1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 4385 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Statement on BCR asked of Premier. Mr. Bennett — 4385

Report on sheriff services. Mr. Bennett — 4385

Investigation on forged letter from Premier's office.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4385

Discussions by Premier with forest industry officials.

Mr. Wallace — 4386

Sticky situation in honey industry. Mr. Phillips — 4386

Decline in mines claim-staking. Mr. Gibson — 4386

Slow payment of government accounts. Mr. Curtis — 4386

Payment of renters' grants. Mr. McClelland — 4387

Instructions to ICBC negotiators. Mr. Morrison — 4387

ICBC use of government and municipal offices. Mrs.

Jordan — 4388

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4388

Amendment to postpone second reading.

Mr. Bennett — 4393

Mr. Phillips — 4398

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4401

Mrs. Jordan — 4402

Mr. McClelland — 4406

Mr. Curtis — 4408

Mr. Smith — 4409

Mr. Schroeder — 4411

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4412

Mr. Wallace — 4413

Mr. Chabot — 4413

Mr. Gardom — 4415

Mr. Gibson — 4416

Division on the amendment — 4416

Hon. Ms. Young — 4416

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 4418

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974, No. 2 (Bill

169). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 4418

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mrs. D. Webster (Vancouver South): We have with us

today a class of 35 law students from David Thompson Senior

Secondary and three of their teachers. They are here to observe

the laws as they're actually being made in British Columbia,

and I would ask this assembly to give them a warm welcome.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, at 4 o'clock

we will be visited by 35 students from Port Coquitlam Secondary

School. I ask the House to give them a welcome. Their teacher's

name is Mr. Jim Crawford. He'll be with them today.

Oral questions.

STATEMENT ON BCR

ASKED OF PREMIER

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

wonder, Mr. Speaker, to save time for questions, if we might

have the Premier, as president of the B.C. Railway, make a

statement on the BCR.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask leave of the House?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I have no statement to make.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I see. You are making the statement

that you are not making a statement.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, in response to a question about

the situation, as I understand the Member…. Is that what the

Member is asking for, an up-to-date statement?

Mr. Bennett: Yes. There has been precedent in the

House before that statements regarding some important issues

have been made, so they didn't detract from the question

period.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but the usual way is to get leave

of the House if any statement is sought by any Member to the

assembly. In this case, if the Hon. Member does not wish to

make a statement at this time, we'll proceed to question

period.

REPORT ON SHERIFF SERVICES

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Attorney-General.

I have here a report from the office of the

Attorney-General. The public are now beginning to ask questions

with respect to the future relationships between the RCMP and

the sheriff's office. I would like to ask some questions

resulting from a document which has come into my hands.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if this document, which

anticipates some legislation, is indeed an official document.

It's entitled, "Status Report, Sheriff Services," of his

department. Well, I would like to ask the Attorney-General,

then: has the Attorney-General asked his department to draft

regulations for a bill which is yet to be drafted, as mentioned

in this document?

The Legislature can give no assurance that it will be

passed. It suggests, Mr. Speaker, in this document that at the

present time….

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Table the document.

Mr. Bennett: No, I wish to ask the question of the

Attorney-General.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Well, I'll tell you what I'll do: I'll

pass the document to the Attorney-General; and I will, if I

may, rise in my place after he's authenticated it to ask the

questions later in question period.

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

I'll be glad to receive the document and take the question as

notice, but I don't know of any legislation or regulations that

are being suggested in my department in the police area.

However, I'll look at the document.

INVESTIGATION ON FORGED

LETTER FROM PREMIER'S OFFICE

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): A question to the

Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier instituted an

investigation into the publication of a letter on the

stationery of his office over the signature of his

administrative assistant, Arnie Van Campen, which is clearly a

forgery and contains a number of libellous statements?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, that letter has been

turned over to the RCMP by my office.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, through

you to the Premier, whether there's any truth to the statement

that you have also consulted with Mr. E. Gundersen with a view

to securing his assistance in this matter, as a result of his

experience with an earlier alleged forgery issued over the

[ Page 4386 ]

signature of Premier W.A.C. Bennett in the infamous

Harry

Stonehill case?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I have not sought any advice

other than that of the RCMP. Senator Lawson, to whom that

letter is addressed, has been the victim of a similar letter

campaign. This is not new in terms of Senator Lawson's

experience, but it's certainly new in mine. We have turned the

letter over to the RCMP. I've not consulted Mr. Gundersen for

advice on his earlier experience, which is somewhat different

from this particular case.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Straight forgery, though.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, nonetheless, the forgery is

on a different matter entirely. Forgery, nonetheless, was

proven in court, and Mr. Williams, I think, at the time went to

jail for three months. It was another Williams — present

Williams exempted. The matter is clear forgery, it is libellous,

and it's been turned over to the RCMP.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Thank you.

DISCUSSIONS BY PREMIER WITH

FOREST INDUSTRY OFFICIALS

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the

Premier and Minister of Finance whether he met with officials

of the forest industry today to discuss the current slump in

the lumber market, and were any specific proposals put to the

forest industry?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Wallace: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Minister of Finance tell the House by how much

provincial revenues will fall short of the $246 million figure

which was projected in the budget for the fiscal year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice.

STICKY SITUATION

IN HONEY INDUSTRY

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I would like

to direct my question to the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation. In view of the damage being inflicted by

rampaging bears against the hives of beekeepers on Vancouver

Island and the consequences to the economy being caused by the

loss of honey in a time of rising sugar prices, has the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation any plans to rectify

this sticky situation before the beekeepers get stung in the

pocketbook?

Hon. J. Radford (Minister Of Recreation And

Conservation): Yes, Mr. Member, I met with them over a

month ago, and we are taking steps to alleviate the

situation.

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

Is the Minister instituting a fact-finding survey to find out

just how troublesome the situation is, or is the Minister

prepared to let the beekeepers shoot the bears without a

licence? First it's the wolves, and now it's the bears.

Hon. Mr. Radford: As I said, we're taking steps to

alleviate the situation. We've met with the beekeepers, and we

are looking into the problems.

Mr. Phillips: Well, a supplemental question. What

steps are you taking, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Radford: We have discussed it with the

beekeepers, and we are advising them of better husbandry

situations. We have also put predator people in the areas where

the problems are taking place.

DECLINE IN MINES CLAIM-STAKING

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

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines. Is the

Minister aware of a survey and report issued by the B.C. and

Yukon Chamber of Mines recently that showed claim-staking for

the first nine months of 1974 to be down over 70 per cent over

that of previous years?

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum

Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any report

put out by the mining association or the chamber of mines.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to send the

Minister a copy, and I would ask him if he thinks that this

decline could have anything to do with government policy.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: I can answer that now. No.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

SLOW PAYMENT OF

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS

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

Speaker, to the Minister of Finance on the subject of slow

payment of government accounts to persons and companies in

various parts of the province, which

[ Page 4387 ]

have been dealt with at length in the press: the

Minister

has been quoted as saying that the backlog would be cleared up

by the end of last week, November 1. "Almost all" perhaps was

the exact phrase. Can the Minister confirm that this job has

been essentially completed? Are most overdue payments now

wrapped up and cheques in the hands of companies?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer that

question raised, first of all, a week ago by the Member from

the Conservative Party, and now raised by this new Member.

(Laughter.) Rather than take it as notice, and find the Member

sitting in another place next week, (laughter) I would suggest

that my original statement stands and the bills will be paid.

But if people keep on changing their address as quickly as they

change their political stripes, it's difficult to find them

around the province. (Laughter.)

Mr. Curtis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Minister of Finance will have his jollies over

the next few weeks. I recognize that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You bet he will! (Laughter.)

Mr. Curtis: But this is a matter of concern to many

firms, and if it was possible to accomplish this, to clean up

the backlog in the course of a few days, why was it necessary

for it to be brought to the attention of the government by a

Member of the opposition, in response to many requests from

business firms?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I don't know why it was

necessary to be brought to the attention of the government by a

Member of the opposition. You should speak to that Member who

first brought it up, and he used to sit down there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

PAYMENT OF RENTERS' GRANTS

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Perhaps the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) would sooner answer this question, but I

wonder why renters resource grants are not being paid. I've had

numerous requests from people who have put in their applications in

June, and are still waiting for their $30 renters resource grant.

Perhaps the Minister of Housing could tell us what's happening in that

department, and whether there's a problem with finding the money to pay

these grants, or just exactly what the score is on it.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister Of Housing): Well, there

is a certain time lag in these payments. However, 99,483 have

been paid; there are 27,422 being processed, for a total of

126,905 as of about last Thursday.

Mr. McClelland: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the

Minister, then, confirm that of the some 300,000 renters in this

province, only about one-third have considered this grant

important enough to even apply for it? Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker: I think it's somewhat argumentative and

rhetorical.

INSTRUCTIONS TO ICBC NEGOTIATORS

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

question is addressed to the Minister of Transportation and

Communications, as president of ICBC. I'd like to read a

statement, if I may first, then ask the question.

The statement is a resolution that has been passed by the

insurance agents of B.C., which states:

"Whereas Autoplan agreement between members of the

insurance

agents of British Columbia and ICBC has been broken by the

corporation;

"And

whereas the board of directors of the corporation

has

refused to meet with the association to resolve outstanding

differences;

"And

whereas the association has exhausted all the

avenues

in good faith available to it to ensure continued service to

the public;

"And

whereas the proposal for the remuneration offered

the corporation for Autoplan 1975 is completely unacceptable to

the association, it is hereby resolved that unless such

outstanding differences are settled to the satisfaction of the

association by noon on Friday, November 8, 1974, the

association members will at that time withdraw all services

from related Autoplan."

Now that was passed this morning with 435 members in

attendance, and there were no dissenting votes. My question is:

what instructions have you issued to the negotiators of

ICBC?

An Hon. Member: Call John Mika out.

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

Communications): With regard to the statement — the alleged

statement, alleged resolution — I will have to wait until I get

a copy of the resolution before I can make any comment on that

particular statement.

[ Page 4388 ]

With regard to instructions issued: the general executive

were negotiating, and they know what the instructions are. They

negotiated to a point where, despite the fact — and I should

say this — that there is in existence with every agent a

signed contract by that agent agreeing to serve ICBC next year

for 7 per cent on the basic commission, and 10 per cent on

extension, we made an offer increasing that by 20 per cent. You claim

they have rejected it. I'll wait until I see that rejection in

writing before I make any further comment.

An Hon. Member: Was that before the gas subsidy?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, the agents maintain that

the contract has been broken. Therefore, my question is: what is

your contingency plan if they should carry out their agreement

to terminate services on November 8?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Before I answer that, Mr. Speaker

- and I'm glad the Member asked the question — I have in front

of me a headline which says: "Socreds Decide to Kill ICBC".

An Hon. Member: Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: If it's possible. "Socreds Decide

to Kill ICBC," if it's possible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: ICBC isn't going to be killed.

ICBC will continue to operate.

Mr. Morrison: Could I ask him if he would answer my

question?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot force anyone to answer a

question, except as he does.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

A Voice: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: Oh, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan

wishes a supplementary on the same subject. Would the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver defer?

An Hon. Member: No. (Laughter.)

ICBC USE OF GOVERNMENT

AND MUNICIPAL OFFICES

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): The Minister of

Transport and Communications and the Attorney-General, when

ICBC was first discussed in this House…

Mr. Speaker: We're not into an argument, surely. Have

you a question?

Mrs. Jordan: No, no. I have a question. …indicated

that they felt that government offices and municipal offices

could function very well as agents and salesmen in the area of

real estate, insurance, et cetera. My question to the Minister,

in light of that statement and his answers today, is: is his

contingency plan to utilize municipal offices and government

offices as agents?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I think the Member surely knows

that we have been using municipal offices and government

offices ever since the inception of ICBC.

Mrs. Jordan: Supplementary. Is it the Minister's

intention to expand this workload, and is it the Minister's

intention, if he does expand this work load…

Mr. Speaker: Order. It's highly speculative and

theoretical at this time.

Mrs. Jordan: …to evolve where these costs will be

paid?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question is very

unacceptable.

Orders of the day.

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

bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Second reading of Bill 165.

NATURAL PRODUCTS

MARKETING (BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

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

Speaker, if I could introduce this bill, or introduce second

reading of it by…. I want to be sure the Members could see me

as well as hear me discussing this important legislation.

Interjections.

[ Page 4389 ]

Hon. Mr. Stupich: If I could get back to Bill 165,

Mr. Speaker, and say briefly what the bill is all about — in

the first place it does make new references to the federal

legislation. These are necessary because of the changes in

federal legislation itself. Necessary, as a matter of fact to,

I suppose, make in order some of the agreements that we have

entered into with respect to federal legislation. It is a legal

point as to whether these are new or not, but in any case the

references are there so that it will be quite clear.

The second point to which I would like to refer is that it

does for the first time mention the possibility of establishing

marketing commissions. Some of the producers in the province — that is,

the producers of some commodities — would like to have

some organization to which they could belong and to which they

could encourage or even oblige their fellow producers of that

particular commodity to belong to, without actually

establishing or going through the formalities of having all of

the authority that is granted to them under the marketing board

schemes, to the extent that we have them already, and to the

extent that the legislation as it has existed, and as it still

does exist. The extent to which the legislation does give the

government the authority to grant quite a wide power to

marketing boards under various schemes.

Some of them want to do something under various schemes.

Some of them want to do something short of that and yet still

have a formal organization. With that in mind they have asked

for something that has been provided with the reference to

marketing commissions.

The third point to which I would like to refer — perhaps the

most important one — is the new role which is seen for the

provincial marketing board. Provision has been in the

legislation in the past for there to be a provincial board but

it's role has been almost meaningless.

Under the changes in the national products marketing Act, as

included in the bill before us now, the provincial marketing

board will have two major powers that have not previously been

in the legislation. One of them is the power to change or even

to cancel any orders, rules or regulations approved by the

individual commodity marketing boards.

The second authority the provincial marketing board will

have is the authority to hear appeals from any board orders,

rules or regulations. Previously, the only appeal to something

like that has been to the marketing board that has passed that

particular order. On occasion people have — as was pointed out

during the early days of this particular 1974 session — appealed

to the Minister of Agriculture, who technically did not have any

authority to interfere with anything the boards had done

without actually changing the schemes themselves.

So under this bill before us now, the provincial marketing

board will have the authority to hear appeals and to dispose of

them.

Having said briefly what is in the bill, I think perhaps the

proper question to ask is why are we doing this.

I'd like to reassure the Members, firstly, that in no way

does it represent any backing off on the part of this

government for the support of producer marketing boards. We

recognize how important the marketing boards are. We recognize

that in the case of each of the 10 boards that are presently

organized, they have all been motivated by a desire on the part

of producers of a particular commodity to have some sort of

bargaining power in the community as is granted to many other

groups in our community. This particular administration and

this party for many years has felt this should properly be

given to different groups in our community. There's plenty of

evidence of our party's record and of the government's record

of support for this principle.

There is even some acceptance in the community for support

of this principle, but generally it seems the community is much

more ready to support this principle if we're dealing with

groups other than the producers of food products.

I will just refer to one editorial in a newspaper that is

not given to supporting the principles that this government is

guided by; the daily newspaper in my own riding. It talks about

an entirely different subject, that of nurses, in an editorial

dated Friday, July 12 of this year, with the heading: "Nursing

Crisis Worsens. Conditions Must Improve."

In finishing the editorial the writer goes on to say:

"The crisis will worsen unless nurses are given better

pay

and working conditions, higher social and economic status,

collective bargaining and even the right to strike."

This right is often questioned in the community on the part

of many people and has been questioned in this House.

None of the producer groups represented by commodity

marketing boards have, to the best of my knowledge, ever

threatened a strike. They have argued among themselves and have

tried to stop each other from doing anything like that, but

never as a group has a marketing board passed a resolution in

favour of a strike or a withdrawal of its services or of its

products. And yet the community, generally….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, I'll come to that.

The community generally recognizes that other groups in our

society, and, in this case, even nurses, have to have the right

to withdraw their services in order to improve their conditions

so that their services will be available to the degree that

they are

[ Page 4390 ]

needed. With respect to farmers, they too must have

some

bargaining rights in our whole community. It's not just a

matter of denying them the right to bargain; it's a matter of

threatening our community with not having enough of these

particular products to consume when we want them.

One of the Members opposite mentioned them destroying their

product, and it's something that really hit the headlines. On

November 1, I took three clippings out of one daily newspaper.

All of them, it seemed, came the day after a certain programme

on CTV showing two stories: one of them showed calves being

butchered, wasted, destroyed in the Province of Quebec; another

showed people starving in Bangladesh.

CTV was flooded with phone calls about the first one. "They

should never have shown such a programme on CTV." "The farmers,

in destroying this food when there are so many people in the

world going hungry, were doing a disservice to humanity." "That

is a terrible programme to show at an hour when children were

still awake and still liable to be watching TV." Everything was

wrong about it.

But the picture of people starving in Bangladesh did not

bring forth one telephone call, not one letter by the time they

reported the story again, I think, the next evening. There

wouldn't have been much time for mail; the mail service

sometimes takes a little longer than that. But nevertheless,

they were flooded with phone calls complaining about this being

shown — not so much about it being done; mainly about it being

shown. Also the fact that the food is being wasted. Yet nothing

at all about the people that were starving.

Yet, look at the first story and read some of the facts in

it. Six hundred calves were slaughtered, and it is a terrible

situation that 600 young calves were slaughtered when we need

that kind of food in the world today. When you read a little

further you find out that it was a demonstration. They had

tried many ways before to get government attention and

recognition of their need for some support and assistance. You

find out that after some weeks of fruitless negotiations they

decided that they would have to make some dramatic

demonstration. So 1,200 farmers got together and sacrificed 600

calves.

Now, watching the programme, one would have had the

impression that farmers were destroying several calves each.

But the story tells us that they destroyed at the rate of a

half a calf per farmer. It's still a terrible thing; but

remember, they were trying to prove a point. Whether they were

able to prove it or not, we don't know.

Some of the other points when they told their side of the story.

They were offered 15 cents a pound for these animals when they said

their costs of production were 60 cents. These were young calves that

had not yet been fed to any great extent; certainly not to the point

where they should be put on the market. So they hadn't put all that

cost of raising them into the animals yet at that point.

Yet the community seemed to feel that these farmers should

be prepared to spend at least 60 cents a pound…. In B.C. we

calculate in our dairy income assurance plan that it's from 65

to 75 cents a pound. Nevertheless, when they said it was 60

cents the community seemed to think that those farmers, because

the world was short of food, should be obliged to put 60 cents

a pound into raising animals for which they are currently being

offered 15 cents a pound.

Now, that's the situation with respect to the slaughter that

the Hon. Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned at the

beginning of my speech.

Destroying beef is a crime. It is a crime when people are

hungry; it should never have been done. But, or on the other

hand, it should not be left to the farmers to see that this

sort of thing isn't being done. The rest of the community has

to be willing to do something about it.

The story about Bangladesh in the same newspaper talked

about one million people, according to conservative estimates,

who were going to starve to death within the year. Yet not one

phone call in response to this story. The lines were ringing

all the time with stories about 600 calves being

slaughtered.

What response do they get? Well, an emergency debate in the

House of Commons. That's something. A promise that something

will happen later on, that there will be an income assurance

plan of some kind offered later on. I suppose it's the same

sort of plan that I've been hearing about from the federal

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) since I first started

attending conferences of Ministers of Agriculture over two

years ago — and with nothing to show for it yet.

Perhaps now that the farmers in Quebec are taking that

action, there will be something done. But remember this: in the

story that hit the headlines — and properly it should have hit

the headlines — there was no marketing board there; nothing to

control the price of those animals. So it's certainly not the

fault of any marketing board that that kind of thing happened.

Possibly, had there been a marketing board of some kind, it

might not have happened.

There is another example of a situation that doesn't seem to

be nearly as interesting. It did make a headline, but that's

apparently the end of it. Sugar. Buyers grabbing it up.

The price of sugar went from 25 cents in January to 59 cents

today — well over double. Food, food that is very widely

used.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: You say it should be banned. It's a

very essential source of energy, and I

[ Page 4391 ]

think we all use it one way or another. Yet how

much

excitement about this? Well over double in a matter of nine

months. No marketing board.

Inquiry? There's talk about an inquiry, but what are they

going to find out? That the price of sugar went up from 25

cents to 59 cents. And then what? What are they going to do

about it?

Is anybody really excited about it? The 600 calves

slaughtered in Quebec is much more exciting than the price of

sugar going up from 25 cents to 59 cents. In both cases: no

marketing board. Food is very much involved, but no marketing

board. Nobody says, "Well, maybe we should have a marketing

board for those products."

Bread: 40 cents a loaf. Remember when it used to be 10

cents, Mr. Member? You can remember when it used to be 10

cents. Anybody ever heard anything about a marketing board

controlling the price of bread?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Exactly. And the cost of production

has gone up. Yet people accept a 400 per cent increase in the

price of bread and there's no clamour for any controls, no

suggestion that any marketing board had anything to do with it.

People accept it. There's no marketing board in the middle, so

let's ignore it. There can't be anything wrong with the

marketing board; there can't be anything wrong — so let's just

let the price of bread and sugar run sky-high. As long as

there's no marketing board in the middle, it must be all

right.

What about turkey? There has been some agitation in the

community for consumer representatives on the groups that

control these marketing boards. On the Turkey Marketing Board

there should be consumer representation. They don't mention it

with turkeys; they mention it with eggs because eggs are much

more interesting these days than turkeys.

As a matter of fact, they didn't even bother to accept the

invitation of the turkey board for consumer representatives to

attend and to sit in on their meetings. An invitation was

issued, but because turkeys aren't hitting the headlines these

days, it's not really interesting enough to bother. So nobody — consumers or trade unions or the retailers or the wholesalers — want to

bother with Turkey Marketing Board. They'd all like

to get on the Egg Marketing Board because what's happening in

the egg board is much more interesting, much more newsworthy

than what is happening in the turkey board.

And what about the egg board? Of course the egg board hit

the headlines, and the Food Prices Review Board in Ottawa was

very happy it did, because at the time, when somebody found out

that there were nine million eggs being destroyed back east….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: When they first found out, there

were nine million eggs. You know, it's funny — nine million. If

you are eating eggs for breakfast, perhaps one or maybe two,

you count them that way.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): They're bad for you.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I'm not sure about that; I think

that's still to be questioned.

When you buy them in a store — does anybody go in and buy

them in a store? — does anybody go in and buy them one at a time

or two at a time, or do you buy a dozen? But, of course, if you

say a dozen, then it is only 750,000 dozen, and that's

not nearly as much.

If you are a small store, you are not dealing in dozens;

you're buying them by the box: 15 dozen in a box, 50,000 boxes.

Now even that….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: A box, okay? It's still a lot of

chickens, and it's still a lot of eggs, and it is still a

terrible thing that happened. But you count eggs by the one

when you find them to destroy them…. And when you are

fighting for survival of your own organization — and the Food

Prices Review Board was fighting at that time…. Remember,

everybody was criticizing the Food Prices Review Board at that

time for having done nothing except spend taxpayers' money

looking into a lot of things, having no power, making no

recommendations, not really achieving anything — in our

community worthwhile until suddenly they found out that nine

million — not 35,000 boxes, or 30,000 boxes, or 15,000 cases,

if you like, with 30,000 to the case….

I think I'm mixed up in my figures there somewhere, Bill; I

see you looking. I'll have to work it out again. I have to work

it out while I'm talking.

In any case, it is not the number of cases — which is the

way you count eggs normally — because it is much more

newsworthy if you refer to them as individual eggs. You

certainly don't say that this represents a half-day's

production for the whole of our country. That makes it sound

like very little.

It's a terrible thing that nine million or 24 million eggs

were destroyed. But when you recognize everything good that has

happened with respect to marketing boards, well, then, let's

look at the thing with a little bit of balance.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Yes, and there are a million people

where? It's almost….

Interjection.

[ Page 4392 ]

Hon. Mr. Stupich: And it is very important. They

should never have been destroyed. Even when they found they

were no good, I don't know why they couldn't have used them in

animal feed or recycled them. I don't know; that is something

that is not under my control. Perhaps it would have been better

had it been. I'm inclined to agree with the Member.

In any case, the egg board, even in our own province,

largely because of what has happened outside of our province,

has attracted a lot of public attention. In spite of the fact

that prices of other foods — foods over which there is no

marketing board control or representation in any way at all — have gone

up considerably — in several cases many times more

than prices for those foods that are controlled by marketing

boards and for which the prices are at least to some extent

controlled by marketing boards — we find that people are

interested….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I've given you some of the figures.

I've shown you that sugar, for example, has gone up 220 per

cent in something like seven months; I've told you that bread

has gone up 400 per cent. I could tell you that eggs 22 years

ago, when I was producing them, were selling at 83 cents a dozen

and today 90 cents. I can give you examples if you like. I'm

not going to do your research so that you can do a survey and

dump it on me here.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I'm satisfied with my bill, and I'm

satisfied with the arguments I'm raising in favour of the bill.

If you want to oppose the bill, well, then, you have to come up

with some arguments against the bill.

Because a lot of attention was attracted to some of the

activities back east, there has been this pressure for some

kind of an inquiry into the operations of the Egg Marketing

Board — not because anything wrong has happened there but

because it is newsworthy. There have been no eggs destroyed in

the Province of British Columbia. They came from the Province

of British Columbia. There were eggs destroyed that came a long

way to be destroyed, though.

I don't deny that there should be some consumer interest in

marketing boards. I think there should be consumer interest and

more consumer support. I want there to be more consumer

knowledge. I'm satisfied in my mind that if there is knowledge

in the whole community as to what is actually happening in the

farming community, if there is knowledge of that, there will be

acceptance of it.

In the case of the milk industry, for example, people are

generally satisfied that, when the price of milk goes up, it is

going up because the cost of production has gone up. There is a

government-appointed board, if you like, and they don't seem to

question that when the price of milk goes up….

An Hon. Member: The cost of distribution, too.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The cost of distribution has gone

up, and people recognize that; they can understand it. It can

be explained why the price of milk goes up two, three or four

cents a quart. There are rational explanations for it. They are

not explanations that are put forth by the milk producers

themselves; they are put forward by other people, if you like,

on behalf of the milk producers to some extent.

But in the case of the eggs it is left to the egg producers

themselves to bear the brunt of the whole attack or the whole

approach when they are raising the cost of eggs. They have to

make all the explanations. They can't produce all their

calculations in a way that people can understand them anyway.

They have a hard job making themselves understand them

sometimes, and a hard job making me understand some of their

figures when it comes to dealing on an income assurance plan,

as we are presently negotiating. The consumers accept it; the

consumers keep on buying milk. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) may say they shouldn't be drinking even milk — at

least, whole milk. But in any case, people will accept it. With

eggs, they won't accept it, in spite of the fact that at

today's prices it is still the best buy of a complete protein

that is available. There are other things as well, but it is

still the best way to buy the best protein that is

available.

Yet because people have heard so much and imagined so much

about what has been mismanaged in CEMA in particular, they

suspect there must be something wrong here too, as there is

there. They suspect this and have heard so much and have been

led to believe so much by the Food Prices Review Board in

particular, which grabbed this as an opportunity to renew its

own lease on life. Because of this, they turn away from eggs at

a time when, as I say, it is the best buy in getting good

quality protein.

This legislation is coming forward at this time not in any

way at all as an attack on marketing boards or on the principle

of producers getting together to help themselves negotiate in

the community for a better return. On the contrary, Mr.

Speaker, it's recognition that the producers of food have to be

able to bargain in the community, need community support for

what they are doing, and need a decent return for the work

[ Page 4393 ]

they are doing and the investment they are making

if we as

consumers are going to continue to have access to the food they

are producing.

As far as this party and this government are concerned, I've

said before that we've given ample evidence of our acceptance

of that principle as it applies to all groups within our

community. We've given ample evidence of our desire to work

with the producers of food and make sure that they have an

opportunity to earn a respectable living — real evidence of

that.

In this particular case it's an attempt in this legislation

to line up not just this party, not just this government and

not just the Members in this House. It's an opportunity for the

whole community to learn more about what is happening in

agriculture so that the whole community will be more ready to

accept the principle that it is time the farmers were relieved

of the responsibility for subsidizing food prices for consumers — as

they have been asked to do in Quebec, where they've been

asked to raise beef at 65 cents a pound and sell it at 15

cents.

I believe the legislation before us will give the community

that opportunity to know more about what is happening and to

accept what is happening as something that is good not only for

the producers involved directly, but also for the consumers in

our community, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

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

quite interested, Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Minister of

Agriculture mount a defence which mostly seemed to be aimed at

the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young). I don't

think he presented this bill to the House as a Natural Products

Marketing Act; he made a defence for his own cabinet and his

own caucus and his own party as to the historical tradition of

the NDP in supporting marketing boards.

Now I come from an area where some of the first marketing

boards in the province were initiated. The B.C. Fruit Board and

the B.C. Interior Vegetable Marketing Board were initiated in

the Okanagan in the '30s. Those initial programmes were very

necessary at that time, Mr. Speaker, because over and above the

normal market problems and the problems of the Depression in

the '30s, the growers faced a tremendous loss in their product.

Many will remember — the Minister of Agriculture — that people

talked about "a cent a pound or on the rocks."

They had a problem. They were at the whim of the transportation

industry and the wholesalers. They fought among each other at a time

when the market didn't support any product, not necessarily one that

had the additional problem of a short shelf-life and a problem of

spoilage and which was subject to climatic conditions.

When the first central-desk selling was brought in for tree

fruits, it was necessary in this country. Our growers in the

Okanagan had been taking a beating. When they were shipping as

far away as New York at that time, they were subject to claims

that they didn't have the ability on their own as an individual

grower and shipper to be able to fight the claim or go to New

York to fight with the big food broker at that time over

whether the claim was responsible or not.

At that time our fruit-growers in the Okanagan and British

Columbia, some of them, took claims of 75 per cent.

Individually they didn't have the opportunity or the funding or

the ability to successfully fight these claims or question

them. An organization was necessary.

At that time, when this was formed, the single-desk selling

was an answer for our fruit industry, as it was for vegetables.

From this legislation the Okanagan growers became successful.

They became successful through the '40s and, in fact, the late

'40s were one of the most profitable times they had. This early

legislation led up to the Natural Products Marketing Act, which

was passed in 1948. It is the one we're replacing today. It is

a marketing Act that covers quite a few different products. It

covers the Broiler Marketing Board, the Coast Vegetable

Marketing Board, the Cranberry Marketing Board, the B.C. Egg

Marketing Board, the B.C. Interior Vegetable Marketing Board — mushrooms, oysters and so on. Yet today we're dealing with

solutions that were developed in the '30s to meet a different

set of conditions than we meet today.

For the growers and the producers, through communication,

through more opportunity to hire inspectors or to get people to

act as their agents on these matters of frivolous claims or

dishonest claims from the people that receive the fruit — the

fruit brokers or the food brokers in far-away places — today

this can't happen. The situation that was there in the '30s is

not the same situation that faces us today. We're still

concerned about single-desk selling in the Okanagan, and we're

still concerned on the best way to go. In fact, the Minister

himself conducted a plebiscite last year as to whether the

single-desk selling was the proper way to go.

Even the growers themselves, Mr. Speaker, who are

questioning now their own marketing boards, only voted 62

percent in favour of the existing system. That meant that

nearly 40 per cent of the growers who participate in and are

covered by the B.C. Fruit Board had some difference of opinion

on how they could best be served and how the market could best

be served. When we look at this legislation, as the Minister

[ Page 4394 ]

says, we have to look not only at how it serves the

producer, but how it serves the consumer. In fact, in assessing

this whole At, which is a replacement for the Act of 1948, we

have to assess and ask ourselves: does this Act help the farmer

and help the producer? Does this Act serve the interests of the

consumer? Will the Act clear up the many difficulties and

possibilities for abuse of marketing boards — a subject which

has been discussed in this House earlier in this session in the

spring of this year?

Will these marketing boards discourage food production at a

time when there are apparent world shortages? It's been brought

up time and time again that the very fact of the marketing

boards and the tight control they have over the production of

food actually discourages the growers from increasing their

supply. It acts as a deterrent from expanding the development

of their own product.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I know the Minister used some figures earlier this year in

discussing the B.C. tree fruits to say: "No, as a matter of

fact, the marketing board hadn't discouraged the planting of

trees; that in fact the number of plantings had come up in the

last 20 years." But in reality, at the same time, he was

arguing on Bill 42 that agricultural land was going out of

production in the Okanagan.

Now it is true that we are shipping less pounds of fruit out

of the Okanagan than we were. We do not have the same market

that we had in the late '40s; we do not produce the same amount,

because our costs have gone up and the marketing board there

hasn't been able to solve the problem yet of relating cost to

selling. In fact, the Minister himself almost admits the

failure of that marketing board to meet the needs of the

producer, because he's had to bring in a guaranteed income

assurance plan.

So perhaps we're attacking the problem of meeting the needs

of the producer in the wrong way. Perhaps the authority of

marketing boards and the restriction on production that it

brings, Mr. Speaker, is the wrong way to attack this problem in

light of the needs and the conditions of today.

We talked a little while ago — in fact, the Minister brought

it up — about the hungry people of the world. Right now in Rome

there's a world food conference going on. The United Nations is

meeting to discuss the very subject of food production in the

world.

One of the startling facts that comes out — perhaps not to all of

us, but to many — is that Canada is one of the few nations left in the

world that still produces a surplus of food. We have the opportunity,

along with the United States, to be the breadbasket for the world in

the supply of grains and in other agricultural products as well. Yet

here we are, while this important conference is going on and while the

federal Minister, Mr. MacEachen, is over there expected to make a very

dramatic statement, if we can believe the news reports, as to what

Canada will do to participate and to help solve the food problems of

the world with commitments, still discussing the solutions for dealing

with producers that were developed in the '30s and refined in the '40s.

Today, with a different set of market conditions and

different concerns in the world, we still just have an

elaboration, an expansion of the same old solution — and that's

an expansion of another board — more authority, but no

incentive there to increase production.

We're not working with marketing legislation. The Minister

didn't cover the very necessary task that we have to help solve

the problems of the Third World, the emerging nations, who

right now, in Bangladesh and other areas, are starving.

When he talks about 28 million eggs and tries to rationalize

it down that if you multiply it…that it really isn't very

much if you take it into dozens or cases, he isn't serving his

purpose very well, because any food spoilage — one egg, a dozen

eggs — at this time is a tragedy in this country and in the

world. It's the same with the calf slaughter, dramatic as it

was. Surely there must be a better way to bring to the

attention of parliament the need for a debate — surely.

We have predator legislation. The ranchers in this province

are concerned about predator legislation to protect far fewer

calves than the loss of 600 that are slaughtered wilfully. Yet

we take extreme precaution to patrol our ranges, and worry

about predators on our calves. It's one of the problems we deal

with, yet you can't brush off lightly the wilful destruction

of 600 calves. It's something that can't be rationalized.

Yet here we are today with all of this being discussed in

the world, all the problems of under-supply, overpopulation,

and we're discussing a mechanism, a series of mechanisms that

were developed at a time when that wasn't the primary problem,

at a time when transportation and communication…a time when

growers had no opportunity to fend for themselves and

legislation was necessary, very authoritative legislation that

gave them powers beyond what we're prepared to give any other

segment of society. In fact, the type of powers that we've

argued in other Acts in this Legislature, Acts outside of the

control of the Legislature to boards and commissions. Yet I

know that this Act, as in 1948…. Many of the extreme powers

that are still in it were in the previous Act.

What we've done now, rather than a general reappraisal,

rather than a commitment to study, to look for a positive

solution at this time, meeting all the requirements, those of

producers, those of the market and those of the world, we've

just expanded

[ Page 4395 ]

on the same old system. More boards, more people,

more

authority.

In fact, we're going overboard on boards. In fact, the

people of B.C. are getting "board" to death. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I think the only thing with these boards is that they

become all aboard for the gravy train for the fellow travelers

and friends and appointees of the government. These boards

aren't elected. There's no guarantee in here that this new

expansion of the board will be representative of the producers;

no guarantee that it will be representative of the consumers;

no guarantee that they even have to be Canadian citizens or

living in British Columbia. We're talking about a B.C.

Natural Products Marketing Act to deal with B.C., and yet

there's no guarantee, no requirement, no statement that they

have to be Canadian citizens or live in B.C., that they have to

have some knowledge of the production or be part of the

market.

How will they be appointed? Will it be the type of

appointments we see on other boards and commissions from the

government? Will it be the opportunity for them to reward, and

not in meeting the needs of the market and the producer in this

province? Will it just be a haven for those few who are left

that haven't already got a job somewhere?

That's what we have to be concerned with, Mr. Speaker,

because I would have thought that that Minister of Agriculture,

with the speeches that he's made in this Legislature before,

would have some and made an attempt and presented legislation

that looked at new possibilities, at innovations, that looked

at new ways to meet the needs of the people of British

Columbia.

I would have thought that he would have dealt with his earlier

motion that he has on the order paper — one that surprises me because

he has a motion…. Here he brings in this legislation, this new bill,

the big change, while he still has a motion on the order paper to

authorize the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to investigate

the operations and management and policies of the B.C. Egg Marketing

Board and the Broiler Marketing Board and the Turkey Marketing Board. I

would have thought that if the Minister was concerned with marketing

boards in the spring, how they function and if they were meeting the

needs of the producer and the consumer and the people of B.C., that we

would have had just such a study, that when he had this motion to refer

it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture he wouldn't have

circumvented this very committee, that he would have chosen to have

them act as the instrument to receive presentations from the consumers

of B.C. We wouldn't have had to witness what we've witnessed recently,

both in Canada and the province — open confrontation of conflicting

statements between Ministers in the same cabinet and the same

government, where it appears that we're on a collision course between

the Agriculture Minister and the Consumer Services Minister (Hon. Ms.

Young).

Now, there's no reason why at this time if the Minister was

interested in a new Act, in reviewing the situation, that the

situation isn't compatible, that we can't serve both the

consumer and the producer. It's necessary that if we're

reviewing the Act, introducing new legislation, it shouldn't

just be for the sake of legislation for legislation's sake, Mr.

Minister; it should be that you're definitely concerned about

arriving at solutions to the problem. Rather than sit with your

back to the Minister of Consumer Affairs, why not have her

participate in the discussion, rather than the open conflict

that develops and has developed in the newspapers?

I was interested earlier when the Minister was talking about

what the relative worth of different products were, because

just in the Vancouver Sun of November 2, we had a very

interesting chart about how you could relate products to hours

of time worked rather than to dollars, because in this

inflationary period dollars don't compare. Forty cents a pound

today isn't worth the same as 40 cents a pound the other

day.

He's right in saying that it now takes 31.1 minutes to earn

a pound of sirloin steak on the average wages,

whereas in 1949

it took 47.5 minutes. He's right — in most commodities, lawn

food as well as food, all our people are better off. For

gasoline, for haircuts, for telephones, electricity, there has

been dramatic changes in what we earn through our labours — if

you're fortunate enough in B.C. today to be one of the

employed.

But there is a dramatic illustration contained with this: it

shows some areas where this hasn't happened. It shows that

while the consumer may be, because of the climate of prosperity

and the prosperity that exists, getting a better break in

buying the food products and none-food and services, he isn't

getting a better break in the cost of government.

Now this one table only gives us income tax, but it is a

good guide in comparison with other government services as to

how they have accelerated to the consumers of this province,

because taxpayers are consumers, Mr. Speaker. Income tax, which

used to take 0.2 parts of a week in 1949 for the average person

to pay his income tax, it now takes 8.1 weeks of labour to pay

your income tax. This is the cost of government, yet what does

this Minister do in going to solve the problems of introducing

new marketing legislation? He talks about expanding the cost of

government as it will administer the marketing in B.C.

More employees: we have the employees, the expanded board

from three to 10; we have the marketing commission; we have the

opportunity for them to hire staff; we have the opportunity for

the executive council to designate positions, almost like

[ Page 4396 ]

provincial officers. Where it says: "The Provincial

board,

marketing board, or commission, with the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may, subject to terms and

conditions he may impose, designate any person or class of

persons to exercise, on behalf of the Provincial board…"

and so on, we have an unlimited opportunity for hiring and

expanding bureaucracy. We're going to get into a bureaucratic

control — the old same solution of more bureaucracy, more

people, more government, more cost, either directly or

indirectly, onto the cost of production. More government and

less benefit.

How can you rationalize that, when there could be a more

simplistic approach? We are short; we can't possibly

overproduce food in this province, in this country. We can't

possibly overproduce food.

If the federal government, and if the United Nations, now is

talking about a world food bank — and whether the federal

government is talking about a national food bank that works as

the intermediary before it goes to the world food bank — it's

impossible, with the shortage of food, for us to overproduce.

Yet we're still talking about a system that may bring

restrictions on production. Mr. Speaker, in this day, in 1974,

the solutions of the '30s are just as inappropriate here as

they are for the other solutions from the '30s that you've

developed in other areas of government today.

The day of the big stick and control for control's sake

instead of meeting the needs of today, is not relevant in

British Columbia or in Canada or in the world. Yet here we talk

about a whole new board: supercrats. These supercrats are going

to be able, if we take the Act as it deals between the

marketing commission and the marketing board and the executive

council, to do almost anything in British Columbia. They can go

into production, and they can go into distribution. In fact, in

the marketing commission a new addition is processing. They can

go into processing and, presumably, wholesaling and

retailing.

I would think that with this government's penchant for

getting involved in what's normally been the private sector,

that in the future instead of Super Valu, it will be

"supercrats" dealing with the people, but the savings just

won't be super. There won't be savings for our people; it will

be added costs, indirectly through government and directly onto

the product.

I think we've got to be concerned, too, that the new marketing

commission is probably, in the outline of its services, going

into an area that was normally served by the department itself,

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, because in the guide

to agricultural services they have a Markets and Statistics

Branch; they have a market commissioner, a director of food

promotion, a food consultant, a market intelligence officer,

food scientist extension officer — all of these services that we expect

from the normal

department of government. Now is this commitment to boards and

services, and committees and commissions outside government taking away

the very authority of the service itself? Is it

taking away, without discussion, those decisions and that aid

to our people from the professional civil servants, who have

served the province well in the past and will continue to serve

well in the future? It's a category that serves in our whole

style of government. We must have confidence in our civil

service, confidence in the employees, that they will serve any

government in their service to the province and to the

country.

Yet here we see the same in this Act, as we have seen in

other Acts in this Legislature, the creation of boards that

take more and more of these controls out of the control of the

department.

What else do they do, Mr. Speaker? They also take the

accountability to this Legislature with them. They now become

only accountable to the executive council. It's difficult for

this Legislature to deal with those areas that aren't directly

within the department. In fact, it is of concern to all of us,

and it is a concern in other provinces as well, that

governments today seem to be taking more and more authority to

the executive branch and those who it may determine report

directly to it. No more reporting to the Legislature. No more

use of the regular departments of government, which are

accountable through their Minister to this Legislature.

These are the things that concern all of us. It concerns me

too, because of the very trend and the attitude of this

government for getting into areas normally considered within

the private sector that through competition, I believe, can

serve the people and the province as an entity well. They may

use this legislation, legislation that has mostly been here

before, with the addition of being able to enter these very

services — wholesaling, retailing and other areas.

It is no good the Minister giving us his denial, that it is

not his intention to get into the distribution of food or into

retailing. I can remember in the House when he said that it was

not the intention of his department to get into farming, or the

intention of the Land Commission. But here the Land Commission

just the other day announced it has bought a ranch and is going

to operate it. This isn't the normal operation that would be

carried on under the greenbelt fund. This is now the Land

Commission moving into a new area of operating farming m this

province.

Now if we want to talk about farming and how it operates, it

will not work either in the corporate sense or in collective

farming or the state farms that were established in both China

and the Soviet Union. Corporate farms in the United States have

been a failure, and the state corporate farms in other

countries have also been failures. None of them have

[ Page 4397 ]

ever been able to get the production or solve the

problems

of food.

In the United States, in California, in the last 10 years

the Del Monte corporation and others…. A lot of them have

been selling off the individual farm holdings, because you

can't run from a big bureaucracy, whether it's in the private

field or in the public field. You can't run farming from a

state monopoly or a business monopoly. Farming is something

that is individualistic and seems to depend on the individual

and the family and the small unit. It needs that extra

attention, that extra dedication to survive in the market as it

has existed.

We know the failure of the kulaks that Stalin tried in

Russia. They were spectacular failures. Their great state farms

did not produce food, just as the great corporate farms in the

United States have been a failure also. In fact, those

corporate farms that have been tried in the Okanagan where I

am, Mr. Speaker, and in the Fraser Valley, from some of the

corporations…. To all intents and purposes, most of them have

failed. Even the wineries that have had their own grape

plantings have gradually been disposing of them. Those acreages

have not been profitable until they've gone into the initiative

that can be shown by private farming. They haven't been

successful.

I don't think that it should be the intention of the

government to entertain the thought of going into any sort of

farming or retailing or wholesaling as they could do or as they

have started to do under the B.C. Land Commission.

Now we've talked about marketing boards. We've talked about

their history, and in this Legislature earlier this year we

talked about alternatives. We've heard different Members. I

heard the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis); in fact, just the

other day I read a report in the paper where he said that

marketing boards weren't working. I think that was just in

September of 1974. He spoke specifically against them.

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

Someone got his quota too.

Mr. Bennett: I'm sure, because as a British Columbian

he's looking for a solution, not just as a producer. He's not

serving his self-interest, when he sits in here, as an egg

producer. He's concerned with the consumer, as we all are. He

said himself that marketing boards, as they existed right now,

were not serving the interests of the producer in B.C. I can't

remember exactly, because I can't find the quote, but I think

he also said the consumer; and I don't think they are

either.

I think the Minister had the germ of an idea when earlier this year

he talked about referring it to the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture. I think the Minister at that time had the opportunity for

the committee — a committee which the Premier has said will sit all the

time to serve the needs of British Columbia — to invite submissions not

only from producers but from consumers — and not only from consumers,

but from those people who aren't professional consumers, as some people

are, or producers, but those people who have something to offer and

opinions to develop in the interests of coming up with a satisfactory

solution for marketing.

I also think that nowhere during the Minister's speech did

he indicate that there were new initiatives being taken with

the federal government. I listened carefully. Yet, as I said,

it was announced that one of the federal Ministers at the World

Food Conference is going to make a major announcement this week

with regard to food production and Canada's commitment in the

world.

Why would we hurry to rush through a solution that may

change? Conditions may change after the Minister makes an

announcement. Why would we be in a hurry to rush through this

bill at this particular time when it obviously isn't a

well-thought-out solution but merely an extension of the old

ideas and old solutions of the '30s and the '40s — the

old solutions of giving the producers control and authority

that you would grant to no other aspect of society?

Those controls were necessary in their day and, in light of

a better system coming, may be the only answer today. But I had

no assurance from this Minister during his talk or during his

presentation of this bill. He gave this House no assurance, Mr.

Speaker, that he had given that type of thought before he

presented this bill. He gave no assurance to this House that he

was prepared to look for new solutions to the problems facing

the B.C. producer and consumer.

Instead, it is the same old answer, the same old approach,

the same old thing: more boards, more bureaucrats, more

supercrats, more authority, more cost, more government, more

restrictions on production, higher prices for the consumer. Yet

nobody seems to be served.

Our growers and our producers are still caught in a squeeze.

They have had to be bailed out — during this inflationary

period — with guaranteed-income programmes. The marketing

programmes are failing them during this time. They aren't

benefiting. They are not benefiting by the system, and neither

are the consumers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young), who I

know will be speaking in this debate….

[ Page 4398 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Consumer Services — No Affairs.

Mr. Bennett: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

I think that there shouldn't be this type of conflict that

has developed on the federal and provincial levels. It is a

unique situation in Canada today where you have on both levels

of government the Consumer Affairs and the Consumer Services — the

Consumer Affairs on the federal level and Consumer Services

on the provincial level — fighting with their counterparts, the

Ministers of Agriculture in this country and this province. Yet

there should be compatibility; there should be a solution of

mutual benefit.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: I welcome the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) back.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: For these reasons, and for the reason of

more discussion with the federal government, and for the reason

that we need more input into this legislation, I would like to

move that the motion be amended by deleting the word "now" and

substituting therefore the words "six months hence" on this

bill, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that this bill should be referred to the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture. I think we should have the

type of inquiry that the Minister asked for earlier in his

motion. We should have the type of inquiry that will allow the

input from the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young)

in this province. I think we should have that type of

discussion in British Columbia. We shouldn't be tied into old

solutions for new problems. We should be prepared to meet the

challenge not only in British Columbia, but our challenge as

part of Canada in meeting the food supply for the world.

Mr. Speaker, I present this motion.

Mr. Speaker: If I may suggest, I think the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) would want the motion to

read: "On this day six months hence." Is that correct? The

motion appears to be in order. Is there any further debate on

the amendment?

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

speak in support of this amendment to the motion, because I

feel after serving on the agricultural committee last year, and

knowing the feelings of some of the people who were involved in

food production in this province, that they have not really had

the input that they should have in a bill such as this.

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is certainly more time to allow the

farmers of this province and the farmers who have served

conscientiously on the producer boards in this province for years to

have a say and to get back to us and let us know their reaction to this

superboard bill.

From information I have, Mr. Speaker, as late as last

Thursday, the Poultry Board, for instance, did not know that

this superboard bill was going to be introduced into this

Legislature at this time.

From information I have, the cattlemen did not know that

this superboard bill was going to be introduced at this time.

If this is more of the open government that the Minister has

been talking about, more of the cooperation that he was going

to seek from the farmers in this province, I don't think, Mr.

Speaker, this is a very good example of it.

I would like to know why the rush to get this bill through

the Legislature at this time, introduced on Friday and debated

here this afternoon? I wonder why the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) wants to rush this bill through the

Legislature. Is it because, Mr. Speaker, he changed his mind

since he brought in Motion 26 on the order paper, to have the

House authorize the Select Standing Committee, on prorogation

of the House last June, to investigate the operation,

management policies and activities of the B.C. Egg Marketing

Board, the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board and the B.C. Turkey

Marketing Board?

The Minister went at some length in introducing the bill to

talk about world food shortages, and the slaughter of calves,

and the destruction, Mr. Speaker, of 28 million eggs, but he

didn't say one word when he introduced this bill today about

the motion which is still before this Legislature to allow the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to do their

investigation into these boards. Instead of that, this

superboard bill is brought into the Legislature. It certainly

was not referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture — no mention of it — and yet we heard about how the

committees were going to function, how they were going to study

all aspects of agriculture. So, Mr. Speaker, this leads us to

question why is there such a rush to get this particular bill

through the House.

Now we have seen, Mr. Speaker — and the reason we question

this is because of past experience. I remember in the spring

Legislature when we asked to have Bill 31 hoisted for six

months.

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

wouldn't do it, and they should have.

Mr. Phillips: No way. No, this bill had to get

through the House because they wanted to get the far-reaching

implications of this bill foisted onto the mining industry, to

give the people of this province more results from the natural

resources of this province. Mr. Speaker, less than three months

after Bill 31 was rushed through the House, the Minister of

[ Page 4399 ]

Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) did a complete about-face

and

implemented some of the very recommendations that the

opposition wanted him to do in the first place.

I realize it was too little, too late, but we have seen this

government implement legislation before in a rush — conceived

in a rush, pushed through in a rush — and we know that they do

not have the capacity to foresee the results of their

legislation. It has been proven time and time again, Mr.

Speaker, in the last 24 months since this government took

power. Even legislation that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Stupich) has introduced himself — for instance, the bill which

supplements agricultural income — he took to himself all of the

powers of that bill without coming back to the Legislature. We

will never know what the entire results of the legislation will

be, but he could not foresee the cost to the taxpayers of this

province of his own legislation. I would predict, Mr. Speaker,

that there has been insufficient study done by the Minister on

this particular legislation. I would like to question, Mr.

Speaker: has the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) pushed the

Minister to have this legislation introduced at this time and

bulldozed through this Legislature to make it into law?

We have seen the case, Mr. Speaker, of where…. I won't

say that the House has been completely misled on legislation in

the past, but I remember specifically during debate on Bill 42

where I implied that the government would be going into the

actual production of food in this province; that there would be

state-run farms. I remember at that time, Mr. Speaker, the

hue-and-cry from the Minister of Agriculture, "No, no. This is

not the case." But the legislation was bulldozed through

without everybody having the proper time, or the Minister of

Agriculture being able to tell this House what the entire

results of that legislation would be.

What do we have today, Mr. Speaker? The Land Commission buys

a ranch and the Land Commission are going into the production

of beef cattle — a complete about-face from what we were told

would not happen under the legislation of Bill 42 when the Land

Commission was set up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. I wonder if the Hon. Member

would try to keep his remarks pretty well close to the

amendment that has been offered to the House, in that it deals

with why this bill should be, in effect, hoisted or put over

for six months.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly

appreciate your comment, but I'm trying to point out to you…

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): You're trying to

mislead everyone.

Mr. Phillips: …why we have to ask the Minister to

set this bill aside for six months because of what has happened

in the past.

An. Hon. Member: In the past.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, in the past. And there's the

Minister of ICBC….

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Phillips: He should be well experienced in

knowing that he should do more study before he brings in

legislation, Mr. Speaker. He, of all the Ministers in this

House, should know.

Now the Minister spoke at quite some length on the

destruction of calves, which really I don't think had any

bearing on the creation of a superboard to rule over….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Agriculture knows full well that dairymen have in the past,

many times, slaughtered the young calves as soon, as they're

born. This has been going on, off and on through history, since

time began.

An Hon. Member: It's not a Roman holiday.

Mr. Phillips: It's not a Roman holiday, I realize

that. But, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture was

introducing his bill, he said nothing about the destruction of

hundreds of full-grown cattle in this province by the predators — not

one word of mention. Neither did he say anything while he

was talking about this — and I don't know whether it had any

direct relation to the bill or not — neither did he say

anything about the $40,000 damage done to the honey industry of

Vancouver Island by the bears.

I didn't notice that the Minister was taking the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) to task on this

dreadful waste.

It concerns me, Mr. Speaker. This is the reason we need more

input from the very people that are going to be involved. From

the information I have garnered in the short time since this

bill has been introduced, there has not been the input from the

farmers and the producers and the people who serve on the very

boards that this bill intends to rule over. There has been no

input from these people.

It leads me to believe that one of the purposes of this bill

is to gradually take over — by the government — more control of

the means of production of foodstuffs in this province. Also, it

is another means

[ Page 4400 ]

of taking over more control by the government of

the

distribution of foodstuffs in this province.

Now the Minister must have known he was going to bring this

legislation in. I ask him why he did not consult with the very

people this legislation is going to deal with.

During the introduction of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister said that he was concerned about the producers and the

producers who were on marketing boards. Yet there was no

assurance given by the Minister in the introduction of this

bill that there would even be a majority of producers on the

board. He went on at great length to tell us that there would

be consumer representation on this board. I guess that sort of

makes the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) feel

good. But how do you think it makes the producers feel — the

very people who are producing — when there is no guarantee that

they will even be in the majority on the board?

As a matter of fact, in the Minister's press release the

other day, after this legislation was introduced, he said — and

I think that I can quote him correctly: "We may have some

producers on the board."

Now I want the producers of this province to be able to get

back to the Minister and have the time for him to give them

assurance that indeed they are going to be in the majority on

this board.

There is another reason, Mr. Speaker, why we would like to

have this bill set aside. It is because of the past history of

this government in setting up boards with government

appointees. I know that after the last federal election there

are a lot of defeated NDP candidates around; I suppose they are

looking for a job. Mr. Speaker, is this really the reason for

the rush to get this legislation set up — so that we can find a

job for those defeated candidates from the last federal

election?

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): The Frank Howard

bill.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, he'll be on the board; I'll make

that prediction — at a handsome salary, and a salary that will

be paid for by the consumers. But, Mr. Speaker, we want

consumer input. I did not hear one single, solitary word about

the benefits to the consumer of this bill when the Minister

spoke at length in introduction today. Not one word, not one

solitary fact did the Minister of Agriculture give us as to how

this bill will benefit the consumer. There was not one word by

the Minister of Agriculture, when introducing this bill, as to

how this super-bureaucracy would benefit the producer. So who

is it going to benefit?

This is why we need more time. It is so the Minister can

think up some excuses as to who is going to benefit from this

bureaucracy he is establishing here today. Is it going to

benefit the consumers?

Please, Mr. Speaker, have the Minister of Agriculture tell

us in what direction and how.

Is it going to benefit the producer? Have the Minister of

Agriculture, Mr. Speaker…. Give him time to explain to the

producers how they are going to benefit.

I would also like time for the consumer to be told how much

this new super-board is going to cost him. The Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) has stated that it is the

consumer who pays for marketing boards. The cost of this

marketing board…. I don't know what it's going to be. But

it's another board with 10 members that will have travelling

expenses, that will have to be housed. Who is going to pay for

this?

If I take the word of the Minister of Consumer Services, it

will most certainly be the consumer. If the consumer isn't

paying for it, it will certainly be coming out of general

revenue, and then the taxpayer will be paying for it; and who

is the taxpayer but the consumer? They're the same people.

This government gives little heed to the way it spends the

taxpayers' dollar and then charges it back to them.

There has been no mention by the Minister of Agriculture

about what kind of marketing board he is going to set up in the

lumber industry — not one mention. Yet this is clearly in the

bill that the Minister of Agriculture, under the definition of

a natural product, can create a board or scheme to look after

the sale and distribution of all the forest products in this

province. Yet the Minister did not mention that.

Sure, the Minister can say: "Oh, yes, but it was in the old

bill." But the old bill did not give the cabinet the power to

set up the scheme unless they were self-initiated by the

producers themselves.

An Hon. Member: There's a big difference.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, you had better believe that

there's a big difference.

Has the Minister of Agriculture discussed this with the

lumber industry in this province? Are they even aware of it? Is

this one of the reasons why this bill is being rushed through

this Legislature today, before the lumber industry become aware

that this government can take over the distribution and selling

of lumber products?

But there's the problem now, even different to what it was

two years ago: now we must realize that the government is in

the manufacturing business — not only of lumber products, but of

poultry products and other agricultural products. I can concede

that where there is a government-owned-and-operated

manufacturing process, there could be no scheme to allow them a

free market, no curtailment on their production. But over here

where private industry and

[ Page 4401 ]

private enterprise reign supreme the cabinet has

the power

to initiate a scheme which, in essence, could control their

production, put limits on their production, hamper their

distribution and curtail that industry so they could move in

and take over.

We definitely need for all segments of society to know what

all the ramifications of this piece of legislation are before

it is passed through this House. This is one of the reasons why

it is absolutely mandatory that this bill be suspended for six

months: to allow the input that is needed and to allow all

segments of those in the production of both agricultural

products and lumber products to have their say.

It is the purpose of this bill to give the government the

clout over marketing boards that they have been talking about.

Instead of the Minister or the Premier threatening marketing

boards in his office, this will no longer be necessary. Now

this board will give the cabinet the clout they need. There

won't have to be more threatening meetings in the Premier's

office, as so well laid out by our chicken-and-egg war last

spring.

Is this, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, to give the

cabinet a club over the head of all of the producers in the

marketing board?

This bill could be a slap in the face to every farmer in

this province; a slap in the face to every producer in this

province; a slap in the face to every man who has ever served

on any marketing agency in this province, because you were in

essence, Mr. Speaker, telling them that they can't rule their

own affairs, that we're going to have….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, and the Attorney-General says

"Hear, hear."

So this is more government intervention; this is more of

saying to the people of this province: "You do not have the

intelligence to govern yourself." This will be the axe that

will be hung over their heads! more power to the Minister of

Agriculture; more government control; more bureaucracy which

will cost the consumers of this province more dollars. And the

Minister of Agriculture didn't say anything to the contrary.

Never did he mention what the benefits would be to the

consumers of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture goes ahead and sets

up an interior poultry processing plant. I don't know whether,

again, he didn't consult with the producers in that area, but

now they're unhappy because they are not having majority of

representation on the board.

This new superboard that will be established, I predict,

will not have a majority of representation either. No, Mr.

Speaker, this is just more government bureaucracy.

I cannot foresee any great or immediate benefits to the

consumer. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to have

this bill hoisted for six months so that we can have some of

the open government that the cabinet and the Members of the

government have been talking about.

But it seems to me they talk one thing and do something

else, because we haven't had the consultation with the people

involved that they promised us before they became

government.

Will this solve the problem, Mr. Speaker? Will it help the

consumer? Will it help the producer? These are the questions

that we want answered, and the only people that can answer are

the people who are directly involved. And I don't want to see

this bill rushed through the House without having the proper

feedback that is necessary from those involved.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, the

government will not accept this attempt to buy time for the

official opposition to make up its mind how it wants to vote on

the legislation, which is what they're asking for — six months

so they can think about it and decide whether or not they want

to move one way or the other.

Some Hon. Members: No way. No way.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The seconder of the motion who

asked me for the delay to give them time, said that there has

not been discussion with the people who are going to be

directly affected — the marketing board — and, of course, he's

quite wrong again. But being wrong never stops that particular

Member from speaking. The contents of this bill have been

discussed with some of the marketing boards over the past eight

months.

An Hon. Member: Not on those boards.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The bill itself…. And it was

available to any of the marketing boards that wanted to get

into the discussion. Only those who were having trouble with

the community, with the official opposition, with the press — they were

the ones who were most interested in some changes in

legislation. The cattlemen wanted a commission-type of

organization; the fruit growers were having trouble; the egg

producers were having trouble. All of these people wanted some

changes in the legislation.

They had an opportunity to make representation. They saw

some of the material that was prepared, but as the Member well

knows, the message bill itself could not be discussed with any

of the boards, nor could the precise hour and day of

introducing the bill in this House be something that was going

to be discussed with the marketing board. Surely that is

something that has to be left to the

[ Page 4402 ]

Lieutenant-Governor — the timing of the

presentation. But

all of the boards have had some eight months in which to make

representation for this legislation.

The government does not accept this overt attempt on the

part of the official opposition to give them time to make up

their mind once again — an administration, of which he was a

member, that wanted 20 years to decide whether or not it was

going to do anything for anybody anytime and in 20 years

couldn't decide to do anything for anybody anytime. The new

administration took over, an administration that is ready to

take action…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Stupich: …and in this legislation will be

taking action.

The government does not accept this motion, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Could we have that Member moved back

in the corner again?

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): I don't believe

you're going to have to move the Minister of Agriculture to a

comer; by the sounds of that tirade, his position's going to

move him into a comer pretty soon, in his own interest,

because, Mr. Speaker, the debate in this House to this point…

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: …to my knowledge….

Interjections.

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

Members allow the Member to proceed?

Mrs. Jordan: The Leader of the Opposition got up and

pointed out some very good reasons why there was concern about

this bill. I don't recall him becoming irate, or passing

insults. The second speaker for the official opposition was

remarkably calm in his presentation, for him, and all of a

sudden, without any opportunity for the other opposition

parties to speak, the Minister of Agriculture jumped to his

feet in a tirade and attempts to close this debate. I find this

most difficult to understand.

An Hon. Member: You just had to tell him what the

message was.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, indeed he did. The Minister of Consumer

Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) and I were competing for a place on the floor

in this debate. But I noticed, after the Minister's tirade, that she

sat down. I didn't offer to stand up, I sat quietly and expected her to

do so — wanting to defer to her as the Minister, and give her first

position.

But one must wonder if, in fact, the Member for Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis) wasn't going to stand up and speak and perhaps bring

forth some very factual arguments, some very real argument, as

to what might be done for the consumer's interest and the

producer's interest in this province. Maybe he was afraid that

the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) might happen to speak and

remind the House of her strong position in previous debate,

opposing marketing boards, suggesting that they should be

disbanded and a number of other colourful suggestions which

seemed to have no substance in terms of serving the interest of

the consumers or the producers in this province.

Or perhaps the Minister was concerned that the Premier

himself might stand on his feet and repeat some of the charges

that he has made against marketing boards before he became

Premier, and also in his office on a confidential basis since

he's been Premier.

The tirade that the Minister responded with, in response to

the Member for South Peace River's (Mr. Phillips) suggestion

that there was some reason for this bill to be hastened to the

House, certainly makes me stop and think that there might well

be some substance to what that Member suggested. To close this

debate is going to give many producers in this province the

idea that perhaps the Minister is indeed trying to force this

bill through the House in a hurry. That in itself, Mr. Speaker,

should be sufficient reason to hold the bill over so that there

can be proper dialogue.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) when

he brought forth the fact that there is indeed a meeting going

on in Rome where the federal government has announced that they

will bring forth dramatic, and hopefully, effective new

policies for the world food situation, as it relates to

production in Canada. And I would ask why British Columbia

doesn't have a representative there.

If the Minister, as he says, is intent on truly solving the

problems of wise and profitable use of agricultural land in

British Columbia, which is now frozen, and the farmer is frozen

to his land, and if on the other side he says he is indeed

interested that the consumer in British Columbia has the best

quality food at a reasonable price, surely it is only proper

that before rushing through such a bill with such extensive

powers, we should hear what comes out of this conference and

should hear, indeed, what the federal Minister has to say.

Of all the junkets that have been taken by these government

Ministers to China, to Japan, the Middle

[ Page 4403 ]

East, the Far East — all at taxpayers' expense — surely it

would have been prudent and wise use of taxpayers' money to

have had a member of the agricultural department attending this

conference.

He could phone the Minister of Agriculture in order that the

Minister of Agriculture would have had the latest information,

and then be able to decide whether or not he was going to bring

the bill in or not. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in asking to have

this bill laid over, one can't forget the comments that I

certainly heard made by the Minister of Agriculture as I was

driving to Victoria last Wednesday, when he went on the air and

said that he was contemplating some legislation to do with the

British Columbia Natural Products Marketing Board, but that he

really didn't know whether he'd bring it in during this session

or not. It depended on whether the legislative slate for the

session was crowded.

When we got here, Mr. Speaker, we found there was no

legislative slate. So we must ask the question, and the

producers are asking the question: did indeed the Minister of

Agriculture bring this bill in even more hastily than he had

planned? Did the Premier pick up the phone and say, "Davie,

baby, we've got to have some legislation. We've called all

these people down here to debate serious problems, but we're not

ready to debate them, so you put in your bill"? This is another

question that comes to mind.

If the bill was laid over, the Minister of Agriculture would

have ample opportunity to dispel any concern that he was either

rushing this bill through, as may well be confirmed by his

irate, rapid-fire action and his agitation, or if, in fact, he

was forced to bring the bill in prematurely by the Premier of

this province because the Premier's own, and government's own

Legislative programme on very serious matters was not yet

prepared.

It's interesting that the Minister of Agriculture talks in

terms of wanting new solutions and has brought in an old

solution; that he considers that an investigation or a study

into production and costing of foods in British Columbia is not

imminent; in fact, it's not important, it's not a priority

subject. The Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) has

repeatedly, since taking office, tried to exercise in accord

with her responsibilities some airing and some responsibility

to the consumer of this province, but repeatedly she has been

shot down by her own colleagues.

Mr. Chabot: They've even silenced her now.

Mrs. Jordan: Indeed, you're quite right, they

silenced her in this debate.

This Minister of Consumer Affairs who was set up, who is costing the

taxpayers money in her own position, and her staff — and I'm sure the

taxpayers don't object to this, if this Minister can carry out her

responsibilities. She was very concerned about the high cost of sugar,

and I praise her for bringing this matter forward when there was a

sudden jump in the price. But then the poor Minister finds that, oh no,

that's in the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Bennett: She says all monopolies should be

investigated — ICBC.

Mrs. Jordan: Indeed. You're getting ahead of my

speech, but I'll go into it now. This is a very serious

question, because the Minister of Consumer Affairs has

repeatedly said that all monopolies should be investigated, and

I suggest there's no one in this House who would wish to

support any monopoly that was not in the best interest of the

consumer and fair marketing.

But she has been frustrated by the powers that this

government has invested in outside bodies. ICBC, and we must

mention it here because it's quite possible that the powers

that are invested in this bill for this supercrat board could

very well have the same effect on the consumer that ICBC is

having. That should be studied, Mr. Speaker. But there is no

private company in the Province of British Columbia that could

carry out the questionable business practices, the sloppy

management and the disregard for public interest that ICBC has

that would not be investigated by this government, or any other

government, if it was as common knowledge. Yet the Minister of

Consumer Affairs is frustrated by her own government. This is

important here, Mr. Speaker, because we see in this supercrat

board the potential of another body that is beyond the courts

of British Columbia, that is beyond the power of this

Legislature, and is very much beyond the power of the Minister

of Consumer Affairs.

This is a matter of great concern to producers and consumers

alike. It's a matter that could be well improved upon if this

bill was held over. Why not let the public say whether or not

they would like such boards, such super-board as the Land

Commission and this commission and ICBC, subject to the careful

and responsible scrutiny of the Minister of Consumer Affairs?

What could be fairer than fair?

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: This board reflects the concern that has

been expressed by the civil liberties people in British

Columbia when they have, in fact, sent one of their employees

away to study the ramifications of courts being set up that are

beyond the jurisdiction of the public courts of Canada. There

is the potential for this type of establishment in this

board.

It's all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to say,

"Oh yes, but those powers were there before." There are added

powers, and I agree the powers were

[ Page 4404 ]

there before, but you have to parallel the

potential powers

in this bill with the other powers that this government has

incorporated in other bills and how this government has used

those powers. And while they are telling the public, "Don't

worry. Trust us. We won't use these powers," they have

in fact, Mr. Speaker, gone right ahead and done this, often in

the name of motherhood, but a motherhood that is now coming

home to such a position that it's almost leaving the people of

British Columbia as foster children.

Mr. Speaker, the potential powers in this board, when one

parallels previous government action in other areas and when

one recalls statements that have been made by Members of this

government — the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi), who made it very clear in his maiden speech as a

Minister that his objective was to stamp out every vestige of

enterprise in this province. Statements, and I won't attribute

them to the Members because it was informal conversation, but

statements by members of the agricultural committee made it

very clear that they feel the ultimate aim should be to have

government control through a board of the internal and external

flow of all foodstuffs in British Columbia.

There's been expressed in this House by some Members an

almost pathological dislike of any form of enterprise, good or

bad, whether it's in the wholesale business or the retail

business. Those factors, Mr. Speaker, add to the concern of the

opposition, and add strength to the argument that this bill

should be held over in order that the Minister can make clear,

to producers and consumers alike, what is the real intent of

this bill and how far does he intend to go in the utilization

of its powers.

In speaking of the real intent of this bill, contrary to

what the Minister of Agriculture says that we need time to make

up our mind, I've had very close contact with a number of

producers and producer groups around the province, as have my

colleagues, and there are a number of points that concern us.

One, on the basis of the Minister's own statements, some

producer groups have been very closely informed of the drafting

of this bill and the intent of this bill; other consumer groups

haven't been informed. I would pose the question to the

Minister: why are you only informing some groups and not the

other? What is this game of playing one against the other?

Because quite obviously, when one examines the bill and knows

the agricultural problems in this province, they'll see that

there are very special designations in this bill for very

special commodity groups, but which in fact could be empowered

and forced upon other commodity groups. If that is the case,

Mr. Speaker, why were not all commodity groups as fully

informed?

The second question I'd like to ask him is: which were the commodity

groups that were fully informed, and which were the ones that were left

out? But there is information that the commodity groups that were

reasonably well informed of the possible content of this bill are under

the impression that this bill has but two purposes. One is the updating

of the present British Columbia Natural Products Marketing Act and the

strengthening of some of the legal forces within that Act in order to

take stronger action against dissenting members of any agricultural

group who wish to operate outside the group. The second reason that

they are led to believe this Act is brought in, and the intent of the

Act, is to strictly set up an appeal procedure.

Most of these commodity groups feel from their conversations

with the Minister, whether he intended this or not, that the

rest of the Act isn't going to be enacted. Many of them feel

that the chairman will be a civil servant and will operate very

much on a part-time basis.

I see the Minister is looking confused. I appreciate his

listening, because, Mr. Minister, this is the impression. This

is a very good reason for holding this bill over and having it

examined by the people involved. If you as Minister are not

aware of these impressions, then I know you would want to see

that the misimpression is cleared up before any binding

legislation is imposed.

There is a feeling that there would only be appointments to

the board if there was a specific complaint laid against a

specific commodity group, and that this 10-person commission

won't in any way function on any type of permanent basis.

They feel that if they in any way delegate powers to the

government which they have been enforcing before, as some

groups have, there will be every opportunity to recall that

authority or that practical application of those powers. From

listening to the Minister, I question very much whether in fact

they do fully understand that if they wish to have their

authority delegated back to them, this is going to be an

extremely complicated procedure.

That's another reason, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, why we

feel it's important that the Minister hold the bill over. There

is this area of concern or misinterpretation or misimpression

of what the bill is all about. Unless, of course, the Minister

intends to stand up in the House and say that the sole purpose

of the bill is to upgrade or update the commodities marketing

Act and that there is no way that there will be a permanent

board, and tell us the composition of the board.

One of the points we all find most mysterious and which

certainly concerns the producers and, I would suspect, concerns

the consumers is the appointment of the board. It's

extraordinary that a superboard which, in the Minister's words,

is to represent the interest of the producer, shows no evidence

that it's

[ Page 4405 ]

going to be producer-oriented.

There's no question that any marketing board has to make

unpleasant decisions, Mr. Speaker, and this board will. They're

unpalatable decisions. But I suggest the consumer or producer

will accept those decisions in far better grace if he knows

that the board making the decisions is not only impartial but

that it is knowledgeable. One of the most serious concerns to

the producer, I suggest, in this bill will be whether these

appointments are knowledgeable people, and whether they

understand the practical application of agriculture in this

province and the practical problems involved in agriculture. If

they have to face an ivory-tower board with people like

Professor Forbes on it….

Mr. Chabot: Frank Howard is still with them.

Mrs. Jordan: Frank Howard. He doesn't know very much

about farming. He doesn't know much about consuming either, as

I understand it.

But there are very few pieces of legislation on the books

where it isn't spelled out that representation on a board with

such tremendous powers as this will guarantee representation

from the groups involved, the producers and the consumers.

There's many a bill here dealing with labour and management in

which it's spelled out that labour will have so many

representatives and management will have so many

representatives.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, you are, I think, really

debating the bill in principle. The purpose of this exercise,

as I understand it, is to have the consideration of the matter

entirely held back for six months. The argument has been put by

a number of members that it's for the purpose of further study,

and other reasons that they gave.

Therefore, it seems inappropriate to study the bill and to

debate the terms of the bill at this time. I think the

advisability of either not delaying or of postponing it, or of

delaying and postponing it is really the matter under

discussion, or should be.

Mrs. Jordan: Oh, you're quite right, Mr. Speaker. My

point is that if the bill is delayed, this matter of extreme

concern to the producers and consumers in British Columbia,

which has not been explained, could be studied. There would be

an opportunity to amend this bill so that there was a guarantee

of fair representation on this board, if it is to exist, for

the producer — particularly the producer. I'm just pointing out….

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: This is be-nice-to-Mr. Speaker day.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, I've already had my exercise this

morning; I went to swim.

It's rather disturbing to me that your comment on exercise

might indeed reflect the thinking of the government. Is it the

Minister and the government's thought that any debate on this

bill is merely an exercise — an exercise in futility? This

certainly has been their attitude on bills before.

The mining bill, Bill 31, that my colleague mentioned, where

this opposition fought and fought and fought and positively

suggested and gave relevant reasons as to why that bill should

be changed and what the problems were, was obviously an

exercise in relevance as far as the government was concerned.

They wouldn't act; they denied it. Then they went home and did

their homework and found that they had to do what the

opposition suggested.

Is this another case of that? Is this another case where the

Minister doesn't know what he's doing, doesn't know the powers

he's incorporating and doesn't know the discrimination and the

possibilities of discrimination that he could set up in this

board? Surely not.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister Of Highways): Keep calm,

Pat.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, it's all right for the Minister of

Highways to say, "Keep calm," if he collects his

$40,000-a-year cheque. But I assure him that the producers in

this province aren't collecting $40,000 a year, and they are

concerned. There are many consumers in this province who would

eat the one egg, who need the one egg that the Minister

dismissed so lightly. They don't get $40,000 a year. They're on

fixed incomes, Mr. Minister.

The Minister's desire to put consumers on the board or to

involve consumers in the activities of agriculture is very

evident in this bill. If we held it over, it would give the

producers the opportunity to ask some questions that come to

mind.

Now, I don't think that under proper negotiation and proper

circumstances, which would take place while the legislative

committee was sitting on this bill, they would mind having the

consumers understand their business, maybe even be on their

board and take

part in trying to solve some of their

problems.

But the question they're asking — and it must come up in

relation to this bill and it should be answered before these

powers are imposed — is: is this a forerunner of what the

government intends for unions, for example? Does the government

intend to legislate consumer representation onto union

management?

Interjection.

[ Page 4406 ]

Mrs. Jordan: Well, the Minister of Agriculture says

it's a good idea. So I take it he's on record as wanting to

legislate consumers onto union management. The Teamsters, the

IWA, the B.C. Federation of Labour. Perhaps the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) announced this afternoon that you were

going to legislate it.

They're asking if, in fact, the government intends to set up

the same type of superboard or superunion or supercraftsmen

over all the unions in British Columbia in which there will be

no guarantee that organized labour will have any representation

or will even have a strong voice on the superboard.

Is this a forerunner of the government considering a

superboard over management where they will legislate control of

all management's activities in the hands of this board? They

can veto their sales; they can veto their prices, with no

guarantee to management that there will be fair and strong

representation for them.

Is the Minister telling us in this bill that before long the

government will be putting consumer representation on the B.C.

liquor board? Good idea. I suggested the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). Is this what the Minister is

saying to us?

Is there going to be consumer representation on ICBC?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I point out for the second

time that you're debating the relative merits of the bill and

not the purpose of this particular debate, which is whether it

should be delayed six months. Will you kindly address yourself

to that proposition?

Mrs. Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point is that

these are the questions that are being asked out of this

legislation. If the bill was held over for six months, or until

the next session and there were public hearings, the Minister

himself would have — the opportunity to explain his position on

these concerns.

The public, the consumer, the producers, organized labour

would have their opportunity to put their input in before such

a powerful Act is enacted. Because, Mr. Speaker, this is indeed

a powerful Act, and it could be very helpful in the Minister's

opinion, and in our opinion it could be antiquated and very

discriminatory; or it could, in fact, just be a sop to get the

flak off the Minister's back.

In holding the bill over, the Minister would have a greater

opportunity to advise the producers and the consumers in this House

about the financing of this board. Is it going to have unlimited access

to public funds? Are the producer groups and the present marketing

boards going to have to subsidize this board and make a financial

contribution to it? What happens to the marketing boards that presently

exist when the superboard brings down a decision that they feel is

completely unacceptable in their industry and they have to hire more

staff — lawyers, accountants — to fight their own superboard? Who is

going to bear that cost?

Surely if we are concerned about the cost of foodstuffs to

the consumer, we have to recognize that every drain we put on

the farmer's income, whether it is through the actions of his

board or the actions of this superboard, is going to reflect

itself in the higher cost of food to the consumer. If we held

the bill over, Mr. Speaker, then the Minister could make this

very clear and the producer would have an opportunity to know

what he is dealing with.

There are many other comments to be made about the bill, and

I believe many other reasons why it should be held over, but I

shall save those for the full debate. I would again ask the

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the debate that

there has been and will be in the House, to consider the

concerns, and consider these shadows of concern and doubt that

are growing around his handling of this bill, and take the

opportunity to fully inform the producers. Let them have the

bill. Let them take it to their locals. In our area, the

members at large of the Fruit Growers' Association know nothing

about the intent of this bill, nothing about the details. Let

them know, let them discuss it in their locals; that is what

they are for. Then let them discuss it at their annual meeting

and vote on it, and bring back a positive or negative decision — whichever they want — to the Minister in this Legislature.

Let him take the opportunity to explain why some boards are

fully aware of it and others aren't. Let him take the

opportunity to clarify why there is a misimpression around this

province as to what the real actions of this board are going to

be. Let him clarify the costs, and let him, most importantly,

listen to the potential for better solutions to a problem which

we are all concerned about.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I think, in rising in

support of this amendment, probably the major reason why this

bill should be set aside for six months is because it is like

so many other bills that have been brought in by this

government: it is so very badly drafted. It's sloppy, it's

confusing, and it is very difficult for anyone to understand

what the real intent of this government is in connection with

this bill.

It is, however, easy to see that there isn't any benefit to

the consumer and there isn't any benefit to the producer, and

those are the two people with whom we are most concerned. If

those people don't benefit out of this kind of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, then I don't really see the need for the urgency.

Rather than being a bill which could, with some additional

looks and some new drafting if the Minister

[ Page 4407 ]

had six months to look at this bill, provide some

benefit

for the consumers and the people who are paying for groceries

in this province, rather than that, it is just another trip to

the patronage pump for some good NDPers.

It will, if it is left in its present form, Mr. Speaker, be

just another expansion of what is already a

mushrooming-out-of-control bureaucracy, and the cost of running

this new bureaucracy is going to be tacked on to the price of

eggs, and the price of meat, and the price of chickens, and the

price of all other agricultural commodities. Instead of helping

the consumer, the bill will effectively inflate the grocery

bill again, and that is the last thing in the world we want. We

would hope that the government will take the opportunity to put

this bill on the shelf for awhile and have a look at what it

will really do to the consumer, who is the person in whom we

must all be interested and the person to whom we must direct

our attention at this time.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the bill, because of some of

the things it doesn't say and could say, asks the farmers and

the primary producers to be the whipping boys for the increased

costs, so that the farmer is going to be the guy who gets the

shaft while the government is effectively setting the

prices.

Other things have been left out of the bill which would help

the opposition, and help the people in this province,

understand what the bill wants to do in the long run. The

Minister's press release probably should have been included in

the bill when he said that what he hopes to do is give

competent direction and control by government. That is the key

to this bill. They want to give more control to the

cabinet-in-council; more control, more cost, and ultimately the

person in the supermarket pays more money.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

The bill doesn't say, Mr. Speaker, and it could say if this

government had a little while longer to work on the bill, who

will be on this superboard. I would suggest that the government

should take a leaf from the federal government's Bill 176 and

include in that bill a provision that the majority of the

people on the superboard be active producers. I stress the word

"active", rather than people like Professor Forbes or some

other people who are known to be interested in jobs with this

government.

I would also suggest that the bill should be given the

opportunity to be amended to include, as the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) mentioned earlier, that the people on

the board must be Canadian citizens residing in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other reasons, perhaps, that this bill

should be hoisted for six months is that it would give the government

an opportunity to go talk to the marketing boards. I would suggest than

rather than talking to the marketing boards when they started to draft

this bill, they talked too much with people who had axes to grind — individuals, not boards — people who really don't have very much

knowledge in the field of agriculture, yet wish to have a lot to say. I

refer again to the instant expert from UBC who is going to get a job

one way or another with government from the looks of it.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, this six-month hoist would allow

the government to get back and talk with the marketing boards,

because it is our information that several of the marketing

boards, as late as Thursday of last week, the day before the

bill was brought in, had been told that the bill would not be

brought in until spring so that they would have a chance to

have some input. But, as it turned out, Mr. Speaker….

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Name names. Name

names.

Mr. McClelland: Would you shut that noise off in the

background there?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Can you tell me who?

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, it would give the

opportunity for the government to at least talk to some of

these consumers, because they're not concerned with having

consumer representatives on their boards. In fact, as the

Minister himself pointed out earlier, the Turkey Marketing

Board offered to invite consumers to their meetings, offered to

listen to their input, and offered to act on their input if

they felt it was in the best interests of both the consumer and

the agriculture industry.

The producers would be happy to have consumers on their

boards, if that's what this government really wants, because

they know that they can convince the consumers that they are

not ripping anybody off. Maybe where we should be looking, and

contrary to this report in Saturday's Sun by Forbes again, the

marketing boards don't set the retail prices. It's not the

marketing boards at all. It's the supermarkets and the stores

that set the retail prices.

If I could just give an example, Mr. Speaker, in the broiler

growers example, for instance, the broiler growers set the

price at about 68 cents a pound at the present time at the

producer level, yet it is retailing in the supermarket — chicken — for

anywhere from 92 to 95 cents per pound. Well, how

does that stand in relation to the comments that the producer

is the person who is ripping the consumer off? It seems to me

that we might be better directing our attention to the

supermarkets and the big chains rather than the farmer, who is

only trying to make a living. I must congratulate the

Agriculture Minister for standing up

[ Page 4408 ]

on behalf of the small producer rather than the big

independents.

I would suggest that a hoist of this bill for six months

would allow the government to take another look and just see

what it is going to do to orderly marketing in this province

with this bill, because I suggest that it will bring that

orderly marketing to a halt. Not only that, but it will

bankrupt the present marketing boards, because t