board is to protect the interest of

the producers. The interests of consumers and other groups of

society are not irrelevant; they're merely secondary."

Then he

notes later on that that really shouldn't be the case because

consumption is the purpose of production, and the consumer

interest should be paramount in the regulation of economic

activity.

I would think that would naturally be a statement to which

the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) would

subscribe to. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) would subscribe to it as well. Again, in

closing this debate, he might tell us what he thinks about some

of the directions brought forward in this report.

Professor Forbes describes the enormous powers granted to

marketing boards by legislation and which would be increased by

this legislation.

"Marketing board legislation grants powers to boards which is unparalleled in our society. Many of the

powers granted to boards, such as price-fixing, limiting

production, restricting entry — to name a few — are prohibited

in our anti-combine legislation in all other areas of economic

activity."

And they are included in this bill, as the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

says.

That is why, when we set up instrumentalities with this kind of power, the

public interest must prevail in the machinery that's built in to regulate it.

And that means that the controlling agencies of those boards have to have on

them people who are dedicated to the public interest and not to a special interest

— or at least the public interest component must overbear all of the others.

And that's why I ask the Minister, before he finishes, to give us some assurances

about the composition of this superboard.

Professor Forbes draws to our attention some of the other

dangerous consequences of the monopoly status of these boards,

dangers essentially related to their economic efficiency. He

says on page 25:

"Marketing boards, to the extent that they have monopoly powers, are removed from some of the

competitive consequences of changes in the marketplace. The

more complete their market power, the less there is competitive

pressure to respond to these changes." And he notes later

on:

"Unfortunately, where monopoly power exists, it provides a protective umbrella which permits

inefficiencies to be ignored or to become entrenched as

traditional practices. The possession of substantial market

power will at worst stifle innovation and at best not provide

an economic incentive for the development of imaginative new

ideas."

He might have noted as well that in a monopoly situation of

this kind, the costs and the prices will generally reflect

those of the least efficient producer rather than the most

efficient producer, with a consequent tax on the consuming

public.

I think most Members of this House would agree that boards

have very legitimate uses. Properly controlled, they are a

factor that should be continued in our agricultural sector.

Some of their objects are to match supply and demand,

especially with perishable commodities, and to maintain income

by production or price controls. Perhaps in some cases they

make a net transfer of income from other Canadians to the

agricultural sector. They have the valid purpose of attempting

to minimize swings in income and to spread risks among

different categories of producers.

They have a number of promotional aims, all of which are

good: good distribution, research and product improvement, the

development of export markets, innovation in technology, growth

in harvesting, consumer education, grading and quality control.

Many things of this kind are useful functions of marketing

boards.

At the same time they act for the producers as defenders

against sometimes improper international competition when there

are cases of dumping on the Canadian market. They act as

defences to some extent against the swings and vagaries of

climate and Mother Nature; they act as defenders against

the

[ Page 4439 ]

market power of large and economically powerful buyers. They

perform all of these functions.

The problems arise when they start to do things that they

were not designed for, because their control structure is not

properly thought out. About that aspect of it, let's ask how

the system has actually worked. That's what a major portion of

the Forbes study is all about. I commend it to every Member of

this House.

First of all, Professor Forbes enters a caveat. He notes:

"The reader should realize that the majority of boards do not

manipulate either price or quantity, even though they have the

power to do so." So we're talking about a minority of the

boards, in other words.

He goes on to note what happens when production is cut

back:

"If production is arbitrarily restricted by a board, the price rises and inefficient producers are

encouraged to remain in the market. The efficient producers

receive a higher price than is justified and this results in a

capitalization of their right to produce."

Mr. Speaker, that capitalization of a right to produce is

exactly what the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) was discussing when he mentioned the pernicious

quota systems as they are practiced in some of the marketing

schemes.

To quote Professor Forbes:

"Quotas are the means by which producers are allocated the right to produce a product under marketing

board control. The individual peculiarities of quota for any

product vary widely but if a quota is used, entry is restricted

and there is an economic return to producing the particular

product, the right to produce acquires an economic value. Some

boards have allowed producers to sell quota rights and

therefore capitalize the right to produce. If the capitalized

value of quotas is reflected in costs, and costs are used to

determine price, these quotas will be contrary to the consumer

interest. "

That's a flat statement, Mr. Speaker: the quotas in those

cases "will be contrary to the consumer interest."

There are some specific examples of how these quotas have

been contrary to the consumer interest. Let me start first of

all with the milk and dairy product industry. To again quote

Professor Forbes:

"In the milk sheds for the major urban areas of Canada,

prices have been higher than they need to be and are to the

advantage of the large dairy producer who has been in business

for a long period of time. Entry to the industry is severely

restricted, inhibiting potential changes in production,

manufacturing and distribution. Consumers have been taxed for many years by a complete

embargo on almost all cheeses and all butter from lower-cost

foreign sources. The cost of dairy support programmes, which

include federal support as well as the consumer tax in the form

of higher prices for dairy products, have amounted to $300

million to $400 million per year in recent years."

That's pretty bad, Mr. Speaker, but it's not the worst,

because we in British Columbia have a distinction in that

field. I quote the British Columbia facts: "For a British

Columbia family which consumes three quarts of milk a day, this

added cost amounted to $21.68 in 1973." For a similar family in

Saskatchewan this was less than 50 cents for the year.

Three quarts of milk a day is a little over 1,000 quarts a

year, so we're talking about a premium of around 2 cents a

quart as a direct result of the quota system as it is

administered in the milk industry in British Columbia.

Eggs — or course, we know about. We have the word of the

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) speaking in the

interests of the consumer: "In my view, these interests are not

being served by the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, rather those

interests are being exploited beyond endurance by that board."

I don't think we need any more on the egg subject.

On the poultry subject, Professor Forbes says:

"The consumer interest is not being served as well as it

could be by the poultry industry in Canada. In the most recent

past, the consumer has been overcharged for some poultry

products."

He notes further that high prices to the Canadian

poultry industry have generally been capitalized into poultry

quotas under marketing board control.

Professor Forbes has kind words for the Hog Marketing

Boards, and he has some good words for the B.C. fruit marketing

board, noting that some of the marketing boards work very hard

to develop export markets for their products, and he cites the

fruit marketing board in that regard.

We have the word of someone else for it. There's a recent

report by Wendy Holm Dixon in a graduate thesis for the

University of British Columbia, which made a comparison of the

British Columbia Broiler Board to the counterpart in Washington

state. Now, in making this comparison you have to take into

account certain subsidies in the feed costs in the United

States, but overall, Ms. Dixon found that because of present

B.C. legislation, B.C. chicken producers have returns more than

double those of Washington state producers; competition is

eliminated; production costs are higher; efficiency is lower;

and retail outlets in B.C. can charge a markup of about 30

cents a pound, compared to 5 to 8 cents a pound in Washington

state.

Interestingly enough, the chairman of the relevant

[ Page 4440 ]

marketing board, Mr. Liedtke, disagreed, naturally, with

much of that report but made this quote in the September 12

edition of The Province: "I suppose that a royal

commission into food prices from market to consumer is the

answer." That's an interesting thought which I think we ought

to come back to later, Mr. Speaker.

Professor Forbes makes the very basic and important point

that marketing boards ought not to be thought of and used as

income-redistribution schemes. The basic reason he says this

cannot work is because most of the advantages of the higher

income produced by higher prices goes to the larger

farmers.

"The assumption that higher prices will result in higher

agricultural incomes is a fallacy. In a very short time higher

prices for agricultural products have resulted in higher cost

operations for new entrants since these higher prices have been

capitalized into either higher land values or into higher quota

values, all of these quotas under marketing board control."

He notes later that 19 per cent of Canadian farmers received

59 per cent of agricultural sales.

"If our income policy for agriculture is to raise income for

all farmers, it has patently failed since the major effect of

price go to less than 20 per cent of the farmers."

And later on:

"The point we want to make, and make very emphatically, is

that an income policy for agriculture should be based on net

income to the producer, not on high prices based on inflated

prices to agricultural land caused by artificially high prices

for agricultural products.

"In order to raise farm wages to a comparable level with

those in other sectors of our economy there must be fewer

numbers of farmers whose contribution to agricultural

production distributed among them and their hired labour will

raise returns to labour.

"Assisting movement out of the agricultural sector and

easing the adjustments necessary for farmers to make this move

should be a major thrust of our agricultural policy."

These are very basic and important themes, Mr. Speaker, and

I hope that the Minister might allude to them when he closes

the debate on second reading. What has been said here is that

the attempt of marketing boards to keep prices high enough to

provide a decent living to the least efficient producer, when

the producing units are small, can have the effect of giving

very high returns to relatively few farmers, and at the same

time raising prices considerably for consumers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Here's a statement I think worthy of reading because I can't

conceive how the government, and particularly a socialist

government, could do other than agree with this statement of

philosophy. It's on page 58 of the report:

"Some sort of supply restriction will continue to be

necessary in some agricultural commodities. However, all great

haste must be made to ensure that individuals are not allowed

to capitalize society's gift to them of the right to produce to

their own personal benefit."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, that's a windfall profit of a

monopoly conferred on a particular individual by society as a

whole.

Here are some of Professor Forbes' conclusions put very

briefly: "The use of prices to achieve the objective of higher

incomes to producers in the agricultural sector is not

working." That's a flat statement of fact, Mr. Speaker, and I

think the Minister should either refute it or deal with it.

He states this: "The costs of agricultural programmes are

probably well over $1 billion yearly, one half from consumer

price increases through higher prices and the other half from

direct governmental transfer in agricultural programmes." What

are the numbers in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? I'd like to

know them.

The next recommendation relates to foreign trade. Next:

"Marketing boards have the potential to be an effective

instrument of agricultural policy, but need competent direction

and control by government."

Next: "Speculation in land is a significant source of costs

in agricultural production and, as a result, in the prices

consumers pay for food." Not only land, incidentally, but

quotas, I would add to that statement.

Mr. Speaker, given the very broad scope of an examination of

this kind, it seems to me that at the very least, even if this

bill seemed to be good legislation rather than having the

terribly sweeping powers it has in it, it would still be a good

thing to refer it to some kind of a committee. I think there

might be a very good case made for the appointment of a royal

commission into the agricultural sector generally, and market

boards in particular, to hear evidence, to consider this scheme

among others and to bring back recommendations to the

government. But certainly….

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) as you well know,

the Forbes commission was not a provincial commission. It was not exclusively

directed to British Columbia agriculture. Furthermore, no attention was paid

to it by the government. That's why we need a royal commission.

[ Page

4441 ]

Mr. Speaker, the bill as it stands is unacceptable.

Mr. F Richter (Boundary-Similkameen): I was

interested in some of the statements by the various Members of

the government, and particularly by the Minister of Mines (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick), who was relating back to the 1930s. He was there

when the farmers were more or less picketing the railway

because they were not getting the returns on their fruit that

they felt they had to have. The Minister of Mines quoted the

price of five cents a pound or on the ground. Now this is very

incorrect.

Actually the amount the farmers were asking was not "five

cents a pound or on the ground;" it was one cent. That is equal

to $20 a ton, and not the $100 a ton that the Minister would

have led us to believe. On the basis of the Minister's

statement this would have been $2.50 per box. Actually, all the

farmers were asking was 40 cents a box.

Now how far can the Minister distort these sorts of things?

I was kind of surprised at the Minister of Mines' statement. I

must say that he's not any more enlightened on the agricultural

marketing boards of the province than he is on his own mining

legislation.

Interjection.

Mr. Richter: The popcorn issue, you know, that's

something he tried to bypass. However, he hasn't been very

adept at even dealing with popcorn, because I don't think he

knows whether we produce any popcorn in British Columbia or

not.

In discussing the principle of the bill that we have before

us, Bill 165, I think it's necessary to relate the necessity of

ever introducing a Natural Products Marketing (British

Columbia) Act — known as

chapter 263 of the revised statutes of

1960. Now this legislation, which came in in the '30s under Dr.

Macdonald, who was then the Minister of Agriculture, was not

taken lightly at the time. It was a matter that had been

discussed at every level of production. And the government in

its wisdom saw fit, after being asked by the various production

entities, to bring the broad principle of natural products

marketing legislation in to British Columbia.

There was a need, as the history will indicate, for such

legislation. That need was for producers to protect themselves.

We had overproduction; we had undercutting in the selling.

There was a breaking down of price structures. It became a

dog-eat-dog situation where producers who were attempting to be

producers found themselves that they had to sell at reduced

prices. Consequently, they broke the whole marketing of our

products down.

In the legislation, the present statute, there is provision for a British Columbia

marketing board of three members. Now these three members had the obligation

of more or less watching over the various schemes. Under the legislation a scheme

could be brought in on any number of commodities. We relate to some, such as

the Tree Fruits Marketing Board, the Vegetable Marketing Boards; there were

other types of boards too.

I heard a bit of a guffaw today when the Member for

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned the wood industry. We

did at one time have a cedar shingle marketing board in this

province — long since gone out of existence. But we did have

that. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility of applying

the marketing legislation to various types of commodities that

come within the category of natural products in the

province.

Now the three-member board, without the necessity of

bringing in Bill 165, has very extensive powers in which they

can correct any measures in which a marketing scheme board may

intent to indulge. These matters can be corrected by that

board. So it gives me some wonderment as to why we should have

to bring in a superboard — or let us call it a board — that is

going to wedge itself and do those things which should be the

responsibility of the Minister and his marketing board of three

members. That consists of two members of his staff, plus one

member that came from what was then Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce — an economist. By this fact alone it gives

me great concern as to why we're going into this superboard

structure. I feel that this is completely unnecessary,

unwarranted, and it will do many things, as I relate at a

further time in my address.

In the federal Act, or Acts, it relates to agricultural

products. This Act, Bill 165, is not confined to agriculture.

It has a very broad effect and coverage on various commodities,

and it could go into almost any type of operation and do all

those things that the various schemes or the commodity boards

now do.

So all you're doing is really replacing the authority and

prerogative of a commodity board. Under a scheme, and under the

terms of the Act, you're bringing about a situation which will

be a slow process of eliminating producer boards. Actually, Mr.

Speaker, the medicine is worse than the ailment.

Because of the severe powers that will be used…. there's

no question in my mind that they will be used, because of the

historical experiences that have come about through change of

time and through changes of technology which various marketing

schemes have had to encounter. We have had those times in our

history when the going was rough.

Because we deal in world markets and because we have no

control over federal measures and authorities as to the imports

and exports, our marketing schemes have not been without their

problems — and problems beyond their control. But certainly

what is proposed in Bill 65 is not going to be a solution

[ Page 4442 ]

those problems. It's merely passing it on to a board which

could or could not be made up of producers. I think that the

producers must have a very strong representation on such a

board, because we're going to get a feedback from these boards

which will have a very great impact on the production of

agricultural produce in this province.

We just need to have a few of our marketing schemes wiped

out by the edict of this overpowering board and you will find

that farmers will be going out of business like you have never

seen before.

Now some of the problems of the marketing schemes have been

the types of commodities which they have attempted to control.

When I say "control" I mean the production, the sales and the

preparation of the commodity. We have those types of

commodities, the perishables, such as eggs, fruit, milk. When I

say they're perishable, they're not only perishable, but you

can't turn them off. It's not as if you were handling grain

that's easily stored, or with which you can reduce the

acreage.

We've got experiences today in that respect in regard to

what was done by the federal government as far as grain

production is concerned. One of the reasons we're having a

high-cost factor in our food products today was the paying for

the wiping out of productive acreage which could have been

producing. The federal government saw fit to compensate the

farmers for not growing grain. Consequently, today we find

ourselves in a position that we are short on some of the

commodities which the starving world needs. This also relates

to the production of various commodities that we could

undertake. The cost factor, the matter of the killing of calves

by farmers, is a prime example of what can happen when feed

costs are at a level which overshadows the production

return.

For the edification of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick), when the tails get higher than the heads, then you

have a situation in which the mine closes down.

Interjection.

Mr. Richter: No — to the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) — it's not the blow flies; it's the heel flies. That's

what puts their tails over their heads.

However, the fact that the type of commodity…. For

instance, in the matter of the highly perishable commodities

and those commodities which you can't turn off, you can turn

the hens off if you chops their heads off, but you're going to

have to produce some more to take their place. You could kill

the milk cows, but that doesn't produce any milk. As far as the

trees are concerned, I suppose you could shake the apples down.

But in every case you diminish your food production.

Under the broad powers which are being delegated in whole or in part to the

boards, this is a matter which is strictly within the control of the Department

of Agriculture as to what powers are delegated, as contained in

chapter 263

of the 1960 revised statutes. I don't agree that all powers that are within

the legislative authority need to be delegated. But because of the wide nature

of the various natural products that could come under a marketing scheme, then

it was necessary to contain all these powers within the founding legislation

on which the schemes were going to be predicated.

Interjection.

Mr. Richter: Yes, this could include Christmas trees.

You could have a marketing board for Christmas trees, and

that's not stretching the imagination too far. You don't need

really to think too far in this way, but we could have

marketing boards for Christmas trees — and why? It's because

we're harvesting many Christmas trees today that are not

naturally grown in a wild state.

Today we are producing a very considerable number of

Christmas trees of various species — Dutch pine, blue spruce,

Douglas fir — you name it; we've got it. Some are a little

easier to produce than others, but the fact still remains that

Christmas trees could very easily come under a marketing

scheme.

The success or failure of such a scheme would be on the

ability of those who are operating this scheme, which I would

assume would be producers who would apply to the Minister of

Agriculture, after carrying out the necessary plebiscite and

gaining the necessary majority of producers' affirmative votes,

and then petitioning the Minister to carry out the necessary

orders-in-council under the existing Act to formulate a

marketing board. What the Minister would be prepared to put

into such a scheme by way of powers that he would convey under

the relevant legislation to such a board is a point which would

be interesting.

In my own experience I know of one board, although there

were several boards instituted under my administration — the

short period of time that I was in the Minister of

Agriculture's portfolio…. one board had attempted on three

occasions to gain the necessary support from the producers by

which they could apply for a marketing scheme.

In the first two attempts — and these were at intervals

approximately two to three years — they failed. The percentage

of an affirmative vote that was required was well over 60 per

cent. In their third attempt they got a very good majority,

more than was required under the authority to hold a

plebiscite, and they set up the necessary board.

Quotas were mentioned today. Quotas are only applicable in

some cases such as milk. Quotas were necessary so that you

didn't get an over-production, which would not have been to the

interest of the

[ Page 4443 ]

farmer. They were necessary to maintain his Class 1 quota at

an equitable level so that he wouldn't be producing an

excessive amount of processing milk, which is paid for at a

lower price. He would then be able to control his production in

line with his costs, because there is a formula built into the

Milk Marketing Act that moves along currently with existing

costs, existing wage structures, and so on, to determine a

price from month to month. Now this is a relatively simple

one.

The quota, as far as being a general commodity…. I have to

be quite frank and say that I'm not in favour of it being a

saleable commodity. I have always maintained that it should

have remained with the board and only issued on the merit of it

being earned — not bought and sold.

I have always taken this stand over the course of time. I

have always felt this way and I may be individualistic in this

approach. However….

An Hon. Member: It's raining rocks in the greater

Peace.

Mr. Richter: That's beyond Hope.

However, Mr. Speaker, the function of marketing boards

themselves need not be under such a domineering control as they

will be when the conditions under Bill 65 are implemented.

I had to say to the Minister that I appreciate his analysis,

by way of his news release, that Bill 165 contains sweeping

changes in agricultural marketing legislation, as they were

introduced the other day in the presentation by the agriculture

Minister of the Natural Products of British Columbia Act.

Now this is a very confusing title in that under

chapter

263, the Act is called the Natural Products Marketing (British

Columbia) Act, and again in Bill 165 it's called the British

Columbia Natural Products Marketing Act, or Natural Products

British Columbia Marketing Act. But still in the bill itself

… the Natural Products British Columbia Marketing Act,

Chapter 263 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia

will be repealed.

If we who are used to reading legislation are becoming

confused with this sort of doubletalk, what is going to happen

to the individual out on the street who doesn't have any

concept of interpreting legislation?

The Minister goes on to say that the marketing boards have

the potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural

policy, but need competent direction and control by government.

I think that is the pertinent statement which the Minister has

made and has indicated quite clearly that the controls will no

longer be in the hands of the producers, but will be in the

hands of the government.

The marketing boards have the potential to be an effective instrument of agricultural

policy, but need competent — mark that word "competent" — direction and control

by government. In other words, the producers have been incompetent.

An Hon. Member: That $150 million overrun, was that

competence?

Mr. Richter: Well, I don't know about the $100

million overrun, but that is only one of the many overruns that

we'll learn about as time goes on. Mr. Speaker, you know, every

once in a while we get some enlightenment. Recently, on a trip

I was taking through the province, I learned a great deal of

the fact that many of the government Members are not really

acquainted with agriculture. Now this might surprise you — many

of the Members are not acquainted with the agricultural

industry in the way that they should be. I commend those that

are attempting to become educated in the field.

Now let me tell you, we had some very interesting

discussions in the course of select standing committees. One of

our Members who sits on the government side, the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) showed a great deal of

interest in the whole field of agriculture. In fact, her

interests were so concerned and deep that when some of the

cattle industry were telling about the difficulties they were

having in marketing some dry beef cows — mark that, dry beef

cows, these aren't milk cows — the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard wanted to know why they couldn't keep these

cows over the winter until they filled up again. (Laughter.)

Let me tell you, she took it very good-humouredly and I razzed

her all the way from you know where to where we finished at the

Biltmore Hotel in Vancouver. She is going to buy a dry beef

cow, and I'm going to watch how she tethers it out over in

Vancouver on the lawn until it fills up next spring.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: You don't milk it like the government

milks the public.

Mr. Richter: Unfortunately, this dry beef cow doesn't

have any milk, but the Hon. Member is going to fill it up

again.

It's interesting and I commend any Member of the government

benches who wish to become more enlightened about the birds and

the bees. The Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford) is a little concerned about the bees and the

bears.

But the matter of the fact is that if they want to make

adjudication and vote on legislation such as we will be voting

on in Bill 165, the Members must know the facts of life about

the agricultural industry. It is a very complex and complicated

industry; it is a very trying industry. I commend any of them

who have

[ Page 4444 ]

the opportunity to meet with marketing boards, to encourage

the government to refer matters of agriculture to their

marketing board — do a little travelling. There was a great deal