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)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4787 ]

CONTENTS

Statement. Mr. Speaker tables legal opinion relating to Bill

165 — 4787

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4787

Mr. Speaker — 4787

Routine proceedings

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill

178). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 4788

Oral questions

Resignation of BCR auditing firm. Mr. Bennett — 4788

Environmental impact studies on Kemano power projects. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4788

Continued sale of hazardous fabric. Mr. Wallace — 4788

MVB help in tracing automobiles. Mr. Curtis — 4789

Teacher/trustee conciliators. Mr. Schroeder — 4789

$100 million bond issue in U.S.A. Mr. Chabot — 4790

Extra body shop charges. Mr. Phillips — 4790

Government participation in mines. Mr. Gibson — 4791

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 12.

Mr. McGeer — 4791

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4792

Mr. McClelland — 4792

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4793

Mr. McClelland — 4793

Mr. McGeer — 4794

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4794

Mr. McClelland — 4794

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4795

Division on amendment to

section 12 — 4795

Amendment to

section 12.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4795

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4795

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4796

Mr. McGeer — 4796

Division on amendment to

section 12 — 4798

section 13.

Mr. Gibson — 4798

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4798

Mr. McClelland — 4799

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4799

Mr. McClelland — 4799

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4799

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4799

Mrs. Jordan — 4800

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4800

Amendment to

section 14.

Mr. Wallace — 4800

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4800

Mr. Wallace — 4800

Statement Supreme Court decision on ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4801

Routine proceedings Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 14.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4801

Division on amendment to

section 14 — 4801

Amendment to

section 17.

Mr. Gardom — 4801

Mr. Wallace — 4802

Mr. Phillips — 4802

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4802

Mr. Gardom — 4803

Division on amendment to

section 17 — 4804

Amendment to

section 17.

Mr. Phillips — 4804

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4805

Division on amendment to

section 17 — 4805

section 17.

Mr. Wallace — 4805

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4806

Amendment to

section 19.

Mr. Gibson — 4807

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4807

Mr. Gibson — 4808

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4808

section 20.

Mr. Gibson — 4808

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4808

section 24.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4809

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4809

section 25.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4810

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4810

Amendment to the title.

Mr. Gardom — 4810

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4811

Division on amendment to the title — 4811

Division on third reading — 4811

Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act (Bill

173).

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Schroeder — 4812

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4813

Mr. Schroeder —

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4813

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 4813

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4813

Mr. McGeer — 4813

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4813

Mr. Gibson — 4813

Mrs. Jordan — 4814

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4814

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4814

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4814

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4815

Mr. Curtis — 4815

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4815

section 5.

Mr. Schroeder — 4815

Amendment to

section 5.

Mr. Schroeder — 4816

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4816

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4816

Mr. Gibson — 4817

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4817

Division on amendment to

section 5 — 4817

Amendment to

section 5.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4817

Mr. Gibson — 4818

Mr. Wallace — 4818

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4818

section 8.

Mr. Gibson — 4818

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4818

Report and third reading — 4818

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce to the House this afternoon a guest from the

beautiful constituency of Comox, Mr. Art Granger-from Alert

Bay. I understand that Art is not one of those who's keen to

become an American citizen.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce

Laszlo Gati, our local symphony conductor, I'm sure most

everyone here knows him, and a very special favour to introduce

Mr. Nikolai Petrov of Moscow who'll be playing today and

Wednesday with the symphony in concert.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we proceed with the

orders of the day, a matter came up on Friday in Committee of

the Whole House relating to a decision that I had made.

It concerned me very much because I felt that a Speaker has

a difficult job, in effect, to try to determine what the law is

when that really goes beyond the usual necessities of the

particular job. Where a Speaker has to deal with a question of

sub judice, he must make some attempt to understand whether the

matter before the House would in any way prejudice a pending

lawsuit. Therefore, he has to examine, in a sense, what the law

is — beyond what the law of parliament is — in order to make some

determination at his own discretion as to whether debate should

take place.

This concerned me very much and I know it would concern

every Member, so I asked the legislative counsel, who draws up

our legislation, if he would kindly furnish me with his legal

opinion on the question of whether anything in the bill that

was before us, Bill 165…whether this change in law would

affect any pending litigation. He's given me his opinion which

I would like to table with the House so Hon. Members may study

it.

I won't read it all, but merely say that he agrees with me

that it would not, in any

interpretation of the bill. Of

course, since I have to use my own discretion in deciding

whether debate should go into that aspect, when I did so I did

so in the feeling that it did not impinge upon any pending

court case so far as this Bill 165 is concerned. I therefore

table this with the House. Members can have copies of it.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, on a point

of order arising out of the remarks you have just made to the House, it has

always been my understanding, and you have reinforced this many, many times,

that the Speaker of this House has no knowledge of what takes place in committee.

I wonder, in the circumstances, if you could indicate whether this is to be

a change in the practice and procedure of this House in respect to the relationship

of the House and the committee, and if we in the future may therefore call upon

you for decisions on matters which might arise in the course of committee proceedings.

Mr. Speaker: I draw the Hon. Member's attention to

the 18th Volume of May , page 398:

"Although the Speaker is restrained by usage" — that's his

own usage — "while he is in the chair in the exercise of his

independent judgment, he is entitled in a committee of the

whole House to speak and vote like any other Member."

It follows from that that he's also entitled to be

present,

"Under modern practice, however, he has abstained from the

exercise of this right."

It's a right and it's his own abstention, not that of the

House.

I on my

part certainly am aware of my own decision in the

House, and what I am doing here is tabling with the House some

reinforcement of my decision in the House so that Members will

know in other future events what that decision was in terms of

litigation.

Mr. L.A. Williams: On the same point of order, I

wasn't questioning what you have done; I just want to know

whether in the future if the course of conduct in this House

and the committee is to be different. I appreciate that under

modern usage the Speakers do not often exercise their right.

Are we to understand that as a result of the investigation you

have made into this matter that we are to return to something

of a more archaic form?

Mr. Speaker: No, I don't think you need to anticipate

my plunging into debate in committee. They haven't f 4813 ound me a

seat, actually, where I could sit on the floor. What I'm

suggesting, though, is that where the Speaker is brought into

any debate in committee or anywhere else, he's always entitled

to state his position. In this case I'm doing so because it

relates to a decision I made in the House, based upon some

authorities, What I'm doing is substantiating it further with

the legal opinion, which is beyond what I would normally have

to do myself. It's a disadvantage sometimes being a lawyer in

this job.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, being a lawyer, perhaps you

might deem it fit to obtain a second opinion. (Laughter.)

[ Page 4788 ]

Mr. Speaker: Well I'd be delighted. I thought that's

what I did. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (NO. 2)

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statute Law Amendment

Act, 1974 (No. 2).

Bill 178 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RESIGNATION OF

BCR AUDITING FIRM

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Hon. Minister Without Portfolio, as

a director of the B.C. Railway — a post for which I understand

he's well qualified.

I have in my hand an audited statement of the British

Columbia Railway in which it shows losses last year of

$3,300,000 and profits the year before of $900,000. But the

interesting part of my question is that this report was done by

Buttar & Chiene, an auditing firm that's done the books of

the PGE and the B.C. Railways since 1916, and that on September

11 they resigned because they weren't prepared to change the

auditing procedures because of the mounting losses that the

railway wished to hide this year. Would the Minister advise the

House….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I remind the Member

that questions should not contain editorial opinion of the sort

in which you are indulging.

Mr. Bennett: That's not it; I'm just saying why they

resigned.

Mr. Speaker: I don't know that you know that. If it's

a public matter, it's all right.

Mr. Bennett: I just told you that I knew that, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The fact is that they resigned.

Mr. Bennett: Anyhow, would the Minister, when he

confirms the resignation of Buttar & Chiene to the House,

advise that the condition of employment for new chartered

accountants, when they advertise for them, will contain the

requirement that they change the accounting procedures?

Hon. A.A. Nunweiler (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to point out that we do not deal in

rumours. However, I will take the question as notice.

Mr. Bennett: I would like to further ask the

Minister: why the long delay in advertising for accountants?

The fiscal year will end December 31; the railway has been

without chartered accountants — independent chartered

accountants — since September. Why the long delay in advertising

for new accountants?

Mr. Speaker: Is the Hon. Member taking that as notice

as well?

Hon. Mr. Nunweiler: I will take it as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The first question is taken as notice; I

presume the second supplementary would be as notice. Or is it a

different question altogether?

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, although it relates to the

same subject, it's information for the House. I believe the

Minister was prepared to answer.

Mr. Speaker: It's up to the Minister which course he

follows.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES

ON KEMANO POWER PROJECTS

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation. May I ask the Minister whether his

department has carried out impact studies, environmental impact

studies, on the Morice and Bulkley River systems on the effect

of Alcan's proposed phase two of the Kemano power

development?

Hon. J. Radford (Minister Of Recreation And

Conservation): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

CONTINUED SALE OF

HAZARDOUS FABRIC

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask

the Minister of Consumer Affairs whether the Minister is aware

that this Canadian-made cotton material is available in K-Mart

stores? It is highly inflammable, and last week it led to the

death of a three-year-old child in Surrey. No progress has been

made in trying to remove this from the shelves.

Hon. P.F. Young ( Minister Of Consumer

[ Page 4789 ]

Services): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the case. I am aware

of the fabric. I would draw to the Hon. Member's attention that

this kind of material and its inflammability is under the

Hazardous Products Act, which is federal legislation. It is my

understanding that the Department of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs is now looking into the matter.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary question. Could I just

ask the lady Minister if she herself has been in touch with the

federal department concerned to try to bring about some

enhancement of safety standards and proper notification to the

consumer when they buy the product?

Hon. Ms. Young: It's my understanding that my

department has been in touch with the department in Vancouver

on this very subject.

MVB HELP IN TRACING AUTOMOBILES

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

Minister of Transport and Communications. Last week the

Minister indicated that cases where police officers found it

necessary to contact insurance agents in the course of their

search for a particular vehicle were relatively rare now. May I

ask the Minister if he is aware of a very recent example which

occurred in the greater Victoria area last week — in fact, Mr.

Speaker, in the early hours of Friday morning last, November

15?

A member of the Colwood detachment, RCMP, investigating the

disarming and holding of two RCMP officers in a downtown hotel

found it necessary to contact a Victoria insurance agent in the

middle of the night to ask him to go to his office and

determine the registered owner of a particular automobile which

the RCMP had under surveillance. Is the Minister aware of the

situation? Would he care to amend his statement of last

week?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communication): I wasn't aware of that indication. I think

the Member knows that there never, has been a 24-hour

availability of service from the Motor Vehicle Branch.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Not from the Motor Vehicle Branch

there has not been a 24-hour availability.

However….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: My friend says, "not since I

messed it up." I want to tell you that I read a statement about

some of the things you've been saying that will be released a

little later in the week. Then you might regret some of the

statements you've been making.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister

address himself to the question?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: But I wasn't aware of that, It can

happen in the middle of the night. But I can assure you that

the situation is being taken care of.

Mr. Curtis: The Minister's threats do not disturb me.

I challenge the Minister with respect to the 24-hour service by

the Motor Vehicle Branch as it existed. It was used repeatedly

by police forces in their efforts to determine who owned a

particular automobile.

The supplementary to the Minister is: would he also

investigate the case as to why the RCMP has been — I believe for

some four to five months — attempting to determine the owner of

a registered vehicle in the Kamloops area? I emphasize four to

five months. Again, there's been no success in seeking

information from the Motor Vehicle Branch.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Would the Member like to give me

the details so .I can check into it?

Mr. Curtis: I certainly would. As a matter of fact,

the insurance agent concerned in the earlier case, Mr. Speaker,

is prepared to sign an affidavit.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'm not worried about affidavits.

Would you give me the information instead of getting up and

making accusations? I will check into it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Cheap politics, that's all you're

interested in.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Those matters can be gone

into between the two Members.

TEACHER/TRUSTEE CONCILIATORS

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

question is for the Minister of Education, with reference to

bargaining in the

[ Page 4790 ]

teacher/trustee dispute. Can the Minister inform the House

as to how many of the conciliators are functioning as

conciliators today, and how many are scheduled to meet in the

next two weeks?

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): All

conciliators should be functioning. As you know, it will be

their role to report on the deadline for moving into

arbitration. So certainly they must be functioning. I cannot

give you any further report than I think you are already aware

of. There were two boards that had been doing some form of

conciliation with the teachers' associations. They seem to have

broken down. But I am not up to date on it.

I'm still hopeful, Mr. Member, that there may be some

conciliation agreements reached.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact

that it is currently against the law, as the Minister has

indicated, for conciliation to proceed, may I ask her what

steps she is taking to make sure that the existing law of the

province with respect to this will be obeyed by both the

trustees and the teachers? It's arbitration that is required by

law.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I think the trustee president, Mrs.

Madson, made a statement that they would uphold the

legislation, which they know has already passed through second

reading in the House. Part of the legislation states, of

course, that when royal assent is given, then it is

retroactive. We have had the assurance from the trustees'

association that they will follow through under that

assumption.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: In view of the fact that we've

seen amendments come before this House after second reading,

may I ask the Minister again what steps she is taking to make

sure the law is obeyed as it is at present — which calls for

arbitration and arbitrators to be named by both parties?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Do you mean that the arbitration

should now be in process in all districts?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's right. That's the law of

the land.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: All I can restate is that the bill,

which went through second reading and hopefully will go into

committee stage today, does state in it — and the trustees are

well aware of it — the retroactivity of that bill.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could tell me what will

happen if that bill gets defeated.

Mr. Speaker: It's not a point of order in the first

place. In the second place, it's not a question of hypothetical

questions in question period, of what will happen if this, or

that….

$100 MILLION BOND ISSUE IN U.S.A.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): A question to the

Minister in charge of finance, a two-point question. In view of

the government's $25 million sale of parity bonds at 8.5 per

cent in British Columbia, what motivated the government to sell

a $100 million bond issue at 10.25 per cent in Boston,

U.S.A.? And how many of the low-interest-bearing bonds were

absorbed by the pension funds administered by the

government?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I will take that as notice.

EXTRA BODY SHOP CHARGES

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport

and Communications. There are an increasing number of people

coming to me stating that they are having to pay an illegal

premium on their insurance policy when they have an accident.

On going back to the claim centres these people are told that

they don't know what they can do, that this is a situation

that's not legal. They go to the Minister and they're unable to

get hold of him; they go to his assistant and they're told to

go to the head office in Vancouver. On going to Vancouver

they're told that there is a policy being formed.

My question is: how much longer will this illegal premium be

charged to people who have accidents?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I suppose if the body shops are

not prepared to maintain the agreement that their designated

spokesman made with us, then the situation will continue.

An Hon. Member: What are you doing about it?

Mr. Phillips: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister is very well aware, and has been aware for quite

some time, that this situation exists. The contract you have — unwritten contract — with ICBC in the regulations is that they

are legally responsible to have the unit fixed at a body shop

of the customer's choice. The point is that when this happens,

they are being charged an additional premium. In essence, it's

an additional premium.

Mr. Speaker: I think that everybody grasped that from

your question in the first place. Is there anything you have in

the way of a question?

[ Page 4791 ]

Mr. Phillips: The Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) did not answer my question.

I want to know how much longer he's going to allow this illegal

situation to prevail in British Columbia? How much longer?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Perhaps the Member would like to

suggest some procedure under which we should take these people

to court who are breaking their agreement. Is that what you're

suggesting?

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano has a question. He has been waiting for some

time. Will you defer to the Hon. Member? Order please!

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: That's a rhetorical and hypothetical

question. I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN MINES

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a

question for the Minister of Mines. Now that the Minister has

had several days' notice of a question as to whether or not any

of his officials were in discussions with the owners of a

mining property in the Omineca mining district with respect to

the possibility of the government acquiring it or sharing in

it, could he now make a report to the House?

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): There

have been quite a few properties that have been asking us to participate in

bringing into production. I'm sure everyone of them is given consideration because

we're always looking for a bonanza someplace that might really be worthwhile.

(Laughter.)

That's as far as I can answer at the present time. There

have been none that have been made any offers or any such thing

as that.

Mr. Gibson: I have different information than the

Minister as to whom is the "asker" and the "askee" in this

situation. But I'd ask him: is it government policy now to take

over mines?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Not to this point.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: We've got it in the legislation that we can participate

if we so wish, and this is one of the great helps to the prospectors in the

province who are trying to operate little mines. As I said before, if a real

bonanza comes along, maybe we might consider it.

Mr. C.S. Gabelmann (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if you might inform the

House what the procedure is for question period in terms of

alternating between parties.

The Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was on his feet

since 15 minutes ago and at least six Members of the official

opposition were recognized prior to him.

Mr. Speaker: I'm very sorry….

Mr. Gabelmann: One Member of the Liberal Party was

recognized even though he stood up after the Member for

Mackenzie. I wonder if a policy of alternating parties would be

taken into consideration n the future.

Mr. Speaker: I apologize to the Hon. Member. I didn't

notice because most of my attention is over on the opposition

side of the House. I must apologize. I hope that when I

overlook someone, he would be kind enough to send me a note to

say that he has been overlooked before the time is up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I think that every Member in this House

is entitled to equal treatment regardless of where he sits.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: But I certainly apologize.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr.

Speaker, Public bills and orders. Committee on Bill 165.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 165; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

On the amendment to

section 12.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Call the

amendment, Mr. Chairman, because…

Mr. Chairman: I thought I did that.

Mr. McGeer: …I had hoped at this stage we

[ Page 4792 ]

would be able to hear from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich), he having had the weekend to consider the wisdom

of the amendment being offered here.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be repetitious in

debate. I'm never that way willfully, as you know, Mr.

Chairman, but, to review the situation briefly, as I recall it

from last Friday, we were talking about whether it was wise to

grant powers under this particular subsection that would permit

this superboard to alter, vary, and so forth and so on,

regulations that it had made prior to the creation of this

superboard.

The Minister, in defending the legislation, made it rather

clear that it was the government's intention to have the

superboard make alterations to regulations that were passed

prior to its creation. To me, this is the equivalent of

retroactive powers as far as this superboard is concerned. It's

evident that the legislation was written with that intent. The

Minister himself confirmed that this was the case. He said it

wasn't going to be specifically for Sy Kovachich. He didn't say

who it was for, but he made it pretty clear that it was for

somebody and that it was for some regulations that the boards

in their wisdom had thought were wise but the Minister, with

whatever wisdom he has, decided were unwise.

I think, before we cast our votes on this particular

amendment, we had better hear from the Minister exactly who he

has in mind. What were these regulations that were so bad that

they require legislation now permitting a superboard to change

them? If the Minister knows of these things — by his statements

on Friday he does — then we presume that the superboard will be

created merely to carry out his policies in a non-political

fashion.

I heard, Mr. Chairman, just when you asked about this

amendment, some of the NDP backbenchers saying, "No, the

amendment shouldn't pass."

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: I heard some from back in that

corner.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: I think my hearing is good enough to

detect that. These people back there were prepared to vote this

amendment down without ever hearing from the Minister who was

to be punished by this retroactive step that the Minister has

prepared. They didn't even want to know.

Now, I think the backbenchers have open minds; I think they

were just hasty in saying no. I think they want to hear from

the Minister just as much as I do about what rules and

regulations are going to be changed.

If it isn't for Sy Kovachich, who is it for? Make a clean

breast of it, Mr. Minister. We know you wish now that you had

done that last February, when we got into this chicken-and-egg

war, and you and the Premier offered some opinions in this

House which weren't exactly backed up by sworn testimony. I'm

not going to call them liars because, you can't do that. The

Minister wasn't on oath when he made his statements but the

members of the Egg Marketing Board were — and their statements

disagreed with the Minister's statements.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Pardon? Well, I'm just trying to give a

little background here because we've got to decide whether the

Minister is being completely frank with us, whether he's giving

a full explanation of the situation or whether we're just going

to get a rerun of the kind of thing that went on last

February.

Mr. Minister, could you tell us just who this retroactive

legislation is for? What have been the problems? Why is it

necessary? I think if we get these things spelled out fully

now, on the record, then we will know what the retroactive

intent is, and then we can make judgments as to whether or not

it is essential that this amendment pass.

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

Chairman, contrary to the suggestion offered by the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I can't imagine a situation

where the British Columbia marketing board will be trying to

amend an order or regulation which it passed before it came

into being.

I have no specific situation in mind. When I spoke on this

on Friday I did suggest some general situations where an as yet

unnamed British Columbia marketing board, in response to as yet

unlaunched questions or appeals from anyone who might wish to

appeal, might ask for some change or. some cancellation in some

order. But I did give the general situations where I thought

this could happen. I have no specific situations, no specific

orders or regulations in mind in this particular

section or

subsection.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I find it difficult,

in a way, to say that I don't believe the Minister, but I

don't. He says that he has no specific situations in mind. The

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked the

Minister who this retroactivity was for, on a couple of

occasions, and really hasn't had any answer.

There was also a suggestion made in this House that we have

been misled in regard to this whole retroactivity section. I

believe that is correct, that we have been misled.

Perhaps we have been taken down the garden path

[ Page 4793 ]

a couple of times, because I'm reasonably convinced at this

point that the Minister does not intend to, as he put it,

fiddle around with the Sy Kovachich case. I've talked with

several people from the Egg Marketing Board in the last couple

of days, and they have told me that they haven't had any

interference yet and that they are going to press their case

right through to the beginning. (Laughter.) I don't know

whether that will be…. Right through to the end, pardon

me.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): A couple more mistakes

like that and you can write him off. (Laughter.)

Mr. McClelland: Right the first time, Mr. Chairman, however, I believe that the Minister has this

specific legislation in mind for a specific situation, and that

specific situation has to do with the trouble that he's in

personally with regard to the national egg marketing

system.

I think the Minister won't answer because he's embarrassed,

because he has got himself into a jackpot for which he finds no

way out. Because he's going to have to find a way out, it is in

this legislation, and particularly in this

section which has to

do with retroactivity, that he's going to get himself off the

hook.

I don't know whether or not there will be interference from

this Minister or anyone in government once that Kovachich case

may progress to the point where subpoenas are issued for the

Premier and the Agriculture Minister, if that happens. But at

this point I am convinced that there is no interference. There

might be some interference later when those subpoenas are

issued. I expect that they should be…that they certainly

should be issued.

But the Canadian Egg Marketing Association was initiated on

behalf of the Province of British Columbia, as I understand it,

under the farm products marketing agencies Act, as was the

Turkey Marketing Board as well, the national board. The

Minister signed those agreements without any statutory

authority.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: Under the legislation in operation at

that time in British Columbia he has no right to sign those

agreements on behalf of any British Columbia marketing board,

or on behalf of the government, for that matter.

Mr. Chairman, the whole matter of the Canadian Egg Marketing Association, the

Turkey Marketing Board, could be ultra vires at this time. I believe it is open

to some serious challenges in the courts and otherwise. And all of the levies

which have been paid by the producers under the terms of those agreements are

now challengeable and are, I believe, completely ultra vires.

So the retroactivity under this section, 12(2), certainly

does have reference to a specific situation; it has reference

to the situation which will get the Minister off the hook and

get him out of trouble.

There isn't any doubt that the Egg Marketing Board, for one,

did not want to go into the national scheme, but they were

assured by the Minister that everything was open and

above-board, that everything would be fine.

But if we check the definition

section of this Act we will

find that there has been an addition from the original bill

under the term "federal board" in which the farm products

marketing agencies Act has now been included in the definition

section of this Act, which in fact gets the Minister off the

hook and legalizes what has been an illegal situation and a

situation in which the Minister acted with absolutely no

authority and thereby is in serious trouble at this time. That

is the specific situation for which this Act has been

drawn.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I have to

recognize the legal expertise of the Hon. Member for Langley,

but I don't have to accept his advice without consulting with

others. I have consulted with legislative counsel on this

question, and in legislative counsel's opinion…. Of course,

as you say, we can get different legal opinions by going to

different experts. In my case I did go to legislative counsel,

senior legislative counsel, and I'm told by him that the old

reference in

section 2 to the federal Act does cover the

situation that he describes, and there is no need for any

retroactivity to deal with that particular situation.

Now that is his advice against the legal advice from the

Member for Langley, and I choose to take the advice I am given

by legislative counsel.

Mr. McClelland: I just wish to say that on Friday

when we were discussing this bill, the Minister admitted that

he was given some kind of advice to say that we had to put in a

section in here that was drawn up in 1948. He didn't have any

idea what it meant; no one could tell him what it meant, but

because he had been told it should be in there, he was going to

put it in there. He refused to look at it again to decide

whether we should take it out because it didn't mean

anything.

So I would suggest that the Minister is on pretty shaky

ground here, I would just ask him: if it wasn't necessary to

have the additional marketing agency mentioned within the

definition section, then why was it mentioned specifically? I

say once again, Mr. Chairman, it's to get him off the hook. It

is as simple as that.

[ Page 4794 ]

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I'm, of course, very

impressed with what the Minister said — that he checked

legislative counsel with this. I presume it was legislative

counsel who draughted this bill, and I would be surprised if

the individual who draughted it was not convinced that the

draughting was correct.

We've made a small amendment here to make certain that there

is no misinterpretation of this Act. We, the elected Members,

have the responsibility of ratifying or rejecting bills that

are draughted and presented by Ministers. As we have learned to

our dismay, Mr. Chairman, the bills that come before us are not

always perfect. Indeed, as I was saying only last week, about

two-thirds of the legislation we deal with in this House is

legislation amending previous legislation, dealing with things

that weren't anticipated at the time the legislation was

draughted, often because insufficient opinions were sought

before those bills received second and third reading in this

House, No single person can anticipate all of the situations that

might develop from a particular Act. That is why I believe it

is so essential that all bills be referred to committee of this

House, and that testimony, open testimony, be sought on the

wording of each individual bill. That way we avoid the kind of

mistakes that have plagued this Legislature in all the time

that I have been here.

My question to the Minister is: was there a second opinion

on this matter? Then I would like to ask the Minister to

consider for a moment his own words of Friday, in which he

said, in reply to the questions which I raised in introducing

this amendment, referring now to orders of the various

marketing boards, he said there are many other orders that

marketing boards have passed recently, and may pass before this

particular bill becomes law, which the provincial marketing

board may want to interfere with.

I interpret that, Mr. Chairman, a little differently from

the Minister's remarks today, which rather innocently suggested

that there really wasn't anything that he had in mind; he

didn't know of any situations.

Anyway, this little clause was wise to have in there just in

case something did crop up which hadn't been anticipated. That

was the impression that I got from his remarks today. But the

impression that I got on Friday was that there are many other

orders that marketing boards have passed recently. The

suggestion was pretty specific, namely that the government had

specific instances in mind, not just the Sy Kovachich case, and

that it intended to appoint a superboard with instructions to

deal with those specific situations.

I think the Minister has shifted his ground. I'm not saying that he's a shifty

Minister, but I detect a shift in ground here. What we haven't got, Mr. Chairman,

is to the bottom of what the Minister has in mind with this particular section,

allowing these previous regulations to be altered.

I wonder once more then if the Minister could tell us how

many confirming opinions he has had and, secondly, what these

specific instances were.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I had the opinion of

the senior legislative counsel, a written opinion, handed down

today. No doubt senior legislative counsel was able to contact

others to the extent that he felt it was necessary to do so. We

have the services of three Clerks, all of whom are lawyers. The

Speaker of the House has contributed his opinion in this

situation. All of these people are trained in law.

They say that free advice is worth what you pay for it.

Beyond the trained legal advice we have had on this question we

have today had the advice of a radio announcer from Langley and

a medical doctor from Vancouver. So we're still getting

advice.

To this point I see no need to change any action that I've

taken so far, when I weigh the advice that I've had from all of

these sources.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I'm appreciative of the

answer from the Minister that he gets lots of advice. I hope he

listens to it from time to time. But I wonder if he's really

clarified the situation at all. I don't think he has, with

regard to what that advice is all about. Is the advice just

whether or not this subsection is in order, or does it really

relate to some of the specific situations that we

mentioned?

I'd like to ask the Minister a direct question for which I

might hope to get a direct answer, Mr. Chairman. It is whether

or not he was, in fact, acting without statutory authority when

he signed the agreements going into the Canadian Egg Marketing

Association. What kind of advice has he had on that?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it

quite clear that I had the advice of senior legislative counsel

to the effect that I was not acting without statutory

authority.

Mr. McClelland: Is that the written report that came

down today? Is that what you said?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The written report that came down

today was with respect to whether or not this legislation, and

in particular

section 12(2), could have any effect on a legal

case that is currently in progress. The written advice was with

respect to that case, not with respect to the national agency.

That advice was given to me previously, much earlier.

Mr. McClelland: Could I ask the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, whether or not he expects that this

[ Page 4795 ]

retroactive

section will be applied to any portions of the

national scheme, either the Turkey Marketing Board or the

Canadian Egg Marketing Association — whether he'll apply this

retroactivity clause to either of those situations?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: On the basis of advice given to me

some time ago by senior legislative counsel, I would not expect

that to be necessary.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 24

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the

Speaker, would you draw his attention to the fact that a

division took place and ask leave to have it recorded in the

Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, we've had a very

interesting discussion on the point raised by the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). The Minister in

his reply today with reference to what he might do under the

retroactive provisions of this bill, and also on Friday, when

he discussed the same retroactive effect of this legislation;

indicated that he had a few things in mind, but only generally

in his mind; he had no specific things.

He went on to say last Friday that there are many other

orders that marketing boards have passed recently and that may

be passed before this bill becomes law which the provincial

marketing board may want to interfere with.

Well, we've heard the general request for these retroactive provisions to be

struck down and rejected. That request was rejected. I think it would now be

in order perhaps to put in a specific request that in certain areas where we

have been assured that there will not be retroactive application of this legislation,

we write it right into the Act and not simply accept the assurance of the Minister.

I think it's fairly clear from what was said by the

Minister. He had one of his conveniently bad days for memory;

he couldn't quite think what exactly he wanted to have this

particular retroactive

section used for. When we think back to

his milk of amnesia which he's taken on other debates in this

Legislature, we realize that perhaps it would be a good thing

to pin down precisely the areas where we have had a vague and

general assurance of non-intervention, and put them into the

legislation so that there could be in no way any use of this

retroactive power with respect to certain cases currently

before the courts.

I think that this would be beneficial from the Speaker's

point of view and the point of view of the Clerks of the House

as well. Decisions have been given which are really not needed

if you specifically exclude the areas which I am concerned

about and which other Members of my party are concerned about,

which the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and Members of

his party are concerned about: namely, where there are pending

court cases.

If you can exclude them from any retroactive provisions,

then we're in a position where we can accept quite happily the

assurances of the Minister. By law, it would be impossible for

him or the board or commission to interfere in those cases.

Therefore, rather than a general amendment such as that put

forward by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) I

would like to introduce a specific amendment, a specific

prohibition with respect to the use of retroactive legislation.

That is that we add at the end of

section 12(2) the words:

"except where a marketing board has by November 14, 1974

sought a court ruling to clarity its powers."

It's a very specific amendment, something which would easily

be accepted by the government, something which the Minister

himself indicated quite clearly would be something he would not

object to. Therefore, I modestly move the following

amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment appears to be in order.

The concern was that it's almost the same as the amendment that

was just dealt with, but it's a little different and it's in

order.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I find the amendment quite

unacceptable, Apart from the amendment itself, of course, the

Hon. Member, in introducing the amendment and speaking to it,

was very successful in couching it in such language that the

most inoffensive amendment would be very offensive.

[ Page 4796 ]

But leaving that aside, by admitting this amendment, we

would be saying-in effect that without this amendment the

legislation does allow the sort of thing that he is afraid of

happening. We've said from the beginning and I've quoted legal

opinions to the effect that the legislation as it is now before

the House does not allow any interference with anything that is

now before the courts. With that situation before us, there is

no need to include the sort of amendment that has now been

offered. For that reason, we will not accept the amendment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I would have thought

in a small mini-session of the Legislature, when we're

essentially repairing mistakes made in other legislation passed

earlier this year which have been misunderstood by the Minister

introducing it which is what we're doing with all these No. 2

amendment bills and No. 3 amendment bills which are coming

forward — that the possibility of error would be high in the

minds of all Ministers.

It is possible to make a mistake. Even Ministers are human.

Yes, it's true, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and I

know that you'd be one of the first to admit that you're not

immune from making the odd little mistake.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Nevertheless, we have the Minister

getting up and saying that because the bill doesn't permit this

type of interference — at least it doesn't according to his

interpretation of it — therefore, we won't write something in

which will make the poor Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) and myself sleep a little easier at night. In

other words, just that minor little guarantee, just those

specific words which will make the Minister absolutely sure

that his

interpretation is correct and under no circumstances

could the bill be used for purposes for which he didn't design

it.

Now, it's absurd, I believe, to say that because there is a legal dispute perhaps

as to the applicability of retroactivity, because he has taken one side, therefore

he won't accept a modest amendment from the opposition which would guarantee

that his

interpretation could not be overturned by any subsequent Minister of

Agriculture. It would guarantee it; it would guarantee the very

interpretation

he wishes to put on this particular section. I would suggest that to vote it

down raises some very, very serious questions as to the Minister's intentions,

questions which naturally we wouldn't raise. It would be presumptuous and anticipatory

to raise them now. But when you have a minor amendment, a small amendment, simply

designed to make sure that even if the Minister's

interpretation is wrong, nevertheless,

no subsequent Minister could use this

section in a way that this Minister has

stated he will not do.

I find it really curious that the Minister in question will

not accept the amendment. It's not a major thing; it's a

relatively minor one from his point of view. It simply makes

more certain, it guarantees that his

interpretation has to be

correct. I would have thought under those circumstances, in a

session such as we have at the present time when we're dealing

with correcting mistakes of other Ministers in other bills,

that he would be happy and, indeed, quick to accept this

opposition amendment.

The backbench of the government side, who have understood

what he said undoubtedly and who realize that, even if this

amendment is accepted, it certainly wouldn't vary any of the

powers the Minister wants to use, will be happy to agree with

the opposition and just in this one instance, in this one minor

subsection,

section 12(2), to agree with the opposition that we

will, by putting this in, remove temptation from this Minister

and prevent a subsequent Minister from changing the policies

outlined in this Legislature by the present Minister of

Agriculture. This guarantee, this minor guarantee which is

inherent in my amendment I'm sure must commend itself to the

Members of the backbench of the government party.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the

Liberal leader in this matter because he more than anybody else

has attempted to get matters with the Egg Marketing Board

straightened out. I would have thought that the Minister of

Agriculture would have been quick to accept an amendment which,

if things are as the Minister says, would not only be harmless

but appropriate.

If things are the way the Minister said, then this would be

the kind of addition to the legislation that would underline

his very meaning, namely that there was going to be nothing in

an Act of his that could be misinterpreted by anybody as being

used to interfere with the Sy Kovachich case.

That's the whole intention of this amendment — to make

certain that the legislation isn't interpreted by any

non-partisan board that the Minister appoints. And they're

going to be non-partisan, we know that — any non-partisan board

that the Minister appoints won't take it upon itself to use the

wording of this Act to interfere in the way the Minister

insists will not be done. But what does the Minister do? Mr.

Chairman, he stood up and he said it was ridiculous, it wasn't

necessary.

Now that's either arrogance based on over-confidence,

considering the past record of that government and that

Minister on the matter of legislation…so certain when they

bring these bills in for second reading, so quick to change

them when

[ Page 4797 ]

they find that others interpret them in a slightly different

way than they do.

That is maybe putting it in a favourable light; even a

charitable light, because there are other

interpretations

possible. One of these

interpretations is that the amendment

put forward by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), the Liberal leader, would change things, from the

government's point of view — it would place restrictions on them

that they don't want to have.

In other words, to follow through with the declared

intention of the Minister here this afternoon would be the last

thing that the government would really want. Indeed, Mr.

Chairman, if it weren't that way, why wouldn't the Minister be

pleased to accept the amendment? If it weren't that way why

would he not be pleased to accept the amendment?

Indeed if it's like the Minister says it is, why wouldn't

the backbenchers help him out — vote for the amendment anyway?

Do him a favour, because if things are the way the Minister

says they are, this amendment isn't going to do any harm; it's

going to help. But if they're not the way the Minister says

they are, and the amendment is left out….

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Indeed rejected.

Mr. McGeer: Indeed rejected.

Do you know who gets to pay? Do you know who gets to pay for

the government's mistakes? I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the

backbenchers get to pay. They're the ones who lose their seats

first, yes, siree, not the Ministers; they get to survive. It's

the backbenchers who lose. Think about that.

Mr. Chairman: I'm thinking that you are off the

amendment.

Mr. McGeer: No, I'm trying to explain the importance — that it's sometimes very, very important….

Mr. Chairman: You're supposed to be speaking to the

amendment. You're supposed to be relevant to the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: I'm speaking to the amendment. I'm trying

to explain.

Mr. Chairman: You're off the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: No, no. I'm right on the amendment. Right

on it.

Mr. Chairman: Please get yourself back to the

amendment or take your seat.

Mr. McGeer: I'm on the amendment, Mr.

Chairman. That's exactly what I was discussing…

Mr. Chairman: I want you to stay on the amendment.

Now you may proceed.

Mr. McGeer: …the one that says…just adding the

words "except where a marketing board has by November 14, 1974,

sought a court ruling to clarify its powers."

Mr. Chairman: I'm aware of the amendment. It's on the

floor.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, if you'll recall, I was

addressing some of my remarks, through you, to the Minister,

but he's not here and so I was directing some of my arguments

in the meantime to…Oh, he is back, sorry; he's just not in

his chair…to some of the others, because we all have

equal votes and the votes of the backbenchers are every bit as

important as the Minister's.

Mr. Chairman: But that has nothing to do with this

amendment.

Mr. McGeer: But I can surely persuade them.

Mr. Chairman: I urge you to get back to the

amendment, or take your seat.

Mr. McGeer: Am I not permitted to persuade Members to

use their vote?

Mr. Chairman: You may speak to the amendment, and it

has nothing to do with advising people and so on, as you're

carrying on.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I think it is important that they

don't make mistakes. I think it is important that the chamber

does not make mistakes.

Mr. Chairman: You may speak either for or against the

amendment.

Mr. McGeer: I'm for it.

Mr. Chairman: Well, that's the point you should be

making.

Mr. McGeer: And I hope they're for it too, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: That's the point you should be

making.

Mr. McGeer: Certainly, and I want to encourage

everyone else to be in favour of it, because I think if people

stop and think about this one for just'a

[ Page 4798 ]

moment or two — its strong virtues and its limited

liabilities — that they'll be like I am, in support of the

suggestion made by the Liberal leader.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 24

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, when you report to

the Speaker, will you advise him that a division took place and

ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

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

Chairman, at the time of second reading the Minister made some

slight allusion to this concept of a marketing commission. If I

recall rightly, he stated that a marketing commission was to be

a vehicle in a marketing board.

It would have seemed to me, however, that one could simply

make the order establishing the board somewhat more restrictive

and that would have accomplished the same end. I would like to

ask the Minister what this

section means.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find myself

generally in agreement with what the Hon. Member suggests.

However, from the point of view of the agricultural industry

itself, the cattlemen's organization in particular is very

reluctant to enter into a marketing board as such. The

euphemism — if you like, the connotation — is that they just

don't like the association of marketing boards and the powers

that marketing boards in general have.

So they have asked that provision by definition and by

statute be made so that something short of a marketing board — they have even suggested a name: a marketing commission — be

established, as it exists in some other provinces. Other

provinces do have provision for a marketing commission

different from a marketing board. The general rule is the same

thing: the marketing commissions have less options open to them

than do marketing boards in the things they may do.

It is purely to satisfy a desire on the part of some

producers, or some commodity groups, to have something that

will not be called a marketing board but will be called a

marketing commission.

Mr. Gibson: I am still a little puzzled, Mr.

Chairman, in seeking the exact language in this

section which

would restrict the powers of a commission to something less

than a board, though. It seems to have virtually the same

powers inasmuch as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can

confer any powers it so wishes.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the marketing board

could indeed, in drawing up the scheme, grant almost anything

to the marketing commission. But all of these schemes are

negotiated with the producer groups that are entering into the

schemes. In the case of the cattlemen's organization, they want

to be able to negotiate a scheme that will have less

possibilities than will the ones adopted by all of the producer

groups that have marketing boards. So it leaves the door open

to that possibility.

Mr. Gibson: In the case of the cattlemen's

association, who I know have had this sensitivity the Minister

describes with respect to boards or commissions, would it be

the intention of the Minister to hold some kind of a

ratification vote or something like that prior to the

imposition of any scheme in the cattle side of the

industry?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, in every case where

there is a scheme in operation, be it marketing board or — well,

there are no commissions — but in every case where there is a

scheme in operation under a marketing board, the producers — and

they have agreed on the definition of producers — do vote on the

scheme itself, They ask for it, the scheme is presented and the

producers then vote as to whether or not they do want this

particular scheme to be in effect.

Mr. Gibson: And that would be the intention?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: There will still be regulations. It

will be a scheme, in effect, whether it is called a scheme or

not. The cattlemen, again, will

[ Page 4799 ]

be in on the draughting of the scheme. It will be subject to

their approval, and the members of the cattlemen's association

would have to decide, as a I group, whether or not they want

this marketing commission to be in effect.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I think, personally,

that this is a totally ridiculous section. It's bureaucracy

gone absolutely mad. The Minister has confirmed this today as

the worst aspect of this whole section, in that because a

specific commodity group, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, had

some kind of a hang-up about the words "marketing board," here we have included in a piece of legislation before

this House a whole new

section setting up a whole new

bureaucratic setup with a different name — marketing commission.

It just doesn't make any sense.

It is unnecessary. It is unwieldy. It is ridiculous. It is a

little stupid, and it is a cop-out to a group of people who

could have been brought in under the existing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, here again the Minister has said that a

marketing commission is going to have substantially less power

than a marketing board. But that is contrary to what we

discussed in the House on Friday. In the next section,

section

14, marketing commissions will be given even more power, at

least more scope, than a marketing board, because they will

also have the opportunity — and I know the Minister has said

that just because the wording is in the Act doesn't mean

anything — but they have the opportunity to engage in

processing, where a marketing board doesn't, by definition

within the very Act.

Mr. Chairman, I, really don't understand why, if that is the

only reason, if just because the cattlemen had a hang-up about

the words marketing board, if that's the only reason this

section is in this Act, then it is pretty sloppy legislation on

behalf of this government.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, better to be a

little bit stupid than to be very much stupid. If we can

accommodate the desires, the wishes, the expressed wishes of a

group of producers in our community, by simply including one

section or several sections in a piece of legislation, if

that's the only cost…. It is not setting up another

bureaucracy. It's an alternative organization. The same

producers group would not have both.

Mr. McClelland: But what does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The same producers group would not have both a marketing

board and a marketing commission. They would have one or the other. So I suggest,

Mr. Chairman, that if this is being a little bit stupid in wanting to accommodate

the wishes of a group of producers, I would rather be a little stupid than be

a lot stupid and turn a deaf ear to their request.

Mr. McClelland: Why don't you take the bill back and

look at it again and maybe come up with a system that will be a

little less stupid than you are now?

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

Chairman, I was reasonably satisfied with what the Minister

said, and I can understand in reading

section 14 that it

appears that the commissions are designed to have some slightly

different approach to some of the problems in agriculture than

would be the case of boards. I also noticed that later in the

bill we are repealing the Cattle Industry Development Act, and

it seems to follow the line.

However, what disturbs me is that while we are saying to the

people in the cattle industry, "Well, we have special sections

so that you can establish your marketing commission and you

really are not involved in a scheme," when you look back at

section 12, it says, "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

vest in any marketing board or commission…." — then a

whole list of powers are given to marketing boards — "To

regulate the time and place at which…product shall be

packed; To exempt from determination…." — to fix and

collect licence fees, to fix price or prices, maximum or

minimum prices. All of the vast powers that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can invest in a marketing board

can also be invested in a commission.

Now I think, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, that the,

Minister, by bringing forward this Act with apparently a

separate division dealing with marketing commissions, is

deluding the people in the cattle industry into believing that

because it is here they really have something different. If

they establish a commission, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the commission, being a legal

person — it says so in

section 13, having the "power and

capacity of a legal person" — can be invested with all the same

powers and authorities that a marketing board can.

They don't have something different at all. I trust that the

people in the cattle industry who, are looking for something

different won't be confused.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't really

think I can add much to what I've already said other than that

the cattlemen have asked for this difference, and the cattlemen

have not expressed in any way at all any concern about the

legislation in its present form.

[ Page 4800 ]

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): I've listened to

the Minister's comments with great interest. He has said that

the commission does not have the powers of a marketing board.

It's been pointed out by two Members of the opposition that in

fact it does. Would the Minister please clarify what powers a

commission would not have that a marketing board would

have?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the powers that

either the marketing board or the marketing commission would

have would be spelled out in regulations. Now, as the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has

said, the powers of a marketing commission actually could be

quite extensive. The people entering into….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I recognize the Minister.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: All I was going to say is that we

are providing for the two types of organization at the request

of producers concerned. The scheme that will be offered to the

members of a particular producer group will be one that will be

drawn up in consultation with the members of that group.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): When we discussed this

bill in second reading, one of the points which was gone over

ad nauseam was the fact that this bill was supposed to provide

some better mechanism for protecting the consumer from the

possibility of artificially inflated prices in the hands of

marketing boards composed of self-interested individuals

looking after, perhaps, their own interest as producers to a

degree which was unfair to the consumer. As I think was pointed

out on the second reading debate, nowhere in this bill is the

word "consumer" mentioned.

section 14(b), for example, we read that the objects of

the commission — and since commissions and boards can easily be

the same vehicle with the same powers — are:

"to initiate, support, or conduct programmes for promoting…and improving the economic well-being of persons engaged in

the production, processing, and marketing of that natural

product…."

I feel that somewhere in this bill there should be some

mention of the consumer and that he has some economic interests

also. With that thought, I'd like to move the following

amendment to

section 14 by adding after (

c) the following

subsection (d):

"To initiate, promote, and support efforts to ensure the

participation of consumers in the direction and operation of

marketing boards and commissions."

I so move.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The purpose of establishing

marketing boards and marketing commissions — in this case we're

dealing specifically with marketing commissions — is, indeed, to

promote the interests of the producers of agricultural

products.

In the case of marketing commissions, the emphasis is on

marketing and promotion of the products they produce. When it

comes to protection of the community at large — the consumers,

if you like — then we have the appeal section. We have the

provincial marketing board established under another

section of

the Act.

The protection of the consumers will come in under the

sections dealing with the provincial marketing board and the

appeals that may be made to the provincial marketing board. The

orders and regulations passed by marketing commissions will be

subject to review, to amending and to cancellation, just as are

orders and regulations passed by marketing boards.

This

section is not the appropriate place to recognize the

protection of the consumers. I said we need it, and I said the

community at large wants to have it and wants to know that it

has. So we will not accept that amendment to this section.

Mr. Wallace: I would just like to make a further

comment. The Minister has made the point that, in his view at

least, commissions are somewhat different from boards and that

there is an appeal mechanism.

I think this brings us back to the point that was raised

again in second reading: maybe a little bit of preventive

medicine in this Act would be a good idea. Maybe if the

consumer was involved before certain actions were taken by

marketing boards or commissions, there might not be a need for

an appeal.

Here again, we have the legislation written in such a way

that the consumer is excluded from the earlier decisions and

actions of marketing boards. When we ask to have the consumer

directly involved we are told that, of course, the appeal

mechanism exists for the consumer to try and get any wrong

righted. Within an appropriate amendment to this bill, we might

be able to prevent some of the mistakes from being made in the

first place.

I would accept the Minister's suggestion that it is possible

that this

section might not be the most appropriate to amend in

relation to involving the consumer. Maybe there is a more

appropriate

section

[ Page 4801 ]

about which the Minister may care to advise me.

The discussion and the comments made by the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made it quite plain

that the powers which can be vested in a marketing board can

also be vested in a commission. While the Minister made the

point well that this bill is to assist and protect the

interests of consumers, I hope it is not the exclusive interest

of consumers. I hope any bill in this House which is dedicated

toward the better interests of any group in society should not

exclude the community at large.

It's a mighty large

section that we are talking about when

we talk about the consumers of marketed products for the simple

reason that we are talking about food itself. Somewhere in this

bill the opposition must make the point that this is not for

the exclusive use and interest of producers. The people who buy

the product and eat the product clearly merit consideration. It

seems to me unnecessarily bureaucratic to exclude the consumer

until such time as there is something wrong with the function

of the board and then appeal against the wrong action or

decision.

I would suggest either that the Minister reconsider the

amendment we are debating on

section 14 or perhaps the Minister

might bring forward one of his own amendments later in the

legislation to recognize the legitimate right of the consumer

to be involved in some of the decisions of these boards and

commissions.

I wonder if the Minister would reconsider either this

amendment or a more appropriate amendment to another

section.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): I wonder if I could just interrupt the

proceedings briefly to inform the House that Mr. Justice Aikins

has just brought down a decision finding the Act and the

regulations of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

completely constitutional, and even the undeclared

section of

the Act completely constitutional.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: We have previously established that

it is government policy that the individual marketing boards

and/or commissions will be made up of representatives of the

producers of the particular commodity with which we are

concerned. The community-at-large's interest will be

represented on the British Columbia marketing board.

The House earlier, in consideration of

section 3, agreed

that it would not be necessary or advisable in the legislation

to specifically nail down the representation on the British

Columbia marketing board. That would have been the time it

might have been done.

Amendment to

section 14 negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 24

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Webster

Kelly

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the

Speaker, would you notify the Speaker that a division took

place, and have it recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

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

I'd say, is one of the more galling sections in this most

atrocious bill. I'm specifically going to refer to subsection 4

section 17. It reads this way:

"Where a person is convicted under this Act or the

regulations, anything that was detained or seized under this

section in respect of the offence is forfeited and becomes the

property of the Crown in the right of the Province."

That's mandatory socialistic absorption, Mr. Chairman. For

the life of me I cannot understand why the civil liberties

people, the bar association, the human rights proponents in

this province are not beefing up their backbones rather than

their backsides and offering some constructive criticism over a

section as appalling as this. It's a complete travesty upon the

historic concept of property and individual rights.

The power is here to forfeit anything that is seized. It

could be the car of an individual, his tractor, his trailer,

his horse, his cart — and I suppose his wife, if she happened to

be pushing the cart — and everything in it or on it — his books,

his records.

It's not just enough under this

section to fine him or her,

or bring ex parte injunctions against them, but to expropriate

anything that is seized, mandatory

[ Page 4802 ]

forfeit it to the Crown without any redress whatsoever to

the individual. That's an absolute power of confiscation

without compensation. I'd say it's real NKVD or KGB stuff — not

the type of thing that we should be finding in the Province of

British Columbia.

If you also take a look at subsection 5 of this

section 17,

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture made direct the

disposal of anything forfeited to the Crown in such manner and

I suppose that's giving him the opportunity to hand out the

lolly that was forfeited.

I think this bill, without any question, and certainly as

exemplified specifically by this section, is devoid of

democratic concept; is devoid of fairness; is devoid of that

which for centuries has been considered to be the due process

of law.

Subsection 6 is equally ridiculous. We find under it that

there is not any responsibility of the board of people for loss

or damage or deterioration of seized goods. This is just once

again the socialistic one-way street, Mr. Chairman. Give it to

the citizen every way the socialist possibly can and make these

unholy tribunals almighty, but no redress at all. No redress at

all available to the individual who happens to suffer under

these sections.

Subsection 7 is also preposterously unfair. Under this

subsection you can find that an innocent person comes to trial;

according to the due process of law, he's acquitted, but as of

right, Mr. Chairman, he's not entitled to have returned to him

anything that was seized. As of right he's not entitled to have

that. This again is a dramatic departure from all the historic

concepts of criminal and civil justice, and, I'd say, legal

morality and equity.

I'd say that even the most superlative of superlatives could

not do justice just to explain how preposterous this

section 17

is, specifically the subsection that I'm talking about now,

subsection 7.

An acquittal pretty clearly means not guilty, but here an

acquitted individual still has to come hat in hand and slither

up to plead for the return of his goods and chattels that were

seized.

I'd say all of these provisions are grossly unfair in this

grossly restrictive statute. I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman,

that all Members of conscience will support my amendment, which

was in front of me a moment ago — here it is — which is to the

effect that subsections 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall be deleted from

section 17.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in order.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to speak in the strongest possible terms to

support the amendment. The whole question of the basic of law that you're innocent

until proven guilty, and that you should have some mechanism of appealing the

decision, seems to be completely absent from this section.

I notice particularly that in subsection 6: "The Crown or

any person acting under the authority of this Act…is not

liable for loss or damage…"

So if someone, in his judgment, interferes with a person in

the conduct of his business and it's discovered that the person

so accused is innocent, apparently no matter what the person,

under this Act, has done to damage or deteriorate the product

concerned, the poor producer has absolutely no recourse

whatever to some super snooper perhaps who, for less than valid

reasons…. And I want to speak on other subsections of this

section which are as bad or worse, but this whole section,

including subsections 4, 5, 6 and 7, grants a degree of power

over the individual without the individual having any real

opportunity to recourse if his rights are invaded wrongly, or

if in fact on further investigation his product is damaged or

in some way devalued. I just don't think this kind of power is

necessary.

As I say, I would like to speak on the earlier subsections

later, but there's certainly real concern in the subsections we

are debating because in the earlier subsection, anybody — "any

person" — can be designated to take actions under

section 17,

and that "any person" presumably could be interfering with a

producer, interfering with the transportation of his product,

and ultimately it may well be that the producer is found to be

innocent. In the meantime, what has happened to his product

could be of serious economic and serious financial loss to

him.

Again, the Minister has commented earlier on remarks in this

debate that there are mechanisms of appeal to marketing boards,

but in the most important area of all, where a person's rights

and freedoms are being interfered with, there appears to be no

appeal whatever and no recourse to anyone who takes misguided

action against a producer under this section.

As I say, although the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) has zeroed in on sections 4 to 7, there's a very great

deal that has to be said in the same regard about protecting

the rights of an individual in sections I to 4. I really feel

that the Minister should reconsider and accept this

amendment.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Yes. I'd like

to rise in support of the amendment as well, Mr. Chairman, but

there again, I will have further comments on the first sections

of this subsection which I think are more onerous than this

particular section.

An Hon. Member: It's always been this way.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: No, I won't say it's always

[ Page

4803 ]

been this way, Mr. Chairman. I won't use those words, but I

will read from the previous legislation — the 1948 Act.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I did listen to the

Members opposite. I allowed them to make their presentation,

and I would appreciate an opportunity to make mine.

Under the old Act,

section 5, it reads: "To seize and

dispose of any of the regulated product kept, transported,

packed, stored or marketed in violation of any order of the

board," and that's the last word on this particular

subject. There's nothing at all about what they may or may not

do with it; nothing at all about the possibility of the

producer being recompensed in any way at all.

There has to be something in the legislation that will make

the producer aware of some of the risks that he runs if he is

going to deliberately flout orders or regulations passed by his

own organization. Remember, this is not some foreign body, this

is his own organization. If, in concert, they have agreed to

adopt a certain policy, and if an individual decides that he

can further his own individual position by going against any of

these rules and regulations, well, he does it knowing that he's

running some risk, and the risk that he is running is in losing

his product. Under the previous legislation, that was the end

of it — he lost his product.

There's another reason why, under the legislation, there has

to be power to do something immediately and not to argue on the

roadside — when a truck is stopped, for example — to argue as to

whether or not the product is to be held, detained, stored,

allowed to go forward in spite of the fact that there's at

least a suspicion, if not a case, that an order is being

violated, There has to be something that will provide for the

immediate disposition of that product because, in general, at

least, we're dealing with a very perishable product. So the

legislation now clearly says that the Minister of Agriculture

has the authority to do something about this and, for the first

time, goes on to say that the court, in its wisdom, may decide

the producer's final right to redress, if he has any.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the way I read it. It's

up to the court: "may, in a proper case, if there is loss or damage arising

from the destruction or deterioration of anything that was detained or seized,

order the board or the commission that authorized the detention to pay compensation

for such loss or damage." The court may order this, as you say, whether or not

there's a conviction. If there is a conviction, well, then of course that's

not the case. If there's a conviction, then he's…. As I say, there has to

be something that will deter people from deliberately flouting the rules and

saying, "Well, if we do get caught, it doesn't really matter." On the other

hand, there has to be some protection for the producer if it is proven that

he has not deliberately disobeyed one of the rules. In this, we have left it

to the court to decide whether he does get redress. Mr. Chairman, we do not

accept the amendment.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

Mr. Gardom: I gathered that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, Mr. Chairman.

We all appreciate that fact, but there well can be a transgression of a statute

that is not willful by an individual, and I am fully aware of the fact that

the Minister appreciates that point.

He made a great thing of citing the old statute and said

that under the former Act there was an opportunity to seize and

detain products. There's a devil of a lot more under this bill,

Mr. Chairman. Under this bill, where a person is convicted

under the Act or the regulations — be it a willful transgression

or an inadvertent transgression — anything that was detained and

seized under this

section in respect of the offence, is

forfeited — anything. It talks about "any property, including

books, records and other documents, and any regulated product,

or any natural product, and any receptacle containing such

product," and would certainly include conveyances.

Now, for goodness' sake, Mr. Minister, be practical for

once. If a person is convicted of impaired driving in the

Province of British Columbia, which is a far more serious

offence than someone going down the street with a box of apples

in the back of his truck, his truck is not forfeited to the

Crown.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: It has to be.

Mr. Gardom: You say it should be. No, I don't think

it should be. How preposterous this

section is here, This is

just the same type of a law that you'd find in the Soviet

Union. There's no place for it in a democratic society — no

place for it whatsoever. To come up with a spurious argument

that the judge has power to do things…the power that you

were referring to is where a person is found not guilty, where

he is acquitted, and there, even under those extreme

circumstances, you have not made it mandatory that his goods

are returned to him. That's preposterous, absolutely

preposterous. The man is acquitted, yet the court still, if it

chooses, holds onto the stuff. How can you possibly say that

this is being responsible?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 4804 ]

YEAS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 24

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the

Speaker, would you draw to his attention that a division took

place on the amendment and ask that it be recorded in the

Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, this

section 17, to my

way of thinking, gives those responsible for making sure that

this law is enforced more power than I am sure the Gestapo had.

Indeed, if they had any written regulation….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, it does. You just read the

article. If the Gestapo had any written regulations during the

war, I am positive that they would not be any more liberal than

section 17, which is a

section of search and seizure. I've

spoken in this House before on this particular section. I don't

care if it was in the old Act. The Minister will probably say

that it was in the old Act. It still is too much power.

Let's stop and take a look at it;

section 17(2)(

a) says:

"stop and detain any vehicle or other form of conveyance that

contains, or that he has reason to believe contains, a

regulated product." If he has reason!

Mr. Chairman, I could be transporting a truckload of booze

from one province to the other; and the RCMP has to have more

grounds before he can enter my truck than reason to believe

that I might be transporting that booze, as the case may be.

(Laughter.)

All right, you go ahead and laugh. But this is the situation. If a

police officer has reason to believe that a poor farmer is transporting

some apples or chickens or potatoes — or now any number of things:

eggs, beef — just if he has reason…. So he thinks the poor farmer is

transporting some of his merchandise and — bang! — he can open it up

and seize it without a warrant — absolutely without a warrant.

I'm telling you that the police officers don't have that

much power in searching out the drug peddlers in the province.

They have to have a warrant.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: You mean to tell me that…? Now

we're getting some legal opinion from the legal-beagle from

Howe Street.

The officers, before they search and seize, must have some

grounds to go on. We're treating the poor farmers in this

province lower than the lowest of criminals. Lower than the

lowest of criminals!

I happen to know of cases, and I have letters in my files,

where farmers were stopped a year ago last summer for no reason

at all. Their merchandise was seized, their vehicles seized.

I'm telling you that we're in a situation where we're treating

the poor farmer — I'll say it again — lower than the lowest of

criminals. Just read on. Subsection (

b) says:

"if accompanied by a peace officer, without a warrant, enter

and search any vehicle or other form of conveyance and require

that the driver or operator of the vehicle or conveyance take

it to a place specified by the person searching the vehicle or

conveyance so that all or part of the cargo may be there

unloaded and detained for the purposes of subsection (3)."

As I say, the powers contained in this Act against the poor

farmer transporting his own merchandise are astronomical;

they're unbelievable. I'm sure that our legal friend from Howe

Street recognizes this. He knows that the police officers don't

have this kind of power. We don't even wire-tap when we have

reason to believe, and good reason to believe, that there may

be drug peddling going on.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister Of Economic Development):

You'd better get a lawyer in that caucus.

Mr. Phillips: If I'm wrong, and I haven't been proven

wrong yet, Mr. Chairman, well, I'd be happy to hear the

interpretation of this from the learned man from Howe Street,

who is a specialist in defending the drug trade.

Section (c) — now you see he has to get a warrant — "with a

warrant, enter any land or premises in which any regulated

product is being marketed." I'm telling you that the laws

pertaining to the marketing of our farm merchandise are

stricter and more abusive than the laws we have dealing with

the lowest of low criminals. Yet we want to inspire food

production.

I would like to make an amendment to

section

[ Page 4805 ]

17(2)(

b) to change the wording from "without a warrant" to

"with a warrant."

Hon. Mr. Stupich: In the case of this legislation

we've looked at many sections and have tried to make them less

objectionable than they were in the past. There's some concern

in the press that we haven't gone far enough. The Hon. Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has likened it to the

authority that the Gestapo had. Perhaps he has made more of a

study of their power and authority and may be more aware of it

than I am. I haven't tried to compare the two. But I do say

that we have tried to make it, in general, less objectionable

than it was in the past.

In the case of a motor-vehicle, for example, it might be of

interest to recall what was in the previous legislation. In

that case I'll read directly subsection (i): "To require the

person in charge of any vehicle in which the regulated product

could be transported to permit any Member or employee of the

board to search the vehicle."

You didn't even have to suspect that the vehicle had some of

the regulated products in it. Any vehicle that could transport

the regulated product could be stopped and searched in that

particular case.

It's just not practical to stop a vehicle and hold it while

you go and seek out a warrant, and then search the vehicle. For

the sake of everyone concerned, it is much better to have the

authority to stop it, as we do have in subsection (

a) of this

section. In this case we have inserted these new words: "…if accompanied by a peace officer." For the protection of all

concerned, we have felt it advisable in the legislation to

include that proviso. The official of the marketing board must

be accompanied by a peace officer.

But if he's accompanied by a peace officer, he can proceed

with a search at that point. Then if he finds that there's

nothing out of order, he can let the vehicle proceed on its way

rather than be obliged by the legislation to hold the vehicle

until such time as he is able to obtain a search warrant and

then proceed with the search, after which time the vehicle

might be allowed to go on its way.

From the point of view and for the sake of everyone

concerned, it would seem to be much better to proceed with the

legislation as it is. The amendment is unacceptable.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 24

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the

Speaker, would you draw to his attention that a division took

place on the amendment and ask that it be recorded in the

Journals of the House?

Mr. Wallace: I would like to record my concern about

this same section, for the reasons mentioned by the member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) but also for other

reasons.

Section 17(1) really concerns me to the degree that power

is designated to carry out some of these acts which we are

concerned about in themselves. But under subsection (1) there

is the power to designate that any person can exercise any

power. Under subsection (2), when the so-called "any person"

can exercise any power, the phrase used is: "reasonable

grounds" to believe that a provision of the Act is not being

adhered to.

The language is insufficiently clear, in my view, to justify

the kind of actions that are empowered under some of these

subsections. Further on in subsection (3) again, if during an

inspection it appears that the Act or regulation is not being

complied with, the power is given to seize and take away for

the purpose of evidence.

In paragraph 1 of subsection (3)(

b) again "reason to

believe" is the phrase that's used. This "reason to believe"

can be a reason believed by an individual who has been

designated by a board or commission. It's possible, I suppose,

in legal terminology that "any person" has a different

interpretation from the layman's

interpretation. But when you

tell me that any person can interfere with my individual rights

or demand to search my property, then I take that phrase "any

person" literally to mean any person who has been

designated.

I notice the Hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) is grimacing.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Well, perhaps the Minister would care to

get up in the debate and give the House the questionable merit

of his own legal opinion. I notice that in this House, whenever

we do get on to the subject of the rights and freedom of the

individual, we get nothing but laughs and guffaws from the

other

[ Page 4806 ]

side of the House. It seems to be the defensive mechanism

which this government takes when it is under fire for giving

unto itself power, which should concern every individual in

this province. I am really quite distressed at the Minister's

answer. Time and time again he goes back to how much worse the

last bill was. I don't care how bad the last bill was; it's how

bad this one is.

One of the lessons of history must surely be that if you do

something gradually, if you erode the freedoms of an individual

bit by bit by bit and do it very gradually, there is no end to

the final point that is reached: having no freedom at all and

having a police state. And as far as I'm concerned,

section

17(1) gives boards and commissions the power to designate

agricultural police, if that's what you want to call it. You

can laugh all you like, but the fact is that we're here as

non-legal people to defend the rights of citizens and residents

in British Columbia.

I don't like what I read in

section 17. Not a bit of it. I

don't care if you have a peace officer which allows you to

undertake a search. The fact is that the history of law and

order has always been that you don't interfere with an

individual's property or premises without having asked the

judge to conduct a search.

It's obvious that in the minds of this government that the

old idea that "my home is my castle," that concept has

gone right out the window.

Don't tell me that this is a little better than the last

bill, it certainly is from your comparative statements, but

just because it's better than some that was bloody awful — if I

may use the expression — then I would suggest that it's time

this opposition shouted loud and clear about the increasing

tendency for individuals to have their property, or their land,

or their goods, or their actions interfered with by somebody

who really doesn't have adequate authority.

This phraseology "reasonable grounds" or "has reason to

believe" or "it appears that," et cetera, just isn't

good enough, Mr. Chairman. I just don't think that this is the

tenor of our time.

The tenor of our time suggests that there should be greater

protection for the individual. We're living in an age of bigger

and bigger government at all levels — municipal, provincial,

federal. If there's one theme that you get put to as you travel

round this province — and I've quite recently done just that — it is the fear and anxiety by many,

many citizens all across this province that every government — this one, the

federal government, municipal government — is getting unto themselves power which

is frightening. It's so gradual and insidious that each time we or someone else

complains, the answer always is: "Oh, this is better than the last bill," or

"This is not meant to be this way," or, "The judge can use his discretion."

The discretion has got to start right here in this chamber, not in the courts

of law.

I just get very mad when I see these Members, who stood up

and fought for their election to this House, no giving us all

this laughter and mockery when we stand up and ask them to

explain the contradiction between some of their election

promises and what we see in this kind of bill, I got the same gobbledygook from the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. MacDonald) when we debated the Energy Act. "Oh, yes, the

power wasn't going to be used, and the Court could use its

discretion." We've been through this time, and time and time

again, and I get a little sick of the laughter and derision

that comes from these benches when we're talking about

something which is fundamental to the society we're in right

now.

We've got too much big government. This is just another

example, and I'm sick and tired of it. While we have every

right as individuals to differ in what we believe, let's not

have the fun and games and the laughter when we are presenting

what, to us, is a very legitimate point indeed.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: This is the time for a rational and

reasonable discussion of the legislation before us. Mr.

Chairman, if Members want to take issue with some statements or

some rulings that you might make, or some statements that I

might make in piloting this legislation through the House, then

I think that good debate on this legislation. But to start

lecturing the other Members of the House, suggest, adds nothing

to our discussion of the legislation before us.

Now with respect to

section 17(1) to which the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay drew our attention, and he expresses some concern

that we are eroding the rights of the individual…. Mr.

Chairman, if that is indeed what we were doing in this

legislation, then there might be some real cause for concern on

the part of all the Members in the House and the members of the

community outside of this House.

But in almost every instance where the Members of the

opposition have drawn our attention to this legislation, on

comparing it with previous legislation we find that we are not

proceeding with a further erosion of the rights of the

individual. We are writing into the legislation protection for

the individual that was not in the legislation previously. You

might say that we have not gone far enough, but you cannot say

in any of the sections to which you have drawn attention so

far, that we are proceeding with a further erosion.

In the case of 17(1), if I may read: "…the Provincial board,

or marketing board, or commission, with the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may subject to such terms and

conditions as he may oppose" — the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may oppose, and then goes on to

talk about

[ Page

4807 ]

the powers.

Again, under the old legislation — and this is to prove the

point I'm making, that we are protecting the rights of the

individual rather than further eroding — under the previous

legislation the words were: "With respect to the marketing

board, it could delegate its power to such an extent and in

such manner as the board may from time to time deem necessary

or advisable without any consultation at all with the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council," so we are working to

further protect the rights of the individual in our

community.

Beyond that, if I may say in general terms, Mr. Chairman,

the legislation before us is setting out the pattern of action

for the majority. It will be the responsibility of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in drawing the regulations to

make sure that the majority in their conduct do protect the

right of the individual.

Further in this legislation, we are for the first time

providing that there will be a legal avenue of appeal for

individuals who feel that the marketing board has not protected

their rights as an individual. There will be that avenue of

appeal.

So again I say that we are not further eroding; we are, in

this legislation in almost every instance in which we have

discussed it today and last Friday and on Thursday evening and

perhaps for some time longer, further protecting the rights of

the individual.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

section 19.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer, but I

notice in

section 19 a phrase which worries me a great deal. It

seems contrary to all of the usual principles of natural

justice that are embodied in the laws of most civilized lands.

And that relates to the phrase: "the burden of proof,"

which we find at the end of subsection 2 of

section 19.

The proposed legislation we have before us suggests that

"the burden of proof shall be upon the accused person." The

burden of proof in this case being as to the area of

origination of the natural product affected.

It strikes me that this is a very serious step to take, to

put the burden of proof on the accused person. It should be on

those instituting the proceeding or the prosecution to prove

their case.

We could have a case where a person might be searched and seized under the

pernicious provisions of

section 17, their merchandise disposed of in ways that

exact a far heavier fine upon them than contemplated in the offences

section

of this legislation, and their inability to defend themselves properly against

that kind of charge because the burden of proof is upon them in this particular

respect.

Therefore, I would like to move an amendment that subsection

2 of

section 19 should be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Members, I would like to check to

see that it is in order first before we proceed.

Hon. G.V. Lauk: I contend, Mr. Chairman, that because

it negates a total subsection of a section, it is therefore not

in order.

The Hon. Member or any Member in this House, if they so

wish, could vote against the

section in total.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, you

might choose to wait, but if I could refer the Hon. Minister of

Economic Development in his concern on this to page 513 of

May where he notes:

"When a clause contains two or more subsections which are

not mutually dependent, an amendment to leave out each

subsection is in order."

Mr. Chairman: Would you give me a moment to consider

the question?

Mr. Gibson: Surely. I have some more citations if you

wish.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Mr. Chairman….

Mr. Chairman: Do you mind giving us a moment?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: If there are any Members who wish to

make comment on the point of order raised, I would….

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was in a rush

to raise my point of order. I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in order.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the opposition

are batting 100 per cent in producing amendments that are in

order but are unacceptable. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, you know that I can't,

because you know that it would defeat the whole thing.

Mr. Chairman, the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) suggests that I couldn't, and he's right; I can't

accept this amendment.

[ Page 4808 ]

As you well know, an apple is an apple; an egg is an egg is

an egg. How can you possibly prove where that egg was produced,

unless it is the person with the egg in his hand — the producer,

the member of that commodity group, if you like — who has the

egg and who is in a position to produce a bill of sale or some

documentary evidence that he did, indeed, get that particular

agricultural product from some area outside of the area being

controlled? There is just no way the person seizing the product

can insist that it was produced in a certain area if the

producer says no, it wasn't. So the person transporting it, or

whatever, must be in a position to show that he has indeed

obtained that product from elsewhere, This is not new. I understand the federal law relating to

excise and customs duties works in exactly the same way. In

hunting, again the burden of proof is on the person who has the

animal to prove.

The amendment again, is unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the fact

that this kind of thing is done elsewhere does not make it

right. Indeed, what the Hon. Minister has done is outlined to

us not only the difficulty of mounting a prosecution with this

kind of problem, but at the same time mounting a defence

towards that prosecution. When the thing is turned around in

the negative, as it is here….

Hon. Mr. Stupich: All you have to do is produce an

invoice.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like the

Minister's remarks that it is impossible to check on origins to

pass unchallenged. But the fact is that there is a great body

of regulation and comment on the so-called CCOs — Certificate of

Country of Origin. He knows it full well. It applies in every

case where there are sanctions involved, be it Rhodesia, be it

in any other country. He knows full well that they can, of

course, be circumvented by people who are dishonest and who

wish to lie, but that is still in Canada the case. It is no

justification for

section 19(2), and I speak in strong support

of the amendment put forth by the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

The fact is here we are shifting the burden of proof

entirely onto the person who has such products in his

possession. To suggest that it is a simple matter for him to

prove otherwise means, of course, that it is a simple matter

for the Crown or the prosecution to accept the normal

procedures of proof and proceed in the normal manner.

The arguments the Minister put forward could be applied in an infinite number

of other cases, where the burden of proof is on the prosecuting authority and

where the principle of justice is that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

To suggest that it is administratively more comfortable this

way is undoubtedly to make a true statement. I'm sure it is

more easy and more comfortable for the people in forcing this

iniquitous Act, and in particular the iniquitous provisions of

section 17. But that certainly is no justification for us

accepting it at this time.

The burden of proof, surely, should be on the person proving

that someone has broken the law, and a person who might or

might not have broken the law should not be placed in the

position of having to prove himself innocent.

Amendment negatived.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

Mr. Gibson: On

section 20, Mr. Chairman, it notes

that "no action shall be brought against any person who has

acted…" and so on. I wonder if the Minister would be kind

enough to advise the House what is the reason for this

protection of the members of the board.

Supposing, for example, a member of the board may indeed

have been acting in good faith in the performance of his

duties, as the

section stipulates, but still has been acting in

such tremendous negligence that he, under ordinary thought,

would be guilty of not having done a good job. I wonder if the

Minister could explain to us why it has been felt necessary to

give such blanket protection to board members.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, there have been

many examples of officials trying to do their work and having

their work interfered with by the people who didn't want that

work done. Now this is what that

section is in there for — to

protect the officials of the marketing board affected. Again,

it is nothing new and it has worked well in the past.

Mr. Gibson: But I still have the question: suppose

there is actual negligence in the execution of their duties by

board members. Why should they be protected in this way?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in

this

section that protects them against negligence. That's

something else. There could still be an action for

negligence.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive, approved.

section 23.

[ Page 4809 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, I'm a little confused by

section 23(2)(a), Mr. Chairman, and I wonder whether the

Minister would like to comment. It appears to me that there is

here a possibility of a variation of previous decisions

repealed, rescinded or varied by the provincial board or

marketing board under this Act.

I wonder whether he would like to comment on what this does

to previous statements by both the Speaker and himself

regarding retroactivity. I raise it at this point and I also

perhaps will raise it under 26, but I will raise it at this

time now.

It appears to me that despite a decision of the court the

original order might well be varied subsequently if the

marketing board so desires, and I wonder whether the Minister

would like to comment upon this aspect of it.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I just don't

understand the reference to retroactivity in this section.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, the retroactive…. Well,

let me read it.

Section 24(1)….

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Oh, I thought we were on

section

23. I'm sorry.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, excuse me. I thought we were on

section 23 as well.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I thought

section 23 had

passed.

Mr. Chairman: I'm willing to accept

section 23 as

passing.

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The point on

section 24 — my

apologies, Mr. Chairman —

section 24(1), "the Natural Products

Marketing British Columbia Act, being

Chapter 263 of the

Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, is repealed."

Notwithstanding that repeal, in other words,

section 24(2),

"notwithstanding subsection (1), an order, rule or regulation

made by a provincial board or a marketing board under that Act,

remains in full force and effect until repealed, rescinded or

varied."

In other words any previous order can be rescinded, repealed or varied by a

provincial board or marketing board under this Act, and I would like to know

what happens in this case where there is a court determination taking place

with respect to marketing board powers, and what might happen if the original

order were repealed, rescinded or varied by a provincial board during the time

that particular dispute might be before the courts?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, unless I'm very

confused I think that argument, that position, has been

thoroughly canvassed and thoroughly dealt with in earlier

discussion. I don't think there is any new element in that

particular section.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, do I take the Minister's

remarks to mean, then, that there could be such rescinding,

repealing or variation of an order?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: But not in the case where something

is now before the courts.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Ah, yes, but….

Hon. Mr. Stupich: That's been clearly

established.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That would have to be clearly

established, but could it not precede the court's decision and

go back to, for example, a decision made or an agreement made

in the Minister's office?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, again I say there is

nothing new in the line of reasoning adopted by the Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). It has been thoroughly

canvassed. It has been, I think, adequately dealt with, and we

have all agreed that nothing in this legislation can affect

anything that is now before the courts.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, the reason I raised this,

Mr. Chairman, is of course the provision of the amendment that

we put in for 12(2) which would have guaranteed that very thing

the Minister said, was defeated by the government itself, Under

the circumstances I question 24(2)(

a) because it appears to me

that had the Minister's argument been valid, the argument he

has just given us, the amendment to 12(2) would have been

acceptable to him. I find it impossible to reconcile the two

different positions he is taking.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason that

that amendment was rejected, and the House accepted the

rejection of it, was simply that it was not necessary. The

legislation is already quite clear in that respect.

Now, in

section 24(2)(a), we are dealing with something

quite different. We are simply saying that everything the

marketing boards have done to this

[ Page 4810 ]

point will carry on. We are providing for some continuity in

the time between the new Act taking place and the boards

operating under the new Act. This will provide for continuous

operation, and that's the only purpose of 24(2)(a).

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: This was

an Act that we brought in

last year. It's another of those Acts which was a mistake, and

we said so at the time. I believe this led to illegal levies.

Now I wonder whether the Minister would like to indicate

whether that's the reason for repealing this Act, because there

seems to be no other genuine reason for tucking it into this

particular bill, namely the Natural Products Marketing British

Columbia Act.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Cattle

Industry Development Act was an interim measure. We knew at the

time that it was an interim measure until such time as we could

proceed with the amended Natural Products Marketing British

Columbia Act. We are now ready to proceed with that. We have

almost adopted it in committee and with that there will be no

need to continue the Cattle Industry Development Act.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: In other words really its

relevance to this Act is slight in the extreme. The relevance

of the Cattle Industry Development Act, which I have in front

of me, is not related really to the whole question of this

superboard or things of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member did

make reference earlier to levies, and as was admitted at the

time, levies could not be levied legally under that particular

legislation. Levies can be collected under this legislation,

Provision is made for that.

Now I'm not sure if he has another point.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I have, and it is fairly

straightforward, that is, this is the only commodity singled

out in this particular piece of legislation and I am curious as

to why. Certainly

chapter 11 of the statute as we said at the

time, led to illegal levies and any single cattle producer

could overturn it.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: And some did.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course they did, as we told you

they would because it was an illegal piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: And I've admitted it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course. I should hope you'd

admit to it. That's why we've raised the issue. It illustrates

very well, Mr. Chairman, how the government proceeds despite

good council from the opposition, and how they get into trouble

on that. Of course it could be overturned by any cattleman who

wished to.

I gather that it's now being repealed simply because at some

time in the future we may well have a cattle board or a beef

board or something of that nature. I don't know whether we're

going to have a marketing board for beef or what does he

propose? Because to repeal it would indicate that something

else is in line and I'd like to know.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying hard to

find out what the Member's question is. This

section does

provide for the repealing of the Cattle Industry Development

Act, under which the cattlemen are currently operating. The

cattlemen for some time have expressed a desire to be able to

form a commission. Once we have proceeded to develop a scheme

for a commission, if indeed the cattlemen do want to proceed

with the organization of a commission, if the scheme is developed and if it's acceptable to the commission, at that

point in time, once the commission becomes operative then

section 25 will be proclaimed. But until that point in time,

section 25 will not be proclaimed.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On the title.

Mr. Gardom: On the title, Mr. Chairman, the Minister

was talking a few moments ago about continuity and I certainly

think there is a degree of continuity in this bill, because it

certainly carries on with the bad and. It compounds it.

But the statute which will become a statute unfortunately

very shortly is not properly named and I think it's misnamed.

The bill is totally misnamed, Mr. Chairman, because the title

does not express what it really does and we find this statute

to become doctrinaire socialism at its very worst.

It's carte blanche authority to exercise the most

restrictive powers anywhere in the free world over the products

of the land, and the sea, and the lakes and the forests, and

over any and all producers in this province, over any and all

marketing methods. These are enormous and unparalleled powers

to the state. They grossly infringe the rights of the

individual and we find that he's without adequate protection or

checks or balances, and we find that the citizen can be subject

to processes for contempt of court, fines, jail up to six

months, seizure of his goods and

[ Page

4811 ]

chattels….

Mr. Chairman: Order, Mr. Member. I do believe that

you're going a little beyond the scope of debate on this

section. The debate that you are conducting, Mr. Member, is one

that was carried out in second reading.

An Hon. Member: No, he's right on.

Mr. Gardom: Well I'm just indicating to you, Mr.

Chairman — I can assure you that I will not be long on my feet — indicating to you that this bill is improperly named and I'm

complaining bitterly about the title.

The title does not indicate, Mr. Chairman, that a person can

face confiscation of their products of their records, of their

books and their conveyances without compensation. The title

does not reflect that the subject can be subjected to all sorts

of economic losses without any opportunity or means for

redress. Yet we find the bill called, Mr. Chairman, the bill is

called by this Minister: Natural Products Marketing (British

Columbia) Act. That does not for one second describe what the

bill is.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, it contains the widest powers over

natural products and the most restrictive anywhere in the free

world and it should say what it is, Mr. Chairman, and it should

be called the "Socialist Controlled Natural Products Act." I

would therefore move an amendment be deleting the title as it

now stands and substituting therefore: "Socialist Controlled

Natural Products Act."

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, just before we

proceed, I want to determine whether it is in order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: After saying all those nasty things

about it, I thought he was going to go on and say, "but it is a

good bill and we'll support it." This is the first amendment

that I have felt really deserved some consideration in that

socialism is the ultimate in democracy. However, since we've

gone this far without amending the bill, I think we better keep

our record complete and the amendment, even if it is in order,

will not be acceptable.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 24

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster