1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

4453 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Point of order

Basis of timing debate limits. Mr. L.A. Williams

— 4453

Mr. Speaker — 4453

Mr. Gardom — 4453

Mr. Speaker — 4454

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4454

Mr. Bennett — 4454

Mr. Cummings — 4454

Mr. Speaker — 4454

Mr. Smith — 4454

Mr. Speaker — 4455

Routine proceedings

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, 1974

(Bill 165.

Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 4455

Mr. McGeer — 4458

Point of order

Possibility of comments being sub judice, Mr. Speaker — 4459

Mr. McGeer — 4459

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 4459

Mr. Speaker — 4459

Mr. McGeer — 4459

Mr. Gibson — 4460

Mr. Speaker — 4460

Mr. McGeer — 4460

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 4461

Mr. Speaker — 4461

Routine proceedings

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act, 1974

(Bill 165).

Second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 4461

Mrs. Jordan — 4462

Mr. Steves — 4467

Mr. Kelly — 4470

Mr. Morrison — 4472

Mr. McClelland — 4472

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4478

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

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

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT, 1974

(continued)

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

point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the event which

occurred just before the dinner adjournment, concerning the

Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), could the

Speaker advise us on what basis the timing is conducted?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I'd be glad to explain that, At the

moment the timing is done by the Clerks who make a note of the

time the Member rises, and inform me, if I'm in doubt on the

matter, or if another person takes over in the chair. But,

unfortunately, because of their other duties it's becoming

rather onerous on them, the result of which we're trying to

find at the moment a neutral timekeeper. I think the ones who

are keeping the time the most in this House are the

Hansard operators who have to keep the time for all the

tapes. So the purpose is to have somebody indicate to the

Speaker an accurate timing of the speeches so there'll be no

doubt, and every Member will be treated the same.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I think you'll have to rely

on the Chair to be fair in keeping the time and treating every

Member the same.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite

finished yet; perhaps the Member for South Okanagan would

defer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that advice. Because this is a

new procedure and being aware of the procedures that are

applied in other parliaments, is it the intention of the Chair

on such occasions to accord to Members, who may then be on

their feet at the moment of being advised of their time, the

opportunity to complete very briefly any such remarks as they

may then be in the process of making to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The only way I can see….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If you look at the

wording of the rule, it says that the Speaker… I think it

says "shall"; it's pretty mandatory if you look at it. In

closing off a speech there's no extra time allotted and the

Speaker doesn't have the discretion to allot it unless the

House gives that discretion by the Member, who is about to

finish his time, asking for leave of the House. Then I think

the House would like to know how long he's going to be, but I

don't think there's any discretion.

If I can get the House to agree, I can arrange a two-minute

warning so you will have time to shape up the ending of your

speech.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that

advice because it is obvious to all Members of the House,

including yourself, Mr. Speaker, or based upon your experience,

that it isn't always possible to end one's particular thought

in mid-stride. I think that if some leeway, however brief,

could be permitted, then it would be advantageous.

Mr. Speaker: I've taken up a proposal to the Members

of different caucuses, hoping that they would negotiate this

between themselves as a method of signaling to the Hon. Member

who is speaking. I, for my part, have some signal that I need

that tells me when they're closing off their speech and the

time is up. Now, I'm trying to keep that private along with

other lights I have under my desk. But if you want to see it, I

could arrange to have it a little higher, so you can see

it.

An Hon. Member: What are the other lights?

Mr. Speaker: I have lights for the television lights;

they show whether they are on. I have lights to show that the

normal lights are on.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Does that make you

a bright character?

Mr. Speaker: I try to keep bright.

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

one question. I gather that traffic lights for the purposes of

debate have been installed in the House. Is that correct or

incorrect?

Mr. Speaker: No, not for the purpose of debate.

There's a light up here for me that tells me when the time is

up, to form absolutely impartial judge of the matter of

time.

Mr. Gardom: I see. Mr. Speaker, I would very

respectfully like to suggest, in the interest of the

[ Page 4454 ]

decorum of parliament, that I think it would be slightly

more traditional, if nothing else, that the timing of the

debate, if one wishes to give notification to Members that

their time is coming to an end, that it could be done by a

Page, as opposed to having a bunch of flashing neon lights.

Mr. Speaker: What you like and don't like about it is

really a matter for you to discuss with the other parties in

the House, come to a decision and let me know what you would

like in the way of a warning. Could we now go ahead with the

debate?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I would like to suggest that I

think that your recommendation that this matter be fully

settled with the three party representatives is certainly a

necessary step. However, as we're now proceeding to debate, I

wonder….

An Hon. Member: Four parties.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Four parties. I'm sorry.

Mr. Speaker, however, until the time an agreement has been

reached by the four parties, I wonder if you would provide some

advice as to when there is maybe two to three minutes before

the conclusion of the speech.

Mr. Speaker: I wouldn't do that without consent of

the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I would wonder if the House would

consent to the Speaker giving that signal?

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

order. Mr. Speaker, in regards to the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) who was speaking this evening, can we be

assured of an accurate measurement of his time before the

debate was adjourned, and is he to be made aware of it? Is he

to be made aware of it now before he starts to speak?

Mr. Speaker: We don't have timekeepers like they have

in hockey games, but it appears that we have the Clerks keeping

time, and I'm assured by them that they have a record which

shows he has 17 minutes left, I believe.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Who has been

tinkering with the clock?

Mr. Speaker: It is 19 apparently — 19 minutes.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we were keeping time. We

thought he had 22 minutes left.

Mr. Speaker: Now you see why I rely upon a timekeeper, because I have other duties to do.

An Hon. Member: On a point of order, who is the

timekeeper?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister Of Highways): They asked

about traffic lights, and that does come under my jurisdiction.

I don't think we'll put traffic lights in here, but I would

consider, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands (Mr. Curtis), a crosswalk. (Laughter.)

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): On the

same point of order. Do you think that an intelligent

opposition would have called the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) a designated speaker,

therefore he could have exceeded the 40 minutes? Would that

have been permissible under the rules? I believe so, if you'd

like to check the rules, because there has been no speaker over

there to exceed the 40 minutes. I mean after all, they can't

even oppose properly. They can't even use the laws of

parliament.

Mr. Speaker: May we get on with the debate? May I

point out that I'm informed that the Hon. Member who has the

floor, when he can get it again, had used 19 minutes of his

time and he has 21 minutes left apparently, a total of 40.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: This is an adjourned debate and we're

now starting again at 8 o'clock, I presume.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Is it not true,

Mr. Speaker, that this is a new session of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Please, I think that everybody must be

treated the same. Everybody gets 40 minutes, and that includes

this Member here. Would the Hon. Member now proceed with this

debate?

Mr. Phillips: Somebody just blew the whistle on the

Minister of Highways.

Mr. Smith: It's a point that I think is a serious

point and should be well clarified — that we are now in a new

sitting of the House, are we not?

Mr. Speaker: That doesn't alter the time that has

been spent in a particular debate.

Mr. Smith: Yes, but the rules are moot in that

respect as far as I can see, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I'll give it my consideration,

[ Page 4455 ]

but I do hope that in the meantime the Hon. Members will get

together on a method that they approve for letting them know,

without being obviously disturbed by discourteous nudges, that

they're approaching the end of their time limit. Now, if you'll

come to some conclusion and let me know, I'd appreciate it. In

the meantime, I understand that you have 21 minutes left. Would

you kindly proceed with your debate?

Mr. Smith: On the point of order that has been

raised, before I start speaking and I exhaust my 21 minutes,

would you take into consideration the fact that there is

nothing in the Standing Orders that refer to a person who was

on their feet at the time a debate was adjourned and the next

session, which is a new sitting of the House?

Mr. Speaker: What you're saying is, in effect, is

that if you extended the principle you're arguing for, you

could adjourn after 39 minutes and then demand a new 40 minutes

when you came back. That would be manifestly unfair to everyone

else.

Mr. Smith: I'm not arguing for or against, Mr.

Speaker. All I'm suggesting is that I think it's incumbent upon

you to research the rules to find out exactly where we're at in

this problem.

Mr. Speaker: I'll be glad to look it up and see what

the result is, but in the meantime, would the Hon. Member press

on?

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order. It's my impression

that the House Leader, in the absence of the Premier who's been

away today again, called the House back a half-hour early at 8

o'clock instead of the usual 8:30, probably to allow the Member

the extra time to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his

speech?

Mr. Bennett: Will he get 40 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: No. He gets the same as everybody else

on this debate.

Mr. Smith: It's a different sitting.

Mr. Speaker: That has absolutely nothing to do with

it.

Mr. Smith: Yes, of course it has. Of course it

has.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then, you give me your authority for it before you

argue in favour of such a proposition.

Mr. Smith: You give me your authority, too, for your

ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I made the rule.

Mr. Smith: What's your authority?

Mr. Speaker rises.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! May I inform the Hon.

Members that in every parliament where they have a time limit

on speeches they apply it in the way we apply it here. If you

know any that don't I would appreciate hearing about them.

Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

Mr. Phillips: On a point of order, I would like to

know if this can be referred to from now on as mechanized

closure.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member for North Peace

River proceed with his speech, please?

An Hon. Member: With his 40 minutes.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to

resume my place in this debate, and I would like to start by

saying that it was interesting to note the attitude of the

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

yesterday's vote. While I can't reflect upon it, and I won't, I

just say that it was interesting, very interesting, to note the

position taken by the Second Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain on a motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) to hoist this bill for six months.

I can't help but reflect as to why a Member of the

government would vote against his party, why a Member of the

government would get up and support the opposition in a motion

to hoist the bill, unless there was some peculiar or particular

circumstances that we were unaware of — without offering one

word for or against the particular proposition.

Certainly I would suggest that it is a little unusual, but

then I think we have to consider the whole context of this

bill. This bill deals with natural products marketing in

British Columbia. In that context I presume that all of us in

this House are aware of the fact that the Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain is engaged in a business which

markets certain basic food commodities and products.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Smith: Now there are a number of firms

[ Page 4456 ]

that sell ice cream in the Province of British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker. There are firms that operate under the auspices of a

franchise, I presume, from Tastee-Freez. There are firms that

operate under the auspices of a franchise issued to them by

another organization known as Big Scoop, and there are also, as

I recall, firms in British Columbia operating under the heading

of Dairy Queen.

Mr. Phillips: Do they pay for their franchise?

Mr. Smith: That is also, I believe, a franchise

dealership in the Province of British Columbia.

So all I can say is: what was the Member afraid of when he

voted with the opposition?

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: Well, perhaps the Member is a little

embarrassed over the fact that 10 cent ice cream cones now cost

30 cents.

An Hon. Member: Too much water.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, and they've got holes in the

middle.

Mr. Smith: And there is far more powdered milk

involved in the process of manufacturing ice cream today than

ever before. Perhaps that is a matter of concern.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Time, time!

Mr. Cummings: The Hon. Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith) inferred that Dairy Queen operators are breaking

the law by using powdered milk. I wish him to withdraw

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Cummings: It's slander. Withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the proper course

would be that at the end of the Hon. Member's remarks, if you

have any objection or correction to make to a statement that

affects you, then make it at that time, please.

Mr. Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly…. I

didn't, in my opinion, make any statement that was slanderous,

and I didn't refer to the operation of this particular Member

except that he operates under a franchise dealership and he

sells ice cream. That's a matter of fact.

It is also a matter of fact today that an ice cream cone that we used to buy

for 10 cents — you know, a nice, rounded ice cream cone so high that every child

enjoyed — now sells for approximately 30 cents, and I doubt that there is the

same food value in it today that there was six months or two years ago.

Mr. Phillips: It's all plastic.

Mr. Smith: Now it's all fluff and feathers. But the

children are still paying 30 cents.

Now is it fair that people engaged in that enterprise should

rip off little children and sell them a 10 cent ice cream cone

for 30 cents? I wonder if perhaps the Member read the Guide

to Agricultural Services published by the Minister of

Agriculture. Look on page 14 where it refers to soft ice cream

research. A research programme in cooperation with various

Health departments for the qualitative and quantitative

analysis of soft ice cream in counter freezer outlets is

underway at the present time, as I read this. Well, perhaps he

knows more about the results of that particular research

programme than we do.

I wouldn't want to suggest that soft ice cream is the only

ingredient and the only marketable product in which the public

is being ripped off today. What about candy bars which have a

wrapper twice the size of the candy bar itself, so that when

you get down through the wrapper you find a bitty square of

chocolate inside?

An Hon. Member: That's not very sweet of them.

Mr. Smith: I think that the Minister and the

particular Member shouldn't be chastised just for his business

alone, because it is happening in other businesses as well.

These are some of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I believe

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) must have been

concerned about. If he wasn't concerned about it, certainly he

was prodded by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms.

Young) to investigate. Did I get it right? Consumer Services — not Consumer Affairs, Consumer Services.

I'm sure that she's a very conscientious Minister and she's

really concerned about the rip-off of the public and the

rip-off of little children who have their 25 cent allowance.

Are they being ripped off when they buy an ice cream cone

today? Are they being ripped off when they buy a product which

at one time was made of natural dairy products and which today

is made mainly out of powdered milk and substitutes?

I think perhaps the Minister should investigate that as well

as some of the other products that she speaks about publicly. I

think that is one of the areas the Minister could be concerned

about in her

[ Page 4457 ]

deliberations and in the manner in which she prods the

Minister of Agriculture.

Now I would like to move on to another area or two, and I

would like to suggest and ask the Minister of Agriculture how,

in his opinion, this bill which is before us today will put.

one more pound of meat on the consumer's table at a less

expensive price than it is today — one more pound of meat, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture, without hurting the primary

producer.

If anybody watched TV tonight they probably watched the same

programme I did in which the news broadcast indicated that the

price of certain beef products was going to be reduced by 20

per cent.

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: Grass-fed cattle, it said, which means

that they're certainly not prime….

Interjection.

Mr. Smith: A 20 per cent reduction? No wonder there

will be a 20 per cent reduction, because the price of beef to

the producer has certainly gone down more than 20 per cent in

the last six months. I think that that's still a rip-off if the

meat markets are only going to reduce grass-fed cattle by a

price of 20 per cent.

I'd like to know from the Minister of Agriculture how this

bill will get one more apple delivered to a consumer at a

cheaper price; and I'd like to know if this bill is going to

somehow provide a fairer price to a farmer who markets

potatoes. So far, the Minister has been very reluctant to bring

to the attention of this House just how this particular bill is

going to help either the producer or the consumer.

Mr. Minister, how much cheaper will eggs be after this bill

is in effect and the majority on the government side of the

House has made sure that it's passed? How much cheaper? Will

the eggs be down next month after this bill has passed through

all three readings in the House? How will this bill reconcile a

fair return to grain farmers and producers of hay? How will it

do that without placing increased production costs on the

people raising livestock and operating feedlots? Tell me, Mr.

Minister: how is this bill going to solve that problem?

What is your answer, Mr. Minister, to the Quebec problem

where farmers reluctantly slaughtered 600 head of cattle

because they felt it was the only means that they could use to

draw to the attention of the government, and of the public at

large, that the return they received for the cattle or the

calves that they would market did not even pay them the costs

of raising those calves? This in a time when people go

hungry.

Do you think, Mr. Minister, that those farmers did that without compassion?

I don't think so, without fully realizing that part of their lifelong desire

to maintain a viable farming operation was going down the drain into the same

pit as those cattle — those calves. Do you think that they did that because

they wanted to? Not on your life, Mr. Minister. They did it because they wanted

to draw to the attention of the people at large that the product they had to

sell did not return to them as much as it cost them to raise it. That's one

of the things that we should be debating, not

an Act that has no substance,

really. The Act in itself is going to do nothing for either the producer or

the consumer.

What about closer to home? What about right here on the

Island, Mr. Minister? What about the farmers in Saanich who

have indicated to this Minister that they will have to go out

of farming? Saanich peninsula farmers are being forced to take

land out of production because they can't get seasonal labour

to help them harvest their crops. This year, half of Bill

Mattick's crop of peas and beans rotted in the fields because

no one wants to work for $2 an hour anymore. Is that part of

the problem — nobody wants to work for $2 an hour? Assume that

is part of the problem. If the farmer pays them $4 an hour,

will the Minister guarantee that that increase will be

reflected in the price that they receive for the product that

they market.

You know, the Liberal Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) has quite a bit to say about the position of the former

government. Let me say this: we're in changing times and

changing conditions. The NDP came into power on the basis that

they were going to do something for the little man in

society.

An Hon. Member: What are you doing?

Mr. Smith: What are you doing, Mr. Minister? That was

your promise, not only to the people who are….

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: If you would like to make a speech, why

don't you ask the Speaker for your turn in the debate?

(Laughter.) You've already spoken in this debate….

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): He's got some time

left, though.

Mr. Smith: …but, unfortunately, had so little to

say he only used about 10 minutes of his time this afternoon

and exhausted his right to speak again in the debate.

Interjections.

[ Page 4458 ]

Mr. Smith: But I'll tell you this: if he had no more

to say about this particular bill than he had this afternoon … one of the fat cats from the North Shore who knows very

little about farming or the fact that this particular bill will

do nothing for either producer or consumer in the Province of

British Columbia.

Let's talk about the farmers in the Saanich peninsula. It's

a fact that they find themselves in a position where they're

being squeezed out of the farming industry.

What about the Cariboo where people raise cattle — lots of

cattle, Mr. Minister — and yet have had to sell them in the

last several months at a price that does not even return to

them the costs of production? What are you going to do about

that? Is this bill going to solve that problem?

Half the world is starving, Mr. Minister, and the answer in

B.C. is regulate production and impose one more layer of

bureaucratic authority on top of the layers that are already

there. I suggest that this isn't going to do anything to solve

any of the problems of production and higher prices, and it'll

not solve the problems of the marketing agencies who, I'm sure,

are grasping with the problems and trying to find an answer. So

the only thing I can say, Mr. Minister, in all charity, is that

this bill is a red herring. It's a political red herring with

no solutions.

I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, what attempt was made before

this bill was introduced to meet on a serious basis with

existing marketing boards. I suggest there was none. Was there

any attempt to suggest to them that there was a need to

overhaul the existing marketing system in terms of 1974

problems? I suggest there was none. Did the Minister

conveniently forget his own motion on the order paper?

Apparently he did.

And what input, Mr. Minister, did you solicit from the

people most affected by this legislation? I suggest none. How

will this bill in any way increase employment opportunities in

the Province of British Columbia in the farming area, in

processing plants, or in actual consumption of basic

agricultural products?

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Member, I thought I

should let you know that you have just a little less than two

minutes.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your

interruption.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister Of Economic Development):

The end is near. (Laughter.)

Mr. Smith: How is it going to overcome these

problems? I suggest that it won't.

Mr. Speaker, in the past two years we've been subjected to ICBC and all the

problems that we became involved in with a government monopoly.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Smith: We've been involved in a rentalsman at

$43,000 a year, and it's an experiment which has resulted in

nothing that you can actually put your hand on as a tangible

benefit to the people of this province.

We've been involved in a Land Commission, only to find that

whatever they tried to do was reduced and rendered sterile by

cabinet interference.

Now we're to become involved in a superboard which is to be

all things to all people. It won't, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister. It seems to be the type of disease that has afflicted

this government, and it's out of control. Thankfully, before

long in my opinion, the disease will be fatal and we'll be able

to pass on to better times in the Province of British

Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Did Air West get here on time?

(Laughter.)

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I think I

rather like this 40-minute rule. (Laughter.) A decided

advantage. How do you get rung out, Mr. Speaker? — I wasn't

here this afternoon. Does a bell ring for the count of 10, or

whatever it is?

Mr. Speaker: No, I stood up. (Laughter.)

Mr. McGeer: Do you get deducted the heckling time, or

is it just 40 minutes straight through, no time-out?

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak for 40 minutes….

Mr. Bennett: Do you want to know what bill we're

on?

Mr. McGeer: I'm going to vote against it.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I intend to vote against this

bill is because the public is beginning to realize through

Beryl Plumptre — bless her $40,000 a year salary — that

marketing boards are really there to reduce competition.

An Hon. Member: What do you make at UBC, Pat?

Mr. McGeer: Not enough, not enough. (Laughter.)

Except professors are going to go on strike, I am told.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the marketing boards are there to keep the

prices up; they're there to reduce competition; they're there

to make sure the public

[ Page

4459 ]

pays a very generous price, usually well above what

comparable consumers are paying on the other side of the

border.

The scheme is a fairly simple one — it's easy to understand

what's happened over the years. You start an egg marketing

board in one province, and it's designed to keep the prices up — pretty soon everybody wants to produce eggs. Because the

prices are high, people simply don't want to buy eggs, and it

isn't very long before the province has a surplus of eggs.

There is only one thing you do with a surplus — you send it to

another province. Pretty soon all the provinces are producing

too many eggs and trying to send their surplus eggs to the

other province.

So then what you do is you start a Canadian Egg Marketing

Board to supervise the thing for all of Canada. But everybody

is producing eggs, and the price is too high. It's fine for the

producer but it isn't very long before someone either has to

buy up all the surplus eggs, or tell the producers to stop

making as many. What the Canadian Egg Marketing Board chose to

do was merely buy up all the surplus eggs, but there was no

time at all before every available storage place was full of

the surplus eggs. Then they had to start putting eggs into

every available spare barn, so it was pretty soon that the eggs

began to go rotten in the barns, and we destroyed 45 million.

The Minister of Agriculture was then importuned to try and sell

the eggs to China.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): He was a Liberal.

Mr. McGeer: He was a Liberal.

Mr. Speaker, now we've started to move from provincial egg

marketing boards to national egg marketing boards, now to

provincial superboards. I suppose it will go next to national

superboards to supervise the provincial superboards.

Unfortunately, none of it is going to work.

We had an excellent example here in the person of Sy

Kovachich. The Premier, himself, took Sy Kovachich on,

threatened to kick the censored out of him, sent him to sign an

agreement with the egg marketing board, closeted over there in

one of the back rooms across the street. But the problem again,

Mr. Speaker — there was an agreement signed and Mr. Kovachich

agreed to pay up.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Member, is there not

some kind of a case on in relation to these people and on some

settlement or other?

Mr. McGeer: I'll tell you what the pleading was. It's

public knowledge, and not sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: If it is sub judice, I would not expect

anyone to debate it.

Mr. McGeer: It's a matter of public record; it's with

the pleadings.

An Hon. Member: That's barrister talk.

Mr. McGeer: I can read those things like any lawyer.

The pleadings came out and it makes a very….

Hon. Mr. Lauk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

bring to your attention that to my knowledge there is a case

before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and it is

directly relating to the comments being made by the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and is therefore sub

judice.

Mr. Speaker: I think you know the rule, and I'm sure

that the Hon. Member would not transgress on that rule of sub

judice.

Mr. McGeer: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: So I would take it that you would steer

away from your present account of the evidence.

Mr. McGeer: I'm not going to say a word about the

evidence; I'm merely going to say what the pleadings said. It's

got nothing to do with the merits of the case, one side or

another. It's all public knowledge; it's on the records.

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

the ground is staked out by the opposite parties for them to

then, within the grounds that they've staked out, deal with the

case that's before a judge. The fact of reading out the

pleadings in here, in a sense, would really be, I presume, in

relation to some of the remarks you've been making.

Mr. McGeer: I'm merely making statements of fact, Mr.

Speaker. I'm not offering opinions one way or another. The

facts are stated on the pleadings. It's a matter of public

record. It has nothing to do with influencing the judge and

he's….

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be a difference of

opinion on the point of order that's been expressed by the Hon.

Minister of Industrial Development and yourself. I'm not, at

this stage, aware of the extent of this. In the meantime, I

wonder if the Member could avoid anything that might be sub

judice in his remarks.

Mr. McGeer: I will absolutely avoid anything that's

sub judice, or might be sub judice. I give a flat guarantee,

Mr. Speaker, to do that. All I intend to do is to state what

the public pleadings were in that

[ Page 4460 ]

particular case, because I think the public pleadings aren't

sub judice.

How did that man get called to the bar, Mr. Speaker? How did

he ever get called to the bar? How did he ever graduate from

law school? I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Member's knowledge of

the law is pretty thin, as you well know. There's nothing sub

judice about what I've said or intend to say. The Member is

anticipating my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: On the point of order, again, Mr.

Speaker, the Member quite obviously was discussing allegations

made in the pleadings, allegations of fact that have to be

proven in a court of law. To discuss that in this House is sub

judice.

Mr. McGeer: He doesn't understand the law, Mr.

Speaker. Explain it to him.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I do want to point out to the Hon.

Member that pleadings….

Mr. McGeer: It's a matter of public record.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, would the Hon.

Member be seated for one minute?

On a question of pleadings, they are not proven facts. They

are allegations that parties make which they then attempt to

prove in court. They may be counter to each other in the

statements made in the allegations, and they may or may not be

true — that is for a court to decide, not for this House. Any

repetition of the pleadings themselves may lead to a question

of the public accepting that allegation without realizing it's

still to be proved by a court. I would therefore urge the Hon.

Member not to make use of pleadings in this House at this stage

when the matter is before a court.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the day will

never arrive in the Legislature of British Columbia where

matters of public record, public record available to any

citizen….

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member seems to be unaware of

the decision….

Mr. McGeer: Do we not have free speech in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member seems to be unaware of the

decision of Chief Justice, as he then was, Mr. Justice Wilson, in regard to

repetition of pleadings in the Sommers-Sturdy case. In view of that, it was

clear, as far as the courts were concerned, that they do not believe that pleadings

of the type that were there mentioned were a matter of public currency and debate

when the matter is still to come before a court. It seems to me that the logic

which is implicit in that should be the logic that also governs us.

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

Speaker, I would suggest that the Sommers-Sturdy comparison is

an unfortunate one, but I would ask you if matters reported in

a public newspaper are not fair repetition in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I would say that using a matter that has

been used in a newspaper at an earlier time and then relating

it to a court case, or dealing with allegations that are in a

court case, would make it inappropriate to discuss it at this

time — until the court has dealt with the matter fully.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: I beg to differ with you, sir, in that

anything that is public record is a matter for repetition in

this House. No chief justice anywhere can throttle Members who

are elected to a Legislature Assembly, and deny the right of

free speech in the House.

It's entirely improper to you, sir, to try and lean on the

ruling of some judge as to what elected Members may say in the

House. We're elected by the people, and we're not here to be

muzzled by anybody. Now, I don't intend to transgress on the

court, by no means, Mr. Speaker. But I do intend to make it

very clear to you and to everyone that we're here to exercise

the right of free speech, and every elected Member should do so

at all times. It's a matter of fundamental principle. I have no

intention of casting reflection on a matter that is before the

courts to decide.

But, Mr. Speaker, when something is entered as a matter of

public record, then it is for this House to be able to repeat

those matters of public record just as an ordinary citizen or a

newspaper may do. If we start to pass rules, subtle or implied,

in this House that limit in any way free speech, then we're

transgressing on democracy itself.

I think we've got to keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker. I think

the Minister as usual was quite out of order. I've heard this

kind of thing done in the chamber before and I deplore the

practice, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect to you, Sir, I had no intention of

trying to influence the outcome of any court case. But, surely

to goodness, if something has been entered in a court of law,

it's something which any citizen can get from the court,

including a reporter to publish it in a newspaper. To say that

that's something that cannot be mentioned in a house of free

speech is outrageous. Outrageous!

Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the bill on egg

[ Page 4461 ]

marketing. No, it's the bill on superboards. It's the same

kind of thing in a way. It's throttling freedom; it's reducing

competition; it's creating a problem that will lead to further

problems. The point I wanted to make about Mr. Kovachich, who

failed to keep the oral agreement that he made in that backroom

across the way…. He failed to keep it.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There's a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that

you ruled that it was sub judice. The Member insists on

referring back. He is obviously in contempt of your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: On the point of order, may I point out

that the only indication I have at the moment…. I don't know

the case that is before the court and I'm hoping to get a copy

of the pleading so that I can see what the Hon. Member is

driving at. But if he has already made his mind up in his

statement on one side of the case which another party to it

denies, then, in fact, he's taking sides.

Is he doing that? I don't know that.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: That's exactly what you're doing.

Mr. McGeer: No, Mr. Speaker.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: I have to take the assurance of the Hon. Member

that he is reciting it as it is, and I'm not going to dispute

with him something of which I have no knowledge. I don't know

the pleadings in the case and, until I do, I wouldn't be able

to even determine what the issue is that he says that he's

steering away from.

Mr. McGeer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that

courtesy. Unfortunately, it hasn't been extended by the

Minister who was all too quick to leap to his feet before

hearing what was said. None of this is disputed by either party

or the court, none of it at all.

But the fact remains that Mr. Kovachich, by his own

admission, didn't keep the agreement that he made in the

backroom.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: That's an allegation of fact, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. McGeer: No, it's not an allegation of fact. It's

something that is admitted to by both parties and it appears in

the pleadings on both sides.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Both sides, It's not in dispute; it's a

matter of public record. There's nothing disputatious about

that.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Can you find out what's agitating the

Minister, Mr. Speaker? I can't. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: What are you trying to cover up?

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: No subpoenas involved.

But, Mr. Speaker, it illustrates how difficult it is to

establish egg marketing boards or superboards of any kind and

to enforce whatever regulations these boards may pass. The

gentlemen involved are frequently a great deal smarter than

those who sit on the boards or those who sit in this House.

And, furthermore, they've got all day to sit and think about

the problem. That's why it's so difficult for a House or for a

cabinet to try and regulate peoples' lives and what they do in

the way of production with boards of any kind.

The superboard is being established simply because the

ordinary boards didn't work. The government will learn that the

superboards won't work either for the same problem that the

ordinary boards don't work — namely, you simply cannot appoint a

group of people who have enough time or are smart enough to

think through all the angles that those who want to avoid the

regulations of the board are able to think of in their leisure

time.

The consequence is an unfortunate one for the consumer

because prices are kept high. Frequently there are arguments as

to who will have a share of the profit. In the end, colossal

embarrassments are created like the mess the Canadian Egg

Marketing Agency has run into in the matter of eggs.

We're going to have Canadian marketing boards for virtually

everything before long because a provincial board, once it

satisfies the production within its own province, will merely

attempt to export the surplus to another province. In defence,

that province will set up its own board. Finally, you'll have

to have a national board to regulate that.

We're establishing a superboard here in British Columbia,

not because of a vote of mine, but it won't be long before

there'll be superboards in every province. Then there'll be a

Canadian superboard.

[ Page 4462 ]

And no one will be served by it, least of all the Canadian

consumer, because it won't have rationalized production. All it

will have done is to attempt unsuccessfully to regulate

people's lives.

It seems to me to be classical socialism….

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Certainly, certainly. It's a socialist

scheme. But it was something that was commenced by Social

Credit. I don't lay all the blame at the NDP doorstep.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Coalition.

Mr. McGeer: All I accuse the NDP of doing, Mr.

Speaker, is compounding the problem. In effect, that's been

their role in office: not to solve problems but to compound

them. That's what the marketing board is doing; it's

compounding the problem.

I would hope sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, that the

government would come to its senses and would realize that you

can't regulate everybody's lives successfully; you can't govern

with one board and commission after another. It doesn't lead to

improved society; it leads to one that's worse. It's the old

system which I suppose is the classical approach of the

socialists — certainly one that the Minister of human relations

or whatever it is has practised fairly well. That's to polish

pebbles and to dim diamonds.

The more we try and regulate people's lives, Mr. Speaker,

instead of introducing the only thing that works — which is

good, honest, healthy competition — the more we're going to run

our society down by polishing pebbles and dimming diamonds. In

the end we won't have served the average person at all. We'll

have led him down the path that leads to a poorer quality of

life rather than a better one.

Mrs. Jordan: I would like to bring this debate to a

sense of reality, rather than what we've just experienced, and

concern ourselves with the problems that we're faced with in

British Columbia and the world. I don't think the public want

to hear the Liberals relive their one moment of glory. It's my

view that the public indeed have already made up their minds on

the basis of whether or not the Premier of this province told

the truth, just as the public in the United States made up

their mind about Mr. Nixon.

It's amazing that such a debate should have just taken place

from a very erudite gentleman whose experience in marketing to

my knowledge is in imported wines and somewhat canned

education, both, I understand, on consignment — a privilege

that the producer in the world doesn't enjoy.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: The Hon. Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) asks if I am voting with him. No,

Mr. Member, because in my mind this bill puts the producer in

the same position as the poor fellow who was accosted by a

highway robber.

The highway robber said to him, "Your money or your

life."

And the fellow said, "Take my life. I'm saving my money for

my old age."

And that's exactly what's in this bill.

It's unfortunate that at a time when we're facing world

problems in hunger and death in hunger, we have before us this

unfortunate, sloppy and ill-conceived bill.

It's the form presented by the government that has made it

necessary for the opposition to depart from the primary concern

and the intent of the bill: to establish a system of marketing

agricultural products in British Columbia and elsewhere which

is at once of benefit to the producer and to the consumer. This

important objective has been obscured in the debate by this

legislation.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, as other Hon. Members have

pointed out, and as I pointed out in another debate on this

bill, that it has been prepared without sufficient input from

the interested parties who have special concern in this area.

It was just a chosen few, just a chosen few who were involved — not all the marketing boards.

What of those who are not members of marketing boards and

choose not to be members of marketing boards in this province,

but who will be affected without say by the scope of its

powers? It is clear to me that the bill would permit the

government to exercise executive power over agricultural

product marketing boards which is far in excess of what is

needed in line with their request to the government to

accomplish the objective and satisfy the requests and concerns

of producers and consumers.

This is

an Act which gives the government unlimited

authority to control the marketing of natural products in

British Columbia. The government may say that this is not the

intent. But, nonetheless, the fact remains that the power

exists in this Act to do just that.

The government has gone into the cattle-ranching business.

Under this bill there is nothing to stop them from opening up a

delicatessen or a chain of supermarkets or a chain of

wholesalers.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): A couple of

medical clinics.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I understand the medical clinics

are already in chains.

With your penchant, Mr. Minister, for invasion into the

private sector, we can assume nothing. We can only presume that

if the Premier wakes up one

[ Page 4463 ]

morning with the idea in his mind that he didn't make it as

a banana peddler and he now wants to go into the business of

supermarkets at the taxpayers' expense, he can do just that.

There is nothing to stop him under this Act.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young) yesterday, who in her speech conceded that

these powers were in the Act. Then she turned around and said

that she had no concern about the appointments to the board,

even though it isn't in the Act — that there will be consumer

representation or producer representation.

In essence, what she asked us to do is not to believe what

is in the bill. "Don't believe that we will use those powers;

believe what isn't in the bill."

The type of mentality, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say, which

is in this Act, the penchant for bureaucracy, the willingness

to escalate the cost of government without determining any

value for those costs, and the belief that political and social

philosophies of the '30s are what is needed to solve the

problems of the '70s is what is indeed unfortunate. It is

unfortunate that we have to debate this sort of '30s policy

when it is dynamic policies and new ideas that are needed at

this time in British Columbia.

I would like to suggest that British Columbians are very

much a part of and have their special responsibility to the

brotherhood of man. As Canadians and British Columbians we are

the breadbasket, to a large degree, to the rest of the world.

This is at a time when that world's pantry to a large extent is

virtually empty. Yet we are here in this House debating

policies of the '30s and economic situations of the '50s and

'60s.

We have been presented with an authoritarian bill by an

authoritarian government which likes to — and has proved that

it likes to — carry a big stick wherever it goes. We have been

presented with a bill which presumes that the chief problem of

natural food marketing is to overcome the economic problems of

surplus.

I suggest that we are fortunate indeed as Canadians and

British Columbians to have a surplus. We are fortunate to be

able to enjoy these surpluses. We would be remiss to implement

legislation which is clearly designed to curtail productivity

from the food sector of our province.

Today in Rome begins the World Food Conference, commissioned

by the United States to in their way try to get a handle on the

worldwide food crisis which is now here.

I realize, Mr. Minister, that there are many politicians in

British Columbia with high salaries and full pantries who do

indeed find it difficult to relate to the problems of thousands

of people who will die of starvation in other parts of the

world as we sit here debating tonight.

But the facts are before us. The United Nations has called

this the most pre-eminent world crisis. If we were confronted

by a natural disaster in the world, the world inventory of

basic food would be just enough for four days. Four days, Mr.

Speaker! And here we sit, debating legislation which is, in its

many consequences, in a position to curtail rather than to have

a philosophy of expanding food production.

I frankly find it a very disturbing paradox. I am sure that

many of the people here tonight and many of the people in this

room, and certainly many Columbians, do find it a paradox of

our time that while there is an abundance of food in this

province and in Canada, hunger, malnutrition and starvation are

basic facts of life for over 500 million people in the world — people with whom we share this planet, people who are part of

the brotherhood of man.

In most developing countries food production has remained

static, while populations have increased to almost astronomical

proportions. This is not a new trend. This worsening

relationship between food production and population increase

has been evolving for over a decade. Now it has reached crisis

proportions and it has been so declared by the United Nations

and by many other parts of the world.

But is it declared here in British Columbia? No way.

We have a Minister here in the province, the Minister of

Agriculture — and now a Minister of Consumer Services — in a

government that said their whole philosophy was to be concerned

about people, not here but worldwide. They gave money to the

Amchitka expeditions; they gave $25,000 to a young man to sail

a boat through the Northwest Passage.

But in this House, what does the Minister of Agriculture,

who represents that government, say when it became evident

through the CBC that producers were slaughtering calves in

protest in Quebec? It wasn't to stand up to chastise the

federal government for not listening. His position was to

defend the slaughter. He didn't stand up to say that it is a

disgrace in Canada that producers in this wealthy country have

to resort to suppressive means of production in order to try

and make a living.

He didn't say that it's a disgrace that the federal

government of this country — which has been in since 1961 or

1962 — has so turned deaf ears over the years to the

agricultural problems in Canada and to the food problems in the

world that we have made very small contributions to the

starving nations and that we have in Canada an agricultural

situation today where we see a grave full of slaughtered

cattle.

I wonder if the Minister has cattle confused with people.

There are some of us, Mr. Minister, who didn't see that grave

of slaughtered cattle so clearly. We are seeing the grave of

slaughtered people in Bangladesh, people who too have a gun to

their heads

[ Page 4464 ]

as the cattle did — the gun of starvation.

Mr. Minister, as leader of agriculture in our province, what

do you bring before us, what do you suggest?

You know, we've all just had supper not long ago and I

wonder what we had? Cottage cheese, shrimp, crabmeat, roast

beef, steak? I wonder what they had in Sweden? Swedish meat

balls, other Swedish goodies? I wonder what they had in

Bangladesh? Water, and for many maybe, if they were lucky,

grass.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest national problems

we have in Canada is overweight — high cholesterol counts

leading to heart conditions. Some of us have to go on diets and

it is very painful to us.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What does that have to do with this bill?

Mrs. Jordan: Well, your comment, Mr. Minister of

Mines, as to what that has to do with the bill indicates the

complete lack of sensitivity and, I would say, morality in your

government. If you don't know that, you can sit here chubby as

a chicken in a debate on the question of food production, and

people are dying of starvation, and all you have to say is:

what's that got to do with us? That is the problem. It is the

problem of food production, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, when we go on a diet we suffer pangs of hunger,

we fuss and we fume and we complain. But those people are on a

perpetual diet, and it doesn't do them any good to fuss and

fume and complain of hunger because there is no food.

You know this clap trapping of the legal minds and the

elitists over there in the Liberal Party really upsets me,

because I don't know about you, Mr. Member, but there are times

when I go at night and tuck our children in, certainly the

youngest one, I look at him and he's healthy and he's well fed.

But I've been to other parts of the world, not extensively, but

I've nursed in Mexico, and I recall those starving children

whose great companions were flies. I think again of what is

happening in other parts of the world, and I'm sure there are

many other people in British Columbia who do, and who at times

have a great deal of difficulty sleeping at nights.

I don't say this world problem is our fault. I don't suggest that in British

Columbia we can solely solve that problem. But what I do suggest, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, is that we deserve in British Columbia, we are capable

in British Columbia, of more than this antiquated type of legislation. I think,

Mr. Minister, that you are in a position to make an example, to have British

Columbia lead in an example to draw the attention of the federal government

to the fact that our policies should be changed and we should be going from

maximum production and utilizing our surplus to help those people who are starving.

I get so frustrated and furious. You read the history of

food distribution and it's just like everything else in life — it's bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy. I say to hell

with the bureaucracy. Let's, Mr. Minister, feed the people. And

British Columbia could have started.

To my understanding, Mr. Minister, you mentioned 9 million

eggs, and then you said: "What are 9 million eggs?" You break

that down into dozens, and I believe you said that came to

750,000 dozen, except that you were out a little bit. I believe

it comes to 800,000-odd dozen of eggs. But why get bogged down

in the semantics?

The point is that if all those 28 million eggs which were

destroyed at various phases had been taken and dehydrated and

made into powdered eggs, we could have made just a small

scratch, just a small scratch on the world food situation. As I

understand it, it takes approximately 7.5 dozen eggs, fresh, to

make one pound of powdered eggs. Out of 28 million eggs that

were destroyed, this comes to approximately 2.3 million dozen

eggs, and this could have been rendered into approximately

30,000 pounds of powdered milk.

I think that out of the agricultural disaster fund, I think

out of the money that this government is throwing around like

chicken feed, the money we are spending on the gold filigree in

these buildings, the money that we are spending on $35,000

cabinet desks, a little bit, just a little bit of that money

could have been taken. The Premier, recognizing he can't solve

the world problems, when he went to Ottawa, instead of going

and creating a fiasco in arguing with the federal Members of

parliament to gain attention, why didn't he take one of his

government jets, land it in Ottawa with a cheque to pay the

difference between the cost of production level, which is 65

cents a dozen, to the market price; pay the difference in the

price of having these eggs rendered into powdered eggs, and if

he wanted to, take the government jet and fly it off to

Bangladesh?

That was the idea of solving the world food problem, or even

really being able to make too much of a dent, but it would have

helped save the lives of some of these children and some of

those mothers and some of those people. I predict it would have

caused every bit as much sensation and been every bit as

newsworthy and certainly a good deal more constructive than the

slaughtering of those calves. That, Mr. Minister, is the sort

of imaginative thing that we expect from you.

We do expect you to recognize the comforts that we have

here. We do expect you to not just say what is one egg, and we

should suppress the production of that egg. We expect you to

recognize our role in British Columbia in the brotherhood of

man. I think there are many British Columbians who are

ashamed

[ Page 4465 ]

today for all their concern for the producer, and all their

concern for themselves as consumers, that in fact we are in a

policy which completely ignores the starving people who are our

brothers.

I'd like, Mr. Speaker, to expand on my earlier statement and I feel this Act as been conceived in a 1930s mentality. I'd like

to recount briefly what has been the position with respect to

feeding the hungry nations of the world over the past 40 years.

I'd like to recall for your information that it was during the

'30s that it was recognized that there was a situation of world

hunger, and world hunger first entered our political arena.

At that time emphasis was placed upon orderly distribution

of food surpluses, and that was from the have nations to the

have-not nations. At that time it is certainly fair to say that

there were vast stocks of food which were being destroyed while

hunger prevailed elsewhere. Between the '30s and the '60s

agricultural subsidies were implemented by government and they

were enhanced by the evolution and the development of marketing

boards.

In all instances, Mr. Speaker, the primary objective was to

maintain the orderly distribution of surplus and to maintain

stability in the marketplace, presuming that surplus was,

indeed, a fact of life. Surplus is still a fact of life, but

the rest of the world has changed.

The shortage of food that the inhabitants of this planet

face is unprecedented in our history. Yet we sit here debating

a bill which goes no further than to continue with the same

out-of-date, outmoded social and economic philosophies to

control surpluses.

I'm certainly not speaking against marketing boards, and I'm

not speaking against the need of certain parts of this

legislation. But what I am against is legislation that will

take us backwards into the future, that ignores what our

responsibilities are, and is bound and constipated by insular

thinking.

This bill is just another sad example of what this House has

now become accustomed to: legislation which will carry us

backwards. It has been presented by a government which is

obsessed with the cult of authority and certainly which has no

concern for the spirit of humanism, which is the commitment of

our party. It is obsessed with legislation for legislation's

sake, without the benefit of ideas or consideration of what is

needed, without innovation.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Laugh if you will, because when you

laugh at that, you're laughing at everything I've said tonight,

and you're laughing, fat Minister, through you Mr. Speaker….

I withdraw. Apparently fat Minister….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: But I was looking at the Minister

sitting next to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi).

Mr. Speaker: I don't think it's appropriate on any

side of the House to make references to the characteristics of

some of the Members of the House, regardless of whether it's

weight or anything else.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker; I think you

over-interpreted what I said. I wasn't referring to any

physical characteristic. What I'm referring to is the fat

posture that this cabinet is taking, not only in terms of their

own remuneration and their own comfort but in terms of their

own insular thinking as to the needs of the people in this

province and, in this instance, the needs of starving people in

this world.

While we're speaking, Mr. Speaker, 500 people will die in my

allotted 40 minutes — 500 people! And all the cabinet does is

sit there and laugh.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that we do have a bill which is

going to create a new and massive and expensive bureaucracy.

It's guaranteed in itself and in its structure to increase the

cost of production, and this is something that everyone will

feel in the marketplace. It does nothing to seek the opinions

of consumers and, most of all, it certainly makes no effort to

maintain a stable marketplace while recognizing our special

responsibilities as British Columbians to our brothers and to

the brotherhood of man. As I mentioned before, it's provincial

in the most extreme sense, and I don't think it bears any

relationship to what is really needed in this province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do agree that there is a need for

legislation. But, as I say, this bill in total is not the

answer. We need study and we need hard work. We need answers,

but we don't need this bill as it's drafted. We need new

approaches and imaginative approaches. Frankly, unfortunately,

as I look at the Members across the aisle and listen to their

giggles, I know that the chances of stopping this bill are

slim.

If it becomes law, then I must ask what it is going to cost.

This is one of our concerns when we set aside the world food

situation. What is it going to cost the consumer and producer

here? Will there be value for the money that we're going to

spend in administering this programme? Will it serve the

consumer? Will it serve the producer? Or will it just be

another superboard adding flab to a government and adding costs

that the consumer will pick up in the end? Will it serve the

producer, or will he have to pick up the cost of flabby

government and further narrow his profit margin?

It's an important question, I think, that must be raised

about every piece of legislation that this Barrett government

brings before this House. Will this superboard pay for itself

in services to people? Services to people, Minister of Consumer

Affairs

[ Page 4466 ]

(Hon. Ms. Young). Or will it be a post entry in the NDP

overrun sweepstakes? This bill will permit the appointment of

10 board members, and there's certainly ample room in it for

the appointment of other members. It's another $0.5 million

tacked on to the cost of government in this province by

appointment, and who will they be?

I'd just like to parallel for you, Mr. Speaker, in case

anyone suggests that this isn't based on precedent, this

concern for the rising and unprecedented cost. ICBC in July had

1,350 employees. To house them ICBC budgeted $40 million for

capital expenditure that year in that government department.

Now I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the figures will reveal that

the capital cost per employee on the basis of those figures was

in excess of $29,000 per employee.

Will this new superboard be 20 per cent, 30 per cent of that

cost? Let's just take 10 per cent and give the government the

benefit of the doubt. If it's 10 per cent of the size of ICBC,

it will be empowered to hire anyone it needs; and this 10 per

cent, Mr. Speaker, amounts to a big bill. Based on ICBC that

could mean a capital cost of $4,205,000. Will that kind of

money, Mr. Speaker, bring the value to consumers and will it

bring the value to producers that they want with this bill?

Then there's the power to advertise, tremendous powers in

here. What will the friends of the government in Gastown make

on these contracts? The Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is looking doubtful and

thinking I'm smearing his party. Let me quote for you out of

today's Sun from the B.C. Federation of Labour convention, when

they say, "Cabinet Ministers have obviously lost public

confidence." This is the B.C. Federation of Labour speaking

about this NDP government that's got all powers in this bill.

"Thousands of dollars have been wasted on hit-and-miss

advertising campaigns." Hit-and-miss advertising campaigns.

Maybe the bill won't be missed. Maybe the bill will be more

than $4 million-odd. Who's going to pay for this? How much is

the producer going to have to cough up and how much is the

consumer, who is the taxpayer, going to have to pay? And how

much are all those friends going to make?

I'm certainly in favour of exploring the concept of orderly

food marketing at its fullest extent, Mr. Speaker, but, as I

have stated, this bill gives no regard for the important

position that British Columbia plays in the global world

economy and in accepting its responsibilities within the

brotherhood of man.

I have stated that it is conceptually derived from political, social and economic

points of view which are now history rather than contemporary. I have stated

that we have absolutely no assurance within this bill that the cost of its administration

will be value for the producer and the consumer. We have no example of the

action of this government to assure us or to give us confidence that the people

of British Columbia will get value.

There has been no statement from the Minister, from the

government or in this bill that we are going anywhere but

suppressively in marketing and production of food and that this

government has suppressed all thought of its responsibilities

and our responsibilities in British Columbia to this terrible,

terrible situation in the rest of the world. Five hundred

people.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it was impressive yesterday when the

Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young), as I mentioned,

said: "Don't trust what's in the bill; trust what's not in the

bill. Trust us." I would suggest that it's no wonder that that

backbencher, that backbencher and that backbencher and

backbencher after backbencher….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Member, you say it's the prototype

of our bill. Our bill was so outdated we never used it. And

this is what we're complaining about. I'm saying to you that

there is indeed a need for certain portions of this

legislation, but I'm saying to you the whole philosophy behind

it is regressive. If you came out of your ivory tower, you'd

know what I was talking about.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Oh, fluff and fuddle! The problem with

the federal Liberal government and the problem with a lot of

boards and commissions is that they're all flooded up with

lawyers. We need more producers and more consumers and more

just ordinary people around. And we sure need a good support of

ordinary people in this Legislature — ordinary people like those

backbenchers who came in here eager and willing and idealistic,

with strong philosophies, whether they agree with each other or

agree with them, dedicated to work; and all they're asked to do

is "keep quiet and trust us."

That's why backbencher after backbencher after backbencher

is critical of their own government, as the producers are

critical, as other people are critical, in relation to this

bill, for not being kept informed.

Mr. Speaker, on the rental fiasco that Member for Richmond

(Mr. Steves), that fine upstanding Member states — and I'd like

to quote him from The Vancouver Sun of November 5.

He said with all his fire and fury: "MLAs are often left out

in the cold." He said further on: "I've asked the

Attorney-General to be sure that we have a very thorough

discussion before any legislation is brought in." And he goes

on to say — this is the NDP MLA for

[ Page 4467 ]

Richmond speaking about his government: "We, the MLAs, have

received no word one way or another as to what we're going to

have…."

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Member has a little

over two minutes left.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm sure they're applauding because

their consciences must be bothering them no end. That

chicken-producer who complains about his losses here….

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: "I feel," he says, "that we've

been left out in the cold." I'm sure a lot of other MLAs feel

the same way.

Yesterday we got another answer from the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) when her own constituency

partner…. There is another bill like many others which

designs….

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I hope you're going to give

me more than two minutes. Other people are taking up all my

speaking time — mostly the members of the cabinet — and I have

not too much more that I'm going to say here.

This is another bill that like so many of the others was

designed in its obscurity and brought to this House in haste as

witness the statements of their own Members. Even the second

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) got to his

feet and voted with the responsible position of the opposition.

The bill was faulty, he said. It provided no specifies on

consumer representation.

Did he get a chance to say that in caucus? No way. Did he

ever see the bill before it was introduced to this House? No

way.

The Minister of Consumer Services said: "The Minister wants

consumers on the board and I believe him." That's what she said

about the Minister of Agriculture. Obviously, the other Member

for Little Mountain does not believe the Minister or he would

not have voted as he did.

Mr. Speaker, are we to trust the judgment of the first

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young) or that

of the second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings)? How can we trust anyone over there in view of the

statement of the Member for Richmond — "The MLAs are left out

in the cold." No discussion on rents, no discussion yet on

another superboard…. The track record of this government on

superboards is frightening.

I'm just finishing, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Civil Liberties

Association puts it very well. They are "concerned about this

establishment of courts beyond the courts." And we are asked to

trust yet another board. The second Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain doesn't trust this legislation; neither does the

Minister and neither, Mr. Speaker, can this side of the

House.

As we see it, it's consumer be damned….

Mr. Speaker rises.

Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

Mr. H. Steves (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to come in from the cold. In deference to the previous speaker,

actually I think it's warm enough in here tonight.

I'd like to say that on this particular bill we've had a

very thorough discussion of this in our caucus. We've discussed

the principle of this legislation for the past year from time

to time.

Mr. Chabot: What about the Landlord and Tenant

Act?

Mr. Steves: We're not discussing the Landlord and

Tenant Act at the present time.

Interjections.

Mr. Steves: We've discussed it very thoroughly and I

support the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the

noisy people down here from the opposition.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): Tell us about the land

freeze in Richmond.

Mr. Steves: I should think they're warming up in

Richmond pretty good, too.

Some Members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, have talked

about market freedom — I believe one of the Hon. Members of the

Liberal Party. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

yesterday talked about marketing boards discouraging increases

in production and was very critical of marketing boards and the

agricultural industry — the way it has been run. They were very

much concerned that this board that we're setting up would make

it worse.

Well, I would like to refer the Legislature and Members to

the comments made by the Hon. Minister yesterday when he was

talking about the beef marketing back east, across Canada and

here in B.C. This is an example of an agricultural commodity

where they don't have a marketing board. This is the kind of

free marketing that the opposition Members have been talking

about, Mr. Speaker. This is the kind

[ Page 4468 ]

of marketing that they are suggesting we should

encourage.

Well, I'm much concerned about what is happening in the beef

industry. The Minister mentioned yesterday about the

slaughtering of calves in Quebec; I'd like to make a comment

that's a little closer to home here in British Columbia.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I was a bit late coming over to the Legislature yesterday

because I was helping to deliver a beef calf. While this was

happening yesterday morning I was very much concerned of what

was going to become of this young calf — a day-old calf at the

present time.

The lack of profitability in the agricultural industry is

such that that calf normally would have been worth around $80,

$90 or $100. Yesterday when it was born, instead of being worth

that much, it was worth around $10. If I raised that animal to

maturity I could stand to lose anywhere from $50 to $100 just

in the feed costs alone.

About three weeks ago, I shipped six steers to the auction.

We calculated our loss on it. On the steers we paid around 70

cents for them as calves — we sold for between 25 and 30 cents

a pound as fully-mature steers. The cost for feed is around $2

a bale for hay and $6 to $8 a hundredweight for grain. Our

total loss on six steers was $500.

An Hon. Member: Do you want a subsidized market?

Mr. Steves: Now, this is the kind of thing that is

happening to farmers throughout Canada. It's happening to

beef-raisers everywhere. This is the kind of thing that the

Hon. Member is talking about — subsidies. This is the kind of

thing he's talking about when he talks about a free-market

economy, when he talks about the marketing board discouraging

increased production.

What happened here was that the beef-raisers increased their

production and we have a surplus of beef. We found last year

there was a shortage, the prices went up to the consumers and

people began to pay atrocious prices for the steaks and stuff

they bought. Beef production was high and beef-growers were

encouraged to raise more beef. We did that. We raised more beef

and now we find there's too much beef.

The prices have not gone down on the market — the

supermarkets are still charging the same prices to the

consumers and yet the farmers are getting a pittance. Now this

is the kind of free-market economy these people over here are

talking about.

An. Hon. Member: Tell the whole story.

Interjections.

Mr. Steves: I'm telling you why.

Interjections.

Mr. Steves: If you'll just listen, I'll tell you the

whole story.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Phillips: Eat chicken!

Mr. Steves: Mr. Speaker, the free-market economists

are talking about the law of supply and demand. It's basically

what they're talking about. If the supply increases, the prices

to the consumer will go down. Well, in this case, if they'd

just go and check at the neighbourhood Super-Valu or their

Safeway stores, they'll find that the prices haven't gone down — not to the consumer.

This bill will help solve that problem by including

consumers on the marketing board. It's the first time the

consumers have been represented on marketing boards and these

people are opposing it. The first time.

Mr. Bennett: Where? Where? Where?

Mr. Steves: It's in the bill. Read the bill.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steves: Now, Mr. Speaker, marketing boards have

been designed in the past in commodities where marketing boards

exist to provide an even supply of that commodity from year to

year so we don't have the law of supply and demand fluctuating

back and forth where farmers are destroyed time and time

again.

Marketing boards have been designed to even-out the law of

supply and demand and to be sure that there is a standard

amount of the commodity available and that the farmers do have

a chance to get a fair return on an even basis. One year they

might get a fantastic increase in the price — last year, as I

said, we got 70 cents a pound for the beef we marketed. This

year we're taking a beating.

This is what happens because we don't have a marketing board

and we don't have that kind of stable marketing in the beef

industry.

Some marketing boards, Mr. Speaker, have worked out very

well and others have not worked out too well in the interests

of the farmers as the Hon. Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has

suggested. I would agree with the comments that he has

made.

But I'd like to comment on this particular bill as I see it

and how it will help the farmers. In the first

[ Page 4469 ]

place, I see the board representing all farmers on a

province-wide basis. Now this has not happened in a lot of our

marketing boards in the past. They have not represented the

farmers on a province-wide basis but have represented farmers

in certain regions above farmers in other regions. This bill

will help to solve that particular problem and I think that's a

very good aspect of it.

I think also that the marketing boards could make a

distinction — and I'd like to make a distinction here — that

while regions have been misrepresented, some regions like the

Fraser Valley have had better representation on some of the

marketing boards. Some of the small farmers haven't had very

good representation on any of the marketing boards no matter

what region they were in and some of the small farmers in egg

marketing in my area have been left out in the cold just like

the farmers raising eggs in the interior have been left out in

the cold. I'd just like to make that comment in passing.

It's largely been the big producers like the Redicopp's and

so on, who have been benefiting by egg-marketing legislation

which gives percentage increases rather than across-the-board

increases in the amount of quotas.

The second thing that this legislation will do is to be sure

that all farmers, not just one commodity group, are

represented. This is something that is new and different in the

realm of marketing boards. At the present time, with our

numerous boards, one marketing board can be helping farmers

that produce one thing but perhaps to the detriment of farmers

that produce another commodity.

To use beef as an example, and here again I say, okay, we

don't have a marketing board, but one of the reasons that the

beef prices are down is because farmers raising grain-feeds are

getting higher prices and therefore the cost of feed for the

cattle has gone up, and we're having difficulty finishing the

animals for a reasonable price.

Through a proper combined type of marketing system, then,

with formal representation of all the various commodity groups

being represented in that superboard, as you're calling it,

then there's a possibility of the farmers getting together and

not cutting each other's throats as they've been doing in the

past. There's a chance for the farmers that raise one commodity

of listening to farmers that are represented in the board, in

that group, who raise another commodity to be sure that they

don't cut into the activities of each other and thereby destroy

each other in the process.

The third thing the board will do, and I mentioned it

already, is to bring consumers into the picture for the first

time and allow consumers and producers to have a dialogue

together so that they are not at odds.

Mr. Fraser: Give us the

section that says that.

Mr. Steves: It's in there; you read it. The fourth

thing it does, of course, is also to set up an appeal

procedure, which we have not had in the past.

Mr. Gardom: It's pretty weak.

Mr. Steves: You may consider it weak, but it's better

than what we've ever had from that bunch.

Finally, I'm amazed at the opposition to this bill, Mr.

Speaker. The bill hasn't really hit out at big business like I

think it should have done. The bill hasn't hit out at the

middlemen — the Safeway's and the Super-Valus and the IGA — that handle 60 per cent of the food sales in B.C., a $1.5

billion amount of food sales. If I have any criticism of the

bill it would be that, that it should actually do something to

control the middlemen as well. I think the bill is a good one.

My only criticism is that it doesn't go quite far enough.

I'd like to comment on what one farmer told me the other day

about local production. Basically we don't produce enough food

here in B.C. California, it's suggested by I think 1980, will

not be producing enough for its own consumption. We don't have

stable markets here; we don't have stable marketing. We aren't

producing enough; we aren't self-sufficient. In lettuce

production apparently, since the crops were harvested and sold

here in B.C., the price for lettuce has gone up three times in

the last couple of months, because we don't produce enough. Now

stable marketing in lettuce production and market gardening

production would help to ensure that the prices don't go up. It

can help the consumers quite a bit if we are assured of stable

markets in the agricultural industry. The aim of the board, Mr.

Speaker, must be to aim for self-sufficiency of production here

in B.C.

I think the board could do well to establish controls over

imports and exports of B.C. production of food, with the

eventual aim of self-sufficiency. Secondly, I would hope that

the board would be able to stabilize the prices to consumers — not by subsidy, because subsidies are unnecessary if consumers

and producers are able to sit down together and to work out

reasonable prices. This can be done with the board that we're

suggesting in this legislation. It's open-ended. It provides

for this type of dialogue between the producers and the

consumers so that they can sit down and come up with a

reasonable type of revenue to the farmers that are producing

the commodities.

Thirdly, I think that the board has to look to establishing

firm prices and markets for B.C. produce and eliminate a lot of

the chaos that's existing at the present time in our food

marketing — and, of course, eliminating a lot of the chaos that

we get from the food chains and retail outlets here in the

province at the present time who are taking produce from

across

[ Page 4470 ]

the border in preference to locally grown produce, who are

contracting out farmland, such as Nalleys does for cucumber

production. If you don't contract out with that firm, then you

don't grow cucumbers for pickling. Things like that can be

handled by the board if it goes into this area, and I suggest

that it should.

Finally, I would hope that the board will work towards the

eliminating of the chaos and the profits caused by these

particular companies in the retail food system. They are really

the ones that are bleeding the consumers in this province.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is good legislation. It

doesn't go as far as I'm suggesting, but I think it's a first

step towards orderly marketing here in the province that will

help all farmers, no matter what commodities they're producing,

and will help the producer and consumer as well.

Mr. D.T. Kelly (Omineca): I would like to just spend

only a few moments giving my impression of this bill that has

been introduced. I stand here this evening supporting this bill

because of the awareness that is necessary and that I think

should be shown by every Member of this House of what is

happening in the agricultural industry today. For that reason I

stand here tonight and suggest that these Members that are

making such a hullabaloo about the bill and trying to belittle

it should really try and understand what has been happening

over the last few years. Awareness.

Twenty years ago I lived in the Okanagan — or a little more

than that. And 20 years ago I was quite familiar with the fruit

industry. I certainly knew a lot about B.C. Tree Fruits and the

fruit board of British Columbia. In fact, I was antagonistic

and a real opponent of that organization. I used to be a free

enterpriser and private entrepreneur, and I was in the business

of buying and selling fruit.

You know, I used to buy it for 50 cents and 70 cents and 90

cents a box, and I could bring it all the way to Vancouver and

I could sell it for 5 or 10 times that sum in many cases. In

fact, my customers were the wholesalers in Vancouver. You know,

the people that I bought from and paid cash to for those apples

indeed thought I was a real boon to them particularly. Of

course, at that time there was very little cash around.

But as the years went by the industry never did improve

really. There was actual chaos in the whole industry, and for

many years I considered that the farmers, especially the fruit

farmers in the Okanagan, did suffer from a poor marketplace and

poor conditions generally. Even though they were governed by a

fruit board, I would have to admit now that the board did keep

them from actually going out of business, because at least it

did exercise a certain amount of control over the overall

industry.

So as time went on, I understood that it certainly did serve

its purposes. For those who did try to make a living on the

side, as you would want to call it, really they were breaking

the backbone of a very important way of marketing a

product.

Now being a Member from a north-central riding of this

province, and coming from where the standard of living, I don't

think, is as good as many of the other parts of the province

because of low wages and high costs, I am truly aware of what

it costs to live in the interior today.

For example, I live in a town of 1,200 or 1,300 people, and

the two main industries in that town are shut down right today.

One is on strike, about 400 men, and they have no income hardly

whatsoever. That's Endako Mines. The sawmill closed down on the

very same day that the mine shut down. So we have about 1,000

people living on a fairly restricted income. We know that food,

which is probably the most important thing in their lives at

this present time, is an extremely high-cost product.

Well, these people haven't had a chance to participate and

buy fruit at prices that are consistent to those on the coast

or in the large centres. For example, this early summer

cherries started in the local supermarket at 99 cents a pound,

and the cheapest they went to this year in that supermarket was

69 cents a pound. Comparing that to the coast prices, that was

at least 20 to 25 per cent higher than at the coast. In fact,

in some instances, it was much higher than that.

I would have liked to have seen Mr. Ouellette, the Minister

from Ottawa, come to the north to try and compare prices rather

than…. It was an excellent thing that he had seen the

prices in Vancouver, but if he could have come to my town and

seen what the prices are, then indeed he would have understood

what it is to have extremely high costs.

I am anxious because of these high costs to consumer and

with the apparent low return the producer. This is where my

concern is. I know — that the beef industry is in chaos. These

very same miners are going out and buying live cattle today — the union is — to supply meat to these miners. They're actually

buying these animals for 20 cents per pound on the hoof right

today. Now those are disaster prices.

You know, I think that the beef industry, many years ago,

should have organized and formed themselves into a beef

marketing board and there would have been none of this going on

today, not at least at those prices. The prices have been a

good price, but I am sure that the farmers in my area would at

least have been able to make a living. As it is, many of them

are practically in the bankruptcy stage and I don't know what

is going to happen by next year. There is no sign of this

industry coming back to its own for a year at least. I'm

afraid

[ Page 4471 ]

that what is going to happen is that many of these farmers

are going to sell their animals off, more than they should

sell, and what will happen is we will run into a shortage

within one or two years' time.

Also, you know, for a fair distribution of our resources — and salmon is one of our resources — I'm sure not enough people

are privileged to participate in and enjoy eating good salmon

that doesn't cost $2 or $3 a pound. If you go to the coast:

"Here's a salmon, take it home." But when you live in the

central part of British Columbia or in the north, try and get a

salmon up there that doesn't cost you $2 or $3 a pound. I think

that for the people in the industry there should be a salmon

board to help all people get a fair share of this resource at a

fair price.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Homer Stevens.

Mr. Kelly: I've lived in the north for nine years

now, and you just can't believe how the population is

expanding. Members from the north, of course, they understand

this, but when I speak to the Members from the south that there

really is a population explosion, even in that area…. One

thing I am concerned about is that the Egg Marketing Board

hasn't allowed the expansion of egg production in the north. I

am concerned about that because the fact is that I think there

is too much power within that Egg Board and they are not

allowing the area to grow in relation to its population size

and that, indeed, we should be allowed to increase our egg

production. I would urge this board, the new provincial board,

to see that, in fact, this is what does happen, because it is

one of the things that is going to happen in that part of the

country.

Last year, a plebiscite was taken in the Okanagan to see who

wanted to remain within the B.C. Tree Fruits industry. This

plebiscite was taken and it was 62 per cent for, and 38 per

cent against. Once again, I say that the disparity there is not

so great and that, this 62 per cent have a complete control

over the other 38 per cent, and I think that isn't quite fair.

It is because of that close vote that this provincial board,

once again, could have exercised control and overruled this

particular vote. I would hope that in trying to manage anything

the Fruit Board might do that might be awkward, that if it had

to, by its own judgment, it would see fit to do away with a

plebiscite of that sort and rule against it, because in this

particular instance it had only to do with: "Do you want to

remain with or outside of the Fruit Board?"

But there are other instances where that may not be quite the same reason for

a plebiscite, and I think that the provincial board would have at least jurisdiction

over a matter such as this, a situation such as this. I think that the boards

could be formed, that there should be more marketing boards in these instances,

because there are other commodities that should be, I think….

An Hon. Member: The carrot board, the turnip board….

Mr. Kelly: No, there are coast vegetable marketing

boards and interior marketing boards for vegetables, but there

are other commodities, I'm sure, that could have a lot more

protection from a provincial board, a board that would oversee

the politics of that one particular board.

Interjection.

Mr. Kelly: Well, in travelling with the agricultural

committee last year, we saw considerable dissatisfaction with

certain boards. I think that in each particular case, because

of the politics of that particular board, they were unable to

settle their problems, but had there been a board over the

whole works, that managed all these boards, then indeed they

could have solved those particular problems.

Mr. Gardom: They've got one in Russia.

Mr. Kelly: I think, Mr. Speaker, that many of the

Members of this Legislature who were on that agricultural

committee could agree with a situation such as that, that

indeed they…. You don't have to have it so bureaucratic that

it can't have complete management within a short term of time.

You don't have to carry on like the courts of the land where

you have to wait for two or three months, or a half a year, to

get into court. I'm suggesting something that could be

practically on-the-spot administration of a decision.

Interjection.

Mr. Kelly: Well, I'll tell you. I think if you look

at the beef industry today that you can see the reason why

there should be some control in that industry.

Mr. Gibson: Why don't they want it?

Mr. Kelly: Well, I think, Mr. Member, you will see,

within a short time, that very same beef industry look for some

help from the Department of Agriculture, or from the government

generally, in managing their affairs.

Now getting back to the egg business. Everybody thinks that

because there has been a lot of publicity about the Egg Board — and egg prices are fairly high — that it is really out of

reason. But, you know, not long ago…. Here was an

article

put out by Mr. Grenby on November 2, and he has a bit of a

graph here, and he shows you that in 1949, to buy one

[ Page 4472 ]

dozen eggs it cost you 17.5 minutes of your time in labour.

In 1959, it was 16.7 minutes; and in 1969, 11.8 minutes; and

this year, for that very same dozen eggs, it would cost you

11.1 minutes of your time. So the actual cost to the individual

has gone down considerably and yet, at the same time, the

actual cost of construction of a house has gone from three

years to this year it would cost you 7.7 years of your complete

wages, for the average working man.

So really there has been a lot of good done by the present

boards, and it is only when these disputes come into effect

that I think the boards would then have to exercise their

jurisdiction over them.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your

attention.

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise in

my place in this debate to say that this bill will not meet the

needs of British Columbia, and it is unfortunate that we should

be talking tonight about this particular bill at a time when

the conference in Rome is meeting, the World Food Conference is

meeting at the request of the United Nations. Mr. Kissinger

today has been talking about the world needs for food, and here

we are talking about a superboard which will do nothing for the

people in the Province of British Columbia, and even less for

the people in the world.

The American Secretary of State told that body today that

his country, in spite of economic problems that they have,

which are considerably greater than the economic problems that

we have, but he said that his country would do everything that

they could to increase the world supply of food and that they

would contribute as much as they could to the world supply. And

here we are trying to control it with a larger superboard.

I think that the interests of this bill are very, very small

in considering only our own area. The world today is staggering

on the edge of a serious economic problem, and we're debating

ancient history. We are debating limit and control.

Interjection.

Mr. Morrison: Well, it's still ancient history.

The Canadian delegation today, incidentally, led by Mr.

Whelan who expected to speak but wasn't able to because of Mr.

Kissinger's long speech, was asked if Canada….

Interjection.

Mr. Morrison: Your turn will come.

He was asked if Canada intended to do as much as they could, and if Canada's

position was in any way different to Mr. Kissinger's position. His answer was

a flat "no". He said that Canada as a country would do everything it could do.

And here we are in the Province of British Columbia on an absolutely reverse

track. Canada will propose the establishment of food inventories, but here we

are talking about controlling them, shortening them, reducing production.

The world situation is serious. We must use economic and

social policy to try to improve the world situation, not just

our own.

This bill does not have any specific policy for increasing

food supply. It does not have any specific policies for

consumers for increasing competition. It doesn't have any

specific policies for preventing waste, such as the

slaughtering of calves and the dumping of eggs. It doesn't have

any specific policies to counter severe damage to the crops and

to the herds by weather and disease. It doesn't have any

specific policies to protect the interest of British Columbians

from the citizens of this province, and also from the dictates

of Ottawa and the federal government.

Common sense suggests that our approach should be to

increase our food supply. Adding to the bureaucratic jungle in

this province isn't going to help it unless, of course, the

goal of this bill is to do that exactly — and that is, take

over control of all production. If the goal of this bill is to

do that, if the goal of this bill is to do those things which

are spelled out very plainly in the Waffle Manifesto, then we

are on another subject altogether. If the goal of this bill is

that, then none of us in this House should support it. The goal

of the people of the province today should be to try and feed

the world, to try and increase production, to try and see that

the needy are looked after.

As you know, tonight in Africa starving millions are

receiving less than three ounces of food when it's necessary

for at least nine.

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair.]

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I do believe

that this bill in no way can be supported by us.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: I just get up slowly. I'm in no hurry

to go anywhere. I don't know where you're going. Are you going

to China? Yes, you are, aren't you? Has the Premier gone

without you? You had better check.

I must thank the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke) for his

gracious acceptance of me as the next speaker in the House. I

hope you do have a nice trip in China, because we'll still be

here when you're gone.

I'd like to speak for a few minutes about this bill, the

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act. As I said

before, and at the risk of a little bit of

[ Page 4473 ]

repetition, I want to say that the problem with the bill is

that the consumer won't save any money; the producer won't make

any more money; there's no benefit to our families; there's no

benefit to our farmers. So obviously there can't be very much

that's good about the bill, except, perhaps, that it might be

good for the friends of the party — the New Democratic Party — who are going to get to wallow a little bit more in the

patronage trough.

It's probably pretty good for a socialist government which

believes in the concept of total control, total centralization

and total takeover. The bill certainly isn't very much good for

the concept of orderly marketing of agricultural products of

the Province of British Columbia.

Maybe it might be good for the Consumer Services Minister

(Hon. Ms. Young) who, if I read her correctly, wishes to see

marketing boards destroyed because of some misguided or

misdirected enthusiasm that she happens to have.

Maybe it's good for the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who

just might be in a conflict of interest position in this whole

situation. He certainly has a special axe to grind, as he's

pointed out on so many other occasions in this House,

particularly with regard to the establishment of a processing

plant in his constituency which was denied so vigorously…

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): You've got 75 per cent of

the production now. Do you want it all?

Mr. McClelland: …in past debates in this House. It

could be called the Don Lewis Bill, Mr. Speaker.

It sure won't do very much for the supermarket shopper. The

Minister says he'll have consumers on the superboard. But

contrary to what the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) said,

there is nothing in the bill anywhere, nothing anywhere in that

bill, which guarantees that there will be consumers on the

superboard — nothing anywhere. I think it was pointed out

before that the only place consumers are mentioned is in a

press release from the Minister of Agriculture — the only

place.

As the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) pointed out

earlier, the Minister on the one hand has told us on other

occasions: "We've got all these powers in the bill — that's

okay — but don't believe it; we won't use them." Then, on the

other hand, he turns around and says: "We haven't put this in

the bill but we'll put them in. Trust us."

Flip-flop — the Minister of Agriculture. There is nothing in

the bill which guarantees that a consumer will be represented

on the superboard in its 8 or 10 or 9 or 3 or 11 members.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Like the rent control Act, the Member

for Richmond was out to lunch when they took that piece out of

the bill. The bill won't do much for the small grower, either,

whether he be a broiler grower or a hog farmer or a cattle

grower — as the Member for Richmond says he is — or a dairy

farmer, or anybody else, because the bill doesn't even protect

his rights; it doesn't even protect the grower's rights on the

superboard.

The federal bill, Bill 176, insists that 50 percent of the

members on their board be producers. Not this bill. It doesn't

protect the consumer; it doesn't protect the grower; it doesn't

save anybody any money; it doesn't make anybody any more money.

It's a stupid bill, and it's only another huge bureaucracy.

Nobody gets any guarantees except the government, and the

government gets the guarantee of total control.

There isn't any doubt, in my mind at least, that this new

superboard is going to be a full-time commission working every

day of the week, 365 days a year, at a very heavy cost to the

taxpayer and, ultimately, again to the consumer, You know, it's strange, Mr. Speaker, but in the little

handful of business that we've had given to us so far in this

session — four or five pieces of business — at least three of

those pieces of business have made recommendations which would

establish new commissions or boards or secretariats or whatever

it is you want. That's only in about five pieces of business

that we've had this session. My God, by the time the next year

is over and the next session is over, we're going to have

boards and commissions coming out of our ears, and we are going

to have to import NDPers, as we are doing now, from all over

Canada to fill the jobs.

An Hon. Member: We'll be "board" to death.

Mr. McClelland: Board to death.

So this bill doesn't give anybody any guarantees. The cost

for the full-time salaries of the 10 members: I don't know what

they are going to get, but the average cost, I think, if we go

with some of the other commissions, is $150 a day for the

members and maybe $300 a day for the commissioner. That's no

chicken feed, Mr. Speaker — 150 bucks a day for the members and

300 bucks a day or so for the commissioner — $40,000, $50,000 a

year for the commissioner. If you don't believe that that cost

is going to be reflected to the person who is checking out his

groceries at the supermarket, then you don't know what

economics is all about.

The farmer doesn't object to having consumer representation

on the marketing boards, or consumer input — not at all. In

fact, the Minister even told us

[ Page 4474 ]

the other day that the Turkey Board offered to have people

come in and sit in on their board, and nobody came. Nobody

came, because they were more interested in eggs at the

time.

The producer doesn't have any objection to having consumers

on the board, because the producer knows very well that if he

does have a consumer on the marketing board, he can convince

that consumer that the farmer isn't ripping anybody off, and if

they're looking for a rip-off, they'd better look somewhere

else than at the small producer.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, at least the Minister of

Agriculture knows this. I really feel sorry sometimes for the

Minister of Agriculture, because he has to fight off the Member

for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis); he has to fight off the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young); he has to fight off the

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) — who's

leaning over his shoulder at the present time; and he has to

fight off the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) who doesn't want marketing boards either.

The poor Minister. Yet he stands up and defends the marketing

boards in the House. I think he's got a lot of courage. He must

have a lot of courage.

Mr. Bennett: You're not going to let the Member for

Little Mountain speak.

Mr. McClelland: Do you know what the Minister said in

a recent issue of that famous newspaper called The

Democrat , May of 1974?

Mr. Smith: What's that?

Mr. McClelland: The Minister said:

"Marketing boards have given the growers the right to run

their own affairs and prosper or fail by their own decisions.

The boards are made up of producers themselves, elected by

their fellow producers, to regulate themselves in the marketing

of their crops."

What happened to the Minister of Agriculture between May of

1974 and today? Today, in bringing in this bill, Bill 165, he

obviously feels that that concept is wrong and that the

marketing boards don't have the right to regulate their own

industry or to regulate the marketing of their crops, but that

government should take a big fist and stand over top of them

and make sure that government does all the controlling and that

the effectiveness of the marketing boards is reduced to

nil.

What happened to the Minister between May of 1974, when he

was defending his department's attitude toward marketing boards

in The Democrat , and today, when he brings in this kind of a bill which

ensures total centralization and control by the provincial

government?

An Hon. Member: He was threatened by a subpoena.

Mr. McClelland: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker.

I think that the Minister and the Premier should answer the

question I asked in the other House about the subpoenas. Were

they subpoenaed to appear before the court — wherever it

happens to be — in regard to the Kovachich case? Were they

subpoenaed? They sure should have been.

I'd like the Minister to answer the question, too, about

when the Egg Marketing Board is going to be coming into the

income protection scheme. There are other people ahead of them.

I wonder if maybe some kind of a little deal has been made to

get them in early. I think that the Minister should answer

those questions.

You know, Mr. Speaker….

Mr. L.A. Williams: Surely not.

Mr. McClelland: Well, I don't believe that that could

possibly happen. I don't believe that there could be any

preferences given to anyone. I don't believe that there would

be any special consideration given, I don't believe that there

could be any threats made, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that would

never happen. But I'd just like the Minister of Agriculture to

reassure us in this House that that kind of thing would never

happen in British Columbia. I think we deserve that

reassurance.

Reading over again that comment by the Minister in The

Democrat where he says that they "have given the growers

the right to run their own affairs and prosper or fail by their

own decisions. The boards are made up of producers themselves,

elected by their fellow producers, to regulate themselves in

the marketing of their crops." It sounds a lot like what unions

are asked to do in the labour market. I don't hear anybody in

this House complaining about the unions. It's the same

thing.

The Minister says that people often say that marketing

boards have a monopoly on the market and can raise prices any

way they want.

"Not so," says the Minister. "These boards have

control only over products grown within the province. Hence

they are subject at all times to competitive forces from

outside the province." Then the Minister says:

"All in all, the record for marketing boards is a big plus.

They are not perfect and could at times be more aggressive and

imaginative in their selling methods. Their public relations

are poor and this should not be, because they have

[ Page 4475 ]

a story to tell. For the future, marketing boards are likely

to grow in number and develop new management techniques. Consumers should support

them, because consumers are better off with them than without them."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to know what changed the

Minister's mind between May of 1974 and today. Obviously, he is

bringing in a bill which will render ineffective every

marketing board in this province, and will take total control

again to the government in the establishment of a huge

bureaucracy which will establish again the new records that

this government is going to in providing patronage

positions.

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) says that farmers have

excessive powers. Well, the Minister of Agriculture disagrees

with him. On this occasion, I must find myself on the side of

the Minister of Agriculture, because I disagree with him as

well. I hope that their fight doesn't carry over too much into

reflecting bad legislation such as we've seen come in in this

Bill 165.

You know, the one thing that may have some redeeming

features in this bill, the appeal procedure, is so sloppily

draughted and such a mess that it could even result in higher

food costs to the consumer. We would assume that once an appeal

has been launched, then the order which is being appealed would

have to be set aside — or at least be put in limbo somewhere.

On many occasions, that order may have to do with lower food

prices which a producer, or someone else who feels he is either

aggrieved or dissatisfied, may appeal.

If the marketing board, in attempting to take advantage of a

fluctuating market, lowers the price — the price is appealed or

the order is appealed — then that order is left in some kind of

limbo for, certainly, seven days, and maybe up to 30 days,

because the board doesn't have to hear the appeal for 30 days.

At that time, it can even suspend the decision indefinitely. So

what happens to that kind of an order that may lower the food

prices for a particular period of time in order to take

advantage of a market? It will be put in limbo and, once again,

the consumer gets the shaft. So, despite the comments by the

Minister in the issue of The Democrat which I have

quoted, the Minister brings in a bill that takes away those

very rights that he was talking about — the rights of the

producers to run their own affairs and to regulate their own

market.

I sometimes wonder, despite the comments made by this

government on so many other occasions about wanting to help the

farmer and improve food production and make living better for

the farmer, I really wonder if this government is really

concerned about improving farming in British Columbia. I rather

doubt it. We sure won't do it by crushing the farmer under the

heavy hand of bureaucracy.

You know, it might come as a great shock to some of the fat

cats in the Point Grey area, but farmers have a right to make a

living the same as everybody else — the same as lawyers…

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Hit him, Garde.

Mr. McClelland: …the same as brain researchers,

the same as radio announcers, the same as politicians. They

have a right to make a living.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, to the Highways Minister (Hon. Mr.

Lea) for that reference to radio announcers.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, the small

businessman-farmer — and that's what he is — has to turn a

legitimate profit or he can't continue to produce; it's as

simple as that. We don't expect the guy who's selling clothes

on the main street in any town in British Columbia to operate

without a profit. We don't expect the supermarkets to operate

without a profit. We don't expect the lawyers to operate

without a big profit. Yet we stand here and expect the farmer

to subsidize the consumer in this province by low food

prices.

It's bad enough to be a small farmer in British Columbia

today without government activity making it about impossible.

Young people today are not entering into farming activities.

The farm labour force is declining rapidly and alarmingly.

Mr. Lewis: That's because quotas cost too much.

Interjections.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, a dairy farmer a month

is packing it up in the Fraser Valley. That's an alarming

statistic, a dairy farmer every month packing it up and getting

out of farming. A farmer a day in Canada is packing it up. A

farmer every day on the national average. I think it's time

that somebody talked a little bit about the small farmer,

because we've been laying too much flak on him in my opinion.

The farmer who hopes, if he's lucky to get two or three per

cent on his investment, often doesn't even get that, let alone

the $2.50 an hour minimum wage for his efforts. Instead, he

often loses money and has to go to the bank to get bailed out

so he can start all over again.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Money he has to bury, that's right. A

couple of $100,000 capital investment is very small on a farm

today. A couple of $100,000 is nothing. And all the while, Mr.

Speaker, his costs are

[ Page 4476 ]

going up and up and up and up. Every time that the consumer

hits the check-out counter in the supermarket, the farmer gets

blamed for the bill. Yet today's consumer buys everything from

panty hose to frying pans in the supermarket, then adds up the

bill and swears at the farmer. Swears at the farmer and is

amazed at the high cost of his so-called food bill.

In the U.S. last year, Mr. Speaker, new car sales set a

record. Some 60 million TV sets were sold, 250,000 pleasure

boats were manufactured. Cars cost more, boats cost more, booze

cost more. Well, of course food is going to cost more as well.

Of course it is.

I ask again, Mr. Speaker, looking at Bill 165, if this

government really wants to encourage food production in British

Columbia and I don't see very much evidence that this is the

case. In one of the most important food growing areas of the

Province of British Columbia, the Nicomekl-Serpentine area of

Cloverdale and Surrey, this government has turned its back on

the farmers. Turned its back on the farmers. The Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has

thrown a roadblock in the way of any plans for flood control in

that area because the project, in the Minister's words,

"doesn't meet the criteria of economic feasibility."

Yet that decision was based on a phony and irrelevant cost

benefit study done in conjunction with the federal and

provincial government, that didn't accept any evidence from

consumers, not a bit of evidence from consumers, no input of

potential from farmers and no input from the Department of

Agriculture.

The decision would be a difficult one to understand if the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources hadn't

telegraphed his punch a year ago or so when he hinted that it

would cost too much to provide flood control in this important

food area of British Columbia and maybe the area should be

turned over to the ducks.

Well that's exactly what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

That area will be turned over to the ducks and will be under

sea water and ruined for agriculture forever, if this

government doesn't act.

We're talking, Mr. Speaker, about an important area of food production, the

salad bowl of Canada, the only area in Western Canada that can support the kind

of agricultural production that's being enjoyed there now. Over 10,000 acres

of farmland — farmland, Mr. Speaker, that can supply all of western Canada with

fresh vegetables all through the growing season. But because this government

won't act, and is intent instead upon developing these administrative, bureaucratic,

superboards, the land is subject to severe flooding, not because of rain, but

because of the build-up in other areas around that area. This flooding comes

too often at the peak of the growing season and impairs the reputation of the

growers in that area as stable producers, because their interruptions come at

times when the supermarkets want their product more. If those people can't continue

to supply in their growing season fresh vegetables to the people of British

Columbia, once again it's going to be the consumer that feels the pinch in the

long run, because that area, during the growing season, supplies the lower mainland

of British Columbia with 90 per cent of its fresh vegetables, 90 per cent, during

its own growing season.

Mr. Speaker, the minute that that growing season is over and

the vegetables start coming in from other areas outside of

British Columbia, then the price to the consumer goes up, not a

little bit, but dramatically. Here we see again another move by

this government not only to destroy a segment of the

agricultural community, but, Mr. Speaker, also to force prices

up for agricultural products at the retail level.

Mr. Speaker, the local production of agriculture does have a

most significant impact on the retail price of food. That's

what we're talking about.

I've said that I don't believe that this government is

really serious in its comments that it does want to protect the

agricultural industry in British Columbia. I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, what might be the ultimate result of a bill such as

this one, Bill 165.

Well as sure as anything, under the provisions of this Act,

the pricing structure for all foodstuffs can be controlled by

the government. All foodstuffs! They can control foodstuffs

imported into the province. Seventy-six per cent of all

processed foods consumed in British Columbia are now

imported.

What are the producers going to think of this bill, and

those people who depend on British Columbia for a market? I

think they'll join the prospectors and the apartment builders

and the investors in wanting to head for the exits just as

quickly as they can.

You know, we see a forest policy which was calculated to

bring independent operators to their knees and ultimately into

the ownership hands of government. Here I think in this bill,

we're finding the same thing, because this bill will never

affect the large producers. It's going to hurt the small

farmer, the little independent, the guy that can't afford to be

given the kind of ultimatum that this bill allows the

government to give him. He's going to go under, Mr. Speaker,

and he's going to be taken over by the big producer. In fact,

this bill puts the government in bed with the majors.

I would suggest that maybe this bill is part of a plan by

the government to take over the food industry. Certainly

there's been much comment made about that by Members of the

caucus of the NDP government. Many of them have said