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)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4481 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Privilege Statement of Hon. Mr. Strachan. Mr. Phillips — 4481

Mr. Speaker — 4481

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Provincial Elections Act (Bill 172). Mr.

McGeer.

Introduction and first reading — 4482

Oral Questions

New business resulting from Japan trade trip. Mr. Bennett — 4482

Public release of steel mill feasibility study. Mr. Gibson — 4482

Increase of RCMP in British Columbia. Mr. Wallace — 4483

Negotiations with egg producers for inclusion in income assistance plan. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 4483

Potential voters list legislation. Mr. Morrison — 4484

Harrison Department of Labour conference. Mr. Chabot — 4484

Hiring of attendants for the House. Ms. Brown — 4485

Payment of insurance claims. Mr. Gardom — 4485

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4485

Point of order Possibility of comments being sub judice. Hon, Mr. Lauk — 4485

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4485

Mr. Speaker — 4486

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4486

Mr. Speaker — 4486

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4486

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 4487

Mr. Speaker — 4487

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4487

Mr. Speaker — 4489

Mr. Gardom — 4489

Mr. Speaker — 4490

Mr. McGeer — 4491

Mr. Speaker — 4491

Mr. Gibson — 4492

Mr. Speaker — 4492

Mr. Gardom — 4493

Mr. Speaker — 4493

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4493

Mr. Speaker — 4494

Routine proceedings

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4494

Mr. Fraser — 4497

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4501

Mr. Curtis — 4502

Mr. Chabot — 4503

Mr. Phillips — 4509

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4514

Division on second reading — 4516

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D.T. Kelly (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I've been

asked by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) to introduce

three young people from his riding today. They are Sandra

Sherwood from Salmon Arm, Patty Keel from Armstrong and Stephen

Williamson from Armstrong. These young people have won a

contest in education in democracy, which was sponsored by the

Council of B.C. Forest Industries, along with other young

people in the province. I would ask the House to welcome these

young people.

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would add to

that list four names from my constituency: Mr. Ernest Webber

from Terrace, Miss Marla Woods from Terrace, Mr. Ralph Buchal

from Kitimat and Miss Donna Hrynkiw from Kitimat. I'd ask the

House to join in welcoming these students.

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

Speaker, in the galleries today watching us for the first hour

or so are 17 students from Gulf Islands Secondary School,

Ganges, Saltspring Island, accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Ted Harrison. I think you'll recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Gulf

Island students, in spite of the relatively close proximity to

the capital city, don't get the opportunity to attend here too

often. So would the House welcome them?

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we will have in

the gallery later today 50 students from the Earl Merriot

School in White Rock, along with their teacher, Doug Oram.

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

I'd like to add two names to that list of students who took that competition

with CFI: Judy Wilson and Susanne Polivka from Kimberley.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, since

we're adding to the list, I'd like to add Mr. Nygren, a student

from Golden, to that list.

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

Certainly the Nicola Valley shouldn't be outdone, and I'd like

to add the name of Mr. Lange — Bernie Lange.

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

group that's here. I had the privilege last night of having dinner with this

group, and I would like to compliment them on the interest they have shown in

this trip and in what they're going to see here this afternoon. Thank you.

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

I'd ask leave of the House to table a report of Dr. J.G. Cragg

to the Rentalsman, and the accompanying survey of Clarkson

Gordon, which is referred to in the Cragg report. I'd like to

table both documents.

Leave granted.

An Hon. Member: Open government.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That's right, sunshine and

openness — and anybody that wants to buy this report is free to

do it.

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

raise a question of privilege.

Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) did enter into a tirade of

character assassination against the Member for South Peace

River when he stated outside of the chamber of this Legislature

that…. The Minister claimed that all accusations against

ICBC have either been erroneous, misleading or completely

false.

That's character assassination of the highest order, Mr.

Speaker, and I would like to challenge the Minister to produce

the figures from ICBC to prove that I am wrong in the figures

that I have related to the House and, if not, I would like the

Minister to apologize.

I'll say further, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister produces

figures from ICBC to prove me wrong, then I will certainly

apologize. But, in the meantime, I think that the Minister of

Transport and Communications' direct attack on the Member for

South Peace River is a tremendous attack on my character. I

think that this sort of thing should cease forthwith and

forevermore.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member, before making

editorial comment on it, let me see the matter he objects to? I

think perhaps I can study it and then report to the House as

soon as I've had a chance.

Mr. Phillips: I hope that you will certainly give it….

Mr. Speaker: I take it that you're taking it as a

personal attack on you. Are you mentioned as being the one

attacked?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. As I stated,

it's a tirade of character assassination by a Minister of the

Crown against a person who was

[ Page 4482 ]

merely trying to protect the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that if it's a

proper case, it will be for the House to decide what it

was.

Introduction of bills

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS ACT

On a motion by Mr. McGeer, Bill 172

An Act to Amend the

Provincial Elections Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions

NEW BUSINESS RESULTING

FROM JAPAN TRADE TRIP

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

Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Commerce,

responsible for creating jobs in this province: I read where

B.C. is the only province to increase in unemployment while the

rest of Canada seems to be meeting the problems of

unemployment. Last spring this Legislature was adjourned

because of an urgent trip to Japan — seeking industry to create

jobs. Could the Minister advise how many industries have been

created in this province because of that urgent trip, and how

many jobs have been created?

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take the bulk of the question as

notice, but I have a suspicion that as many jobs were obtained — or many more jobs were obtained — for British Columbians as a

result of that trip than the trip that your daddy took to

Europe some years ago when he was Premier of the province.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it that no

jobs and no industries came because of an urgent trip…?

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, am I to take it, because the Minister does not

have an answer, that there have been no jobs and no industries

come to B.C. because…? A supplemental question. I see

where because of the success of the trip, we're having another

trade trip to China. I'd like the Minister to advise me how

many of his department will be accompanying him on this trip to

China — this trade trip.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: There's been no specific announcement, I think, or a

complete list as to who the Premier will be taking. I will not be going to China

with the Premier and, as far as I'm aware, no person from my department. But

my department officials and myself are advising the Premier on a daily basis

of the economy in Asia and the economy in North America, and he'll be fully

briefed. The trip will have a great advantage to British Columbia — if not in

the immediate future, then in the long range.

Mr. Bennett: Well, just a supplemental. If the trade

department and you are advising on this trip — and the fact that

you're not going may have some bearing because of the results

of the Japan trip — can you advise what expertise is going from

any department to develop jobs in this province?

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister Of Highways): Waldo

Skillings.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: That question should be directed to

the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker.

I might say that the Member is constantly referring to the

first question and answer of the day. I have taken the bulk of

that as notice and I'll provide you with what information I

can. I haven't got all the details as to what can directly be

related to our trip to Japan last April, so don't keep on

referring to my answer that hasn't been given yet.

Mr. Bennett: I asked, what expertise is going from

the government on the trip to China.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the Hon. Minister

indicated that he was taking some of this as notice.

Mr. Bennett: Well, then, can I redirect the question

to the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams)

because I understand that the trip has something to do with

creating jobs in the forest industry and that it's going to be

marketing our timber? How many people from the Lands and

Forests department will be accompanying that Minister to

China?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the question is

irregular. You must relate it to the administrative

responsibilities of the person concerned. In this case it has

been directed by the Minister who was first questioned to the

Premier, who would be the one going to China, as I understand

it.

PUBLIC RELEASE OF

STEEL MILL FEASIBILITY STUDY

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

Minister of Economic Development. Order-in-council 3311 of

October 17, I think, was one of the matters arising out of that

trip: an

[ Page 4483 ]

agreement with the NKK company to conduct a steel mill

feasibility study.

Now, I want to know from the Minister — if the sunshine

demonstrated by the Attorney-General is catching — if the

Minister will undertake to make that report public when it's

received?

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Feasibility report?

Mr. Gibson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Oh!

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, the timing of the

feasibility study is within a period of about a year. It will

cover a great deal of material. I'd prefer to make a judgment

together with cabinet colleagues at the time when the

information is tabled with the cabinet.

Mr. Gibson: Public information.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: There may be information there of a

confidential nature that we have to keep confidential to

protect private industry as well as others. I'm sure the Hon.

Member who asked the question appreciates that motivation as

being good order and good movement. (Laughter.)

INCREASE OF RCMP

IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Could I ask the

Attorney-General in the light of severe concern, particularly

in the Fraser Valley, about the breakdown of law and order, and

recent statistics which show that B.C. Is the most under

policed province in Canada — Vancouver has 19 officers per

1,000 reported Criminal Code offences — have any negotiations

been taking place with Ottawa in response to the comment of

police commission chairman Hogarth that we require 300 more

RCMP officers?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: The answer is yes. The last

conference was face-to-face with the Hon. Warren Allmand in

Quebec City about three weeks ago — I'm not sure of the exact

time — when we presented verbally what we had presented in

writing. We are now in the course of renegotiating with Ottawa

as of April 1, 1976, the RCMP contracts.

There's a suggestion from Ottawa that they should cut back on the financial

formula at about 10 percentage points in the three levels. This is a most unfortunate

trend on the part of the federal government and we are actively not accepting

that position. We are bargaining for better police support from the federal

government in terms of these people who are at the front end.

Mr. Wallace: Could I ask the Attorney-General, then:

have we specifically asked for 300? If so, what will those 300

cost to the province?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, no, I can't

say that we've asked for 300 particularly. If you want me to

take that as notice in terms of a detailed request, I'll be

glad to look it up.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH EGG PRODUCERS

FOR INCLUSION IN INCOME ASSISTANCE

PLAN

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

Agriculture or any member of his staff or the staff of the

Department of Agriculture discussed with representatives of the

B.C. Egg Marketing Board or any other egg producers'

association or organization accelerating the process by which

table egg producers can be included in the farm income

assistance programme?

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister Of Agriculture): Sorry,

Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand the question. Discussed

accelerating the process?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's right.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: We have discussed with a committee

set up by the egg producers the possibility of them being

included in the farm income assurance programme. We are

discussing it with other groups as well. I'm not sure what he

means by….

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, perhaps I could repeat the

question. Has the Minister or any member of his staff or any

member of the staff of the Department of Agriculture discussed

with any of the associations involved processes whereby table

egg producers can be included in the farm income assistance

programme and whereby they can speed up the process whereby

they become incorporated under such a programme?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not a case

of speeding up or slowing down the process. First, an

application comes from the representatives of a commodity group

who would like to do this. Having reached that decision they

then come to my department to discuss it. They prepare figures;

my department prepares figures.

There have been several meetings with the egg producers over

the period of about a month now since they first made their

decision that they would

[ Page 4484 ]

like to discuss with my department inclusion in the income

assurance plan. These discussions are still going on.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: In the light of the Minister's

statement with respect to the question, was the subject of the

issue of testimony by the Minister or the Premier with respect

to the case between the Egg Marketing Board and Sy Kovachich

raised during these discussions?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Matters that are sub

judice are not to be discussed in question period either.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask you

whether testimony of the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture is sub judice?

Mr. Speaker: The question of evidence that may or may

not be in a case is certainly one that should not be commented

on or asked about in this assembly. And there are ample

authorities for that statement. I'll be glad to provide them to

the Hon. Members.

POTENTIAL VOTERS LIST

LEGISLATION

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): My question is

addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In view of the

large number of people who have been left off the municipal

voters list, is the Minister planning to bring forward

legislation at this session to assist those people to vote in

the forthcoming municipal election?

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister Of Municipal Affairs): I

intend to present to the Legislature a bill which would allow

those people in rural areas and regional districts to vote,

whether or not they're on the voters list, due to the fact that

many have been left off basically due to the fact that very

little or no enumeration took place in regional districts.

Mr. Morrison: I noticed he added the word "rural." Is

there any possibility that he'll consider other areas — that

is, city areas — as well where there are large errors?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: That has been considered. But, of

course, the municipalities throughout the province took

door-to-door enumeration and I expect that there would be very

few left off.

Mr. Morrison: Could I just add that there are large

numbers in the city? There are a lot of errors and….

Mr. Speaker: That's a matter of information rather

than a question.

HARRISON DEPARTMENT

OF LABOUR CONFERENCE

Mr. Chabot: To the Minister of Labour. Would the

Minister state how many employees of the Department of Labour

attended the recent Harrison meeting and what the object of the

meeting was?

Hon. W.S. King (Minister Of Labour): I didn't conduct

a headcount, Mr. Speaker, but I'd say in the neighbourhood of

250 staff members.

Mr. Chabot: In particular, can the Minister say why

Harrison was picked instead of a more adjacent area to the main

employment of his department, namely Vancouver or Victoria?

What's the approximate cost to the taxpayers of British

Columbia of this conference and its object?

Hon. Mr. King: Well, I can appreciate that the Member

for Columbia River would be very familiar with the cost

involved at Harrison Hot Springs….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. King: It's a fairly central location in

terms of those people who have to come from the northern part

of the province. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, the staff members of the

Department of Labour do appreciate the opportunity to get

together once a year and exchange ideas on providing the public

with a better service. That's an opportunity which they never

had under the previous administration, and the morale of the

department is very, very good.

Mr. Chabot: Could you give me an estimate of the

cost?

Mr. Speaker: That's the third question. One, two,

three.

Mr. Chabot: No, no. It's just an unanswered

supplementary: an estimate of the cost of holding this

get-together to boost their morale.

Mr. Speaker: Have you any suggestions in that

field?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I think the

[ Page 4485 ]

Member has been in the House long enough to know that he can

find not an estimate but the precise cost under public accounts

at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chabot: Two years.

HIRING OF ATTENDANTS

FOR THE HOUSE

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): My question is

directed to you, Mr. Speaker, but I realize that I would be

ruled out of order by both Beauchesne and May .

So, with your kind permission, I'd like to direct it

through you to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) since

the funds that go to this particular question come under vote

I have noticed that a number of new people have been hired

as attendants in the House. I'm kind of curious that they have

turned out to be male people always. I wonder if there's any

particular reason why females are never hired to be attendants

in this House. Maybe the Provincial Secretary, through you, or

you through the Provincial Secretary, could get an answer to

this for me.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): I'll take it as

notice and discuss it in the chambers of the Speaker.

(Laughter.)

PAYMENT OF INSURANCE CLAIMS

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to

the Hon. Attorney-General, who has the responsibility under the

provisions of the Motor-vehicle Act for the claims of the

victims of hit-and-run accidents. There are no end of people in

the province who have been orphaned from recovery of judgments

or such claims by virtue of your government's insurance

legislation. I want to ask the Attorney-General if he will give

this House his absolute assurance that such judgments and such

claims will be paid.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: I will take the question as

notice.

Mr. Gardom: Would the Hon. Attorney-General also take

as notice the same category of people who are involved in

accidents as the result of non-insured motorists? There could

be upwards of $5 million worth of claims that have been

unattended to in the province.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: In answer to the supplementary

question, after I said I would take the first as notice, I

would say that I'll take the second as notice also.

Orders of the day

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): I move the

House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Adjourned debate on second reading

of Bill 165.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

(continued)

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, last night

when I closed this debate I was beginning to get into the

origin of the particular piece of legislation, namely Bill 165,

and I'd like, with your indulgence, to carry on along this

line.

To do so, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to go back to

previous debate in this Legislature earlier this year which

involved both the Egg Board and the Broiler Board. At that time

it was fairly clear from what was said by government Ministers

that there was a need to curb or control the essentially

unfettered power of marketing boards.

The Premier, in a famous statement back on page 509 of this

year's Hansard , referring to events that took place in

1972, talked about the need to call people together and tell

them that they were acting like children and the need there was

to straighten out delinquents, I guess — "children in the

marketing boards" would be essentially what he said. The

Premier mentioned that. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) on page 558 of the Hansard I have here made a

similar statement where he said…. This was on February

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister of Economic

Development on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is

entering into an area that is well known to be the subject

matter of a case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

It is my contention that although the statements were made in

this House and are part of Hansard , they cannot now,

because of the action being commenced in the Supreme Court, be

referred to in this House until that action is disposed of by

the supreme court mentioned.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order

raised, I find it curious that a quotation from the Minister of

Agriculture on February 26 of this year cannot be read again

and the Members reminded of it. I find that the contention of

the Hon. Minister,

[ Page 4486 ]

while no doubt held by him in good faith, is obviously

erroneous, when a court case, launched by people who are not

under the direction of this House, can prevent us from

discussing legislation brought in by the government.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the rule is that the

legislation must relate specifically to the matters that are

being adjudicated in the court. To give you an example of that,

let us suppose that as a result of some court case that is

pending an effort is made by a government to alter the law, and

would thereby dispense with the need of the law suit or the

proceedings in the court. In such a case the authorities hold

that discussion that is essential to the change in the law is

therefore in order and is not sub judice for that reason. But

we are here discussing matters about natural product marketing,

which is quite a different matter than discussing the actual

allegations that are in a statement of claim related to a law

suit with an egg marketer and a board. May I cite the cases so

that we know where we are at on that?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, before you go that

far, I think that nothing I have said so far refers to a case

before the courts. I referred only to a statement of the

Premier of the province in February of this year and a

statement of the Minister of Agriculture in February of this

year, long before that case was before the courts, long before

this legislation hit the floor of this House.

Now you can certainly go in anticipation of whatever else

might be said today, but for you to give a judgment on the

strength of a statement made by the Minister of Economic

Development would be impossible.

Mr. Speaker: Are you suggesting that the allegations

in the statement of claim in the case before the court have

nothing to do with the remarks that you are now giving?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I made no reference

to the statement of claim.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of whether you make

reference. It is a question that should be answered directly

and positively. Are you relating what you are saying to the

evidence that may or may not be presented to a court, but

certainly may be in the pleadings in that particular case?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that what I am doing

is referring and quoting specific statements of Ministers of the Crown in February

of this year. Now I can be adjudged guilty, apparently, of whatever might be

in my mind at some future date, if we follow the logic of the Minister of Economic

Development. But as for my speech so far, which I think was so unfortunately

and stupidly interrupted, we are dealing with statements made by the Minister

of Agriculture and the Premier of the province.

If I could just repeat what I have said so far, the Premier

and the Minister of Agriculture referred to the need for some

control over marketing boards, precisely the legislation that

is being brought in, apparently. I thought so, in any event.

I'm quoting them along this line. If I cannot continue,

obviously this legislation should be lifted from the order

paper, because all I have done is tried to give the background

of the legislation, and I've made no reference whatsoever, as

yet, to any legal case which might or might not be before the

court.

Mr. Speaker: I think the rule is that where what you

are referring to may have taken place before a court case had

proceeded, it does not at this stage after a court case has

been commenced, permit you to use that, in effect, as a vehicle

for discussing the opinions of people who were concerned in

certain matters which are now before the court.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The legislation is before the

House, and all I have quoted are two statements by two

Ministers referring to the need for some sort of control of

marketing boards.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then, if you direct your mind to

that and not to the question of canvassing and re-canvassing

evidence which may or may not be before a court, but certainly

is involved in allegations, then that may be all right. Let's

find out.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I don't

know what might come up in the course of the debate, but I do

know that to date all I have done in this few minutes I've had

is to refer to a statement by the Premier of the Province of

British Columbia where he, and I'm quoting him loosely, said

that he called the people together and told them they were

acting like children. There were further discussions about the

fact he'd been a marriage counselor. He didn't like doing this

job again and felt he shouldn't enter into this.

The second Minister I wish to quote — and I think I've got

every right to quote him — is the Minister of Agriculture, who

introduced this piece of legislation, who said, if I can go

back to where I was interrupted, on page 558 of

Hansard:

The question of supervising marketing boards: I think more

and more there is some justification for something along those

lines — not necessarily that I believe that the marketing

boards perhaps always require that supervision, but I think

it's time we

[ Page 4487 ]

convinced the community as a whole that the marketing boards

can stand that kind of supervision and that kind of examination….

It is a statement which comes down on both sides of the

fence, but indicates that at that time he had in his mind some

need or some possible need in the future to have some sort of

control or curb over marketing boards. How the ingenious legal

mind of the Minister of Economic Development can turn that

around to a law suit, which goes back into court on the 20th of

this month, beats me. I don't know why he is spending so much

time on it. I don't know why he interrupted my hon. friend for

Vancouver–Point Grey last night. He's showing enormous

sensitivity on the issue, because as yet the only Ministers I

have quoted are those two, and I'm quoting them long before

that law suit was launched.

If he will think back a bit himself, he will remember

another statement of the Premier, which was that there will be

no law suit against Sy Kovachich. Now it is taking place, but….

Hon. Mr. Lauk: I'm showing sensitivity to the rules

of this House. The Member for Victoria is showing contempt for

the rules of this House.

What I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the subject matter of

the discussion of the Premier, as related in the remarks the

Member has just made, is the subject matter of a court case

which is going to be a public court case. But that is the arena

which society has chosen that that should be discussed in, not

here to the prejudice of that other forum.

The second point that I wish to make, if the Member will

allow me a moment, is that his references to the general

comments of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to

marketing boards is not sub judice and I wasn't objecting to

that portion.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it's well taken to say

this, that the matter that deals with evidence should not

really be canvassed on the basis of examining it, in effect,

before the House when the matter is obviously, from the

allegations and statements, going to be canvassed in a court.

Therefore, you're moving into an area where I think that you

are probably infringing on the duties of the court.

I quote for you, if you like, the decision of Mr. Speaker

Lemieux in Beauchesne , the third edition, pages 767-791.

Among other things, the Speaker said:

"The rule is that when a matter is under adjudication

by a court of law, whether it affects an individual or a

collectivity of individuals, whether it affects one man or a province, it

cannot be brought before the House by motion or otherwise."

And

"otherwise" — that includes debate.

Then it goes on in Beauchesne's rule, page 234, in the first edition:

"Besides the prohibitions contained in this rule it has been

sanctioned by usage both in England and Canada that a Member,

while speaking, must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending."

It seems to me that you're quite in order to discuss the

state of mind of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

as to any changes he may have had in his approach to

legislation. In that field it certainly is not objectionable,

if that's what you're doing. In that sphere I can see no

objection.

But if what you're trying to do is to canvass the evidence

and the allegations that have been made on various occasions

before a court case started, and use the shield or defence that

it's quite all right to talk about things that happened before

a court case that are in Hansard , the fact that you're

now discussing matters that are the subject matter of a law

proceeding would bring it within this rule, as I view it.

Mr. Speaker, you may well be right if the Premier Mr. D.A. Anderson: and the

Minister of Agriculture were indeed before the courts, Perhaps you may be right,

and they should be. I don't know. But they're not. They're not there. We have

built a legal argument, if I could use that term, on the basis of statements

by a Minister, which is totally conjecture on his part.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's a

disgrace. Interference.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm trying, simply, to give you

the background of the legislation that we have before us. Now,

if you are correct, and we in this House cannot discuss a bill

or quote any previous record of discussions regarding marketing

boards because of the possibility of affecting the outcome of a

lawsuit, clearly this legislation should be lifted from the

order book and taken off the floor.

The question is simple. If your ruling is correct and if the

statements of the Hon. Minister are correct, there is no

possible way that we can continue discussing this issue.

On the point, Mr. Speaker — which I do believe was obiter

dicta — you raised about what is and what is not sub judice,

you're perfectly correct in saying that when there's a motion

or debate on a motion, a parliamentary question should not be

on a subject which is sub judice.

I'd like to refer you to the first report of the select

committee on procedure of the British House, session 62-63,

page 5, paragraphs 10 and 12. It goes on to say in paragraph 12

to say:

"Your committee agrees that the existing practice of

excluding bills from the sub judice

[ Page 4488 ]

rule should continue."

This is a government bill. It obviously, according to all

precedents, is exempted from the sub judice rule — even had I

got on to that subject, which, of course, has been assumed

incorrectly.

Now this was laid down, according to this report of the

British select committee, in a private ruling by Mr. Speaker in

March of 1949 on the grounds that: "Legislation is action

designed to alter the circumstances on which a court has to

decide. It may even remove any foundation for a case in the

courts."

Mr. Speaker: May I intervene to underline precisely

what you've said.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're….

Mr. Speaker: What you said is that where the bill is

directly to alter the case that is before the court then the

House is free to debate that on that proposition.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right.

Mr. Speaker: But that is not the proposition before

this House; it's completely collateral to the purpose of this

bill. I refer you to page 417 of the 18th edition of May

where it says:

"…such matters" — and it's referring to matters that

are awaiting adjudication – "may be referred to

before such date, unless it appears to the Chair that there is

a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the

case."

So it's really a matter the Chair has to rest on its

shoulders, as it were — the responsibility for whether the

matter is sub judice. It's not a question of leaving it just to

the House — the Chair has that duty. I feel that you are

getting dangerously close to a question of sub judice. I would

prefer if you would try to relate your remarks to the purpose

of this bill in second reading rather than relate matters that

may be before a court.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming

curiouser and curiouser. Having referred only to two statements

by two Ministers back in February, I'm now getting ruled out in

anticipation of what I might say in the future.

But back to the point of order that you raised, which I

think is a very good one. As you say, precisely, we are

together on this. Page 416 of May,

chapter 19 — Matters

Pending Judicial Decision:

"Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should

not be brought forward in debate (except by means of a bill;

see page 362)."

Well, that's precisely what we're doing in this case; we've

brought a bill forward.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think you fail to see the

distinction that matters that are being brought forward in a

bill are ones that relate to the changing of the law that is

before the court. That's what the committee meant.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of

sub judice is based on the fact that the discussion might

prejudice the trial; it might prejudice the rights of any

individual, of any citizen. The courts are set up totally

independent of both the Legislature and the executive, and

that's why we have the sub judice rule.

To accept your argument, if we proceed as we have been doing

and continue to discuss, for instance, the appeal provisions in

Bill 165, appeal provisions whereby the Kovachich case could

well be taken out of the courts on appeal and sent to cabinet,

it certainly could….

Mr. Speaker: I must differ with the Hon. Member, with

respect. The matter of an appeal provision in here would have

nothing to do with the issues that are before the court

relating to a settlement that was alleged to have taken place.

You have referred to that settlement and you have made certain

quotations about that settlement, so it would be useless,

really, to say that you're not, in effect, drawing the case

before this House, because, in effect, that's just what you're

doing.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, taking the

hypothetical case of a judge trying to decide on the Kovachich

case, knowing that a week before the Legislature of British

Columbia had taken a decision with respect to marketing boards,

with respect to appeals — would he then proceed? Would this not

influence his judgment? Would it not influence the judgment of

the court if we make a decision immediately before?

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): It might be a

claim under the old legislation.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It might well be a claim under the

old legislation, but the Attorney-General once more has missed

the point. The rule on sub judice is to prevent prejudice.

Prejudice would occur if the House continued to deal with the

bill which alters the whole basis on which that case rests.

Mr. Speaker: I don't, with respect, see that that is

so. Therefore, I feel that this caveat to ask the Members to

stay away from discussing parts of the case would be

well-advised in all the circumstances.

[ Page 4489 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I've not referred to

pleadings at all in my speech. I just do not understand where

you — and the Hon. Minister have gone off on a tangent on this

case when the substantive part of my speech has dealt entirely

with the two statements by Ministers dealing in very general

terms with the need for field provisions, and the need to have

some controlling hand over marketing boards.

If they plan to be cut off, as I have been, from even

quoting Ministers — dealing with the genesis of this

legislation — I find it very difficult to continue.

Mr. Speaker: Surely the Hon. Member must recognize

that it's not within the administrative setup — what he, is

discussing is not within the administrative setup of the

marketing scheme or marketing board. Therefore any relationship

to the proposals of change here have nothing to do with what

the law was previously, but it does have a great deal to do

with an alleged settlement that is referred to in

pleadings.

It's up to every Member to be alert to the fact that they

are discussing a matter that's before the courts, because it is

a matter of court record that settlement is the subject matter

of this suit between the Egg Marketing Board and the individual

who is involved. He has indicated in that suit some

relationship to the various matters that the Hon. Member wishes

to advert to.

I'm asking him if he is intending to proceed on this line.

Do you intend to proceed in a full discussion of a settlement

or discussions toward a settlement between the parties that are

referred to in the allegations?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, do we require a

written outline of the speech which is yet to come? I don't

understand about "proceed along this line. Do you intend…?” So far I've referred only to two statements — one made

by the Minister of Agriculture and one by the Premier. Now what

happens…?

Mr. Speaker: Both of which are involved in the court

as you know, and know too well. You, indeed, have quoted the

date of the case, the particulars and the documents

yourself.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm forced to because of the

unfortunate interruption….

Mr. Speaker: So the matter is not unknown to you.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course it isn't, nor is it

unknown to anybody else in the House. But how can I possibly stick with my speech if I'm interrupted by the

Minister, who constantly refers to a court case? I try to refer

to the bill; he refers to the court case.

I find myself criticized by the Chair because I refer to the

bill, and the genesis of the bill. Where do you want me to

start? You now ask what do I intend to do in the future. Well,

I intend in the future, I trust, to continue with my statement

about the origins of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think the Hon. Member would be

actually involved in the origins of this legislation so much as

he would be in the origins of a law suit. I think, frankly,

that what he is doing is under one object, pursuing another

object; under the statement of one object, pursuing another

object. I must ask him to desist.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of

order, there certainly doesn't seem to be any intention

whatsoever on the part of the Hon. Member for Victoria to

comment upon the liability or non-liability, or fault or

non-fault, as the case may be, of parties who are before the

court. He's merely wishing to reiterate and to bring to the

attention of this Legislature matters that have occasioned in

this Legislature. You can't suggest to me for one moment, Mr.

Speaker, that matters that have occasioned in this Legislature

fall under the sub judice rule and are completely closed out of

debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention, with every

respect, a couple of quotations. "Sub judice we find defined by

Webster as "being before a court or a judge, under judicial

consideration and not yet decided." We don't yet have before

this Legislature the pleadings; we do not have before this

Legislature, or before yourself, any information as to what

stage the pleadings are at. Nor do we have before this

Legislature any information whatsoever as to what the issues

between the parties are. We don't know that.

Mr. Speaker: It's not quite the same as….

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker if I may make my point.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Gardom: Thank you. May, page 328, I believe it's

the most current edition, says:

"By a resolution of the House matters awaiting or under

adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial, and

matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civil

court may not be referred to in any debate or question."

[ Page 4490 ]

Well, we don't have before the House any information that

this case is set down for trial. There's no indication, Mr.

Speaker, with every respect, before the House that the matter

in question, this law suit, deals with the statements that the

Hon. Member is attempting to draw to the attention of this

Legislature.

There's not a scrap of evidence before this House that this

matter has been set down for trial before a civil court, or any

other court for that matter.

I would humbly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that for the sub

judice concept to come into play, it can only come into play

when matters are set for hearing or for adjudication.

At this point the House does not have any knowledge or

evidence before it of the stage of which this alleged action is

at — whether it's been withdrawn, whether it's been settled,

whether it's been discontinued or what-have-you. If one would

follow the argument of the Hon. Minister across the way, the

mere issuance of a writ, however facetious, would totally

stifle debate in the Province of British Columbia. And we don't

believe that's right for one moment.

May continues and says at page 417:

"The ban" — referring to sub judice preventing debate — "further applies to matters awaiting or under adjudication in a

civil court from the time that the case has been set down for

trial" — again I emphasize those words — "or otherwise brought

before the court, as for example by notice of motion for an

injunction; such matters may be referred to…to" before a

court case.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have here a situation of a Member

attempting to bring to the attention of this Legislature some

matters which it has considered before. And the mere issuance

of some proceedings cannot, for goodness sake, fall into the

category of there being any real or substantial danger of

prejudice to the trial of this case.

That has not been suggested by you, Mr. Speaker, and if you

happen to have that specific information, or the Hon. Minister

does, each of you have the obvious duty to inform the House of

it. But I am unaware of it, and I am sure that every other

Member in the House is equally unaware of it.

I don't think that it is possible for the Hon. Minister to

indicate to the House — or if it is, I do hope that he will

stand as soon as I have sat down and inform us if there is any

real or substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of this

case, which is certainly not the intention of my friend from

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) or from myself while I am trying

to make this point.

We don't have a scrap of evidence before the House of this

matter being set for trial or awaiting adjudication. We have

not had any evidence from the Chair or from the Hon. Minister that there is any real or

any substantial danger of prejudice.

Mr. Speaker, this sub judice rule is a valid rule, make no

mistake of that, but it should not be subject to invalid

interpretation. It is invalid

interpretation that we have

received across the floor this afternoon.

Why don't we have filed in the House copies of the courts

documents, if the Hon. Minister intends to rely upon them?

Where are they?

Mr. Speaker, with every respect, submitted that the attitude

that is taken by the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, no doubt

inadvertently, is incorrect and the net effect would be to

stifle debate. And that's not right.

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

we are faced with a decision that has been made in this House

long ago, and has been repeated, which made it clear that it

didn't really mean that the case had to be set for trial.

Whether it's a decision of Mr. Speaker Irwin on this

question in the matter of debating a statutory declaration on

December 17, 1955…the matter was raised in the House, and

it was clear that we have adopted a course here that I think is

binding on me to exercise the greatest care in allowing debate

on matters that are pending, whether or not they have been

actually set for trial or not, because in this province, as you

know, proceedings go on into discovery between witnesses; there

is evidence submitted long in advance of trial, and various

steps are taken before the trial date is announced.

Regardless of that, may I quote from the decision of Mr.

Speaker Irwin to say….he quotes from another learned

Speaker:

"It is not for the Speaker to microscopically sift relevant

from the irrelevant evidence, but to liberally apply the sub

judice rule in such a way as to prevent the mischief which that

rule was intended to obviate."

It seems to me that we are going to get into that mischief

very quickly if we are going to canvass matters that are

clearly alleged in the pleading. The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has clearly linked them to the

matters that are alleged, by his own statements, in regard to

meetings that were held. He hasn't related it to the bill

before the House; he has related it to a matter that may

involve a meeting between these parties that are before the

court, and persons who are witnesses that may be called, by

virtue of the fact the settlement is alleged to have taken

place where the pleadings say it had taken place.

So I cannot see that the Speaker can do anything but apply

that rule liberally to prevent any mischief. Whether or not the

Hon. Member is intending to pursue this course much further…. That's why I asked him which way he was going on this

matter, so

[ Page 4491 ]

I can see whether the curtain should come down on this

particular debate so far as it relates to a settlement that

alleged in pleadings.

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

with great respect, sir, that there is another kind of mischief

which I have seen repeatedly indulged in in the House. That

mischief is to misuse the

interpretation of sub judice to

prevent legitimate debate. This question obviously has bothered

other Houses as well.

We've had raised as a point of order this afternoon the

decision of the select committee on procedure in the House of

Commons in Britain, which was taken subsequent to Mr. Irwin's

decision, which I submit to you is grossly in error and should

be disregarded at this time in favour of what quite clearly was

a carefully considered course of action by the select committee

on procedure of the House of Commons in Britain.

May I refer you, sir, to recommendation No. 12 of that

committee. I hope that the Minister of defence, or whatever he

is, over there will pay close attention to what that says.

"The committee agreed that the existing practice of

excluding bills" — we're discussing a bill — "from the sub

judice rule should continue."

Now Mr. Irwin's decision which you quoted this afternoon was

not only prior to the deliberations of this committee, but it

did not in any way refer to a bill that was before the House.

The grounds quite clearly laid out in this recommendation, that

legislation is action designed to alter the circumstances on

which a court has to decide, and may even remove any foundation

for a case in the courts. I am not….

Mr. Speaker: That is not this case. I have pointed

this out several times. The court in no way would be bound by

what is in this legislation before the House.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, may I proceed to read you

from this bill, because we're discussing a bill which has in it….

Section 3(4) which says: "The Provincial board had general

supervision over all marketing boards for commissions…."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that court case involves the Egg Marketing

Board. This legislation which we're debating today would have

jurisdiction over that Egg Marketing Board in the very same

sense that the court now has jurisdiction over it. Indeed, the

Kovachich case would have been referred to this marketing

board, had it been in existence at the time this matter was

originally debated in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member help me then by advising me what

section of the legislation before us, as proposed, deals with retrospective

action? I cannot see it — that anything would be retrospective, unless it's

clearly spelled out, that would allow them to go back, as it were, into matters

that occurred before the bill. Where's the section?

Mr. McGeer: Well, there are several areas, but I

refer you right to this very same section: "…and shall perform

such other duties and functions and exercise such authority as

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe."

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

he should know from his many years in the House, that any

legislation that would affect existing rights or existing

disputes, indeed, between parties in the courts of law would

have to be clearly spelled out to take away those rights

specifically. I think he knows that.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker,

section 24 says that

Chapter

263 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960 is

repealed. Again, Mr. Speaker, we don't know to what extent the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may interpret the Act that we

pass in such a way as to give it retroactive effect.

Many times we, in passing legislation in this House, have

said that one thing might be done by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, only to find days or even weeks

later that that meaning is completely altered by the

interpretation the cabinet wishes to place on it.

I for one would not maintain for a minute in front of any

body that this particular in-council government would fail in

every respect to give retroactive effect to this

legislation.

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

knows quite well that you cannot give retroactive effect

without spelling it out in the legislation, and particularly if

you're delegating it to another body which in this case would

be the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is really impossible

for that to be done, as I would….

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I could go ahead and read

you the pleadings in that particular case, but the Minister

took offence to that last night. But it does happen to involve

an agreement that he made in that hotel room to continue, as of

now and into the future, to make payments to the Egg Marketing

Board. So the matters that are being considered are not matters

that are completely over at this time; they are matters….

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Member has

[ Page 4492 ]

confirmed in more explicit language what I was afraid would

happen if this mischief would continue of debating a matter

which is before a court.

Mr. McGeer: There is the mischief leaving now, and I

think we can get on with the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to proceed in the debate, but

leaving aside, if he wishes to speak again, any question that

would involve the matters that the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has adverted to.

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

Speaker, on the same point of order, could I…?

Mr. Speaker: Generally speaking, Speakers have not

asked for submissions on these matters or arguments, but I like

to do that so that I may get any help I can from the Members.

But it is going on and on, and I really think we are going too

far.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on a point of

order, because the principle you have inpointed is whether or

not the bill specifically bears on the particular case, and if

it does, the precedents you cited make it possible and, indeed,

almost obligatory to discuss that insofar as it relates to

legislation.

Now, you asked for a particular

section which would do that

kind of thing. I would suggest to you that

section 24(

a) proposes that:

"Notwithstanding subsection (1)" — which was the repeal of

the old legislation — "an order, rule or regulation made by a

Provincial board or marketing board under that Act remains full

force and effect until repealed, rescinded, or varied by a

Provincial board or a marketing board under this Act."

Mr. Speaker, that is a positive proposition. Where there is

a positive proposition it is equally possible within the four

corners of the bill to have a negative proposition. In other

words, that the orders, rules or regulations cease to have

effect. That amendment could properly be moved within the

subject matter of this bill. When that happens that would very

obviously, it seems to me at least — and I seek your guidance

on this — directly affect the case before the court.

Mr. Speaker: You can't, if I may say so, debate,

really, in principle matters that are not included in the bill.

You can debate the things that are in the bill, and whether you

oppose or support them. But you can't very well import into the

debate matters which the bill exclusively leaves out.

Mr. Gibson: But what is in the bill here, Mr.

Speaker, I'm suggesting is that the provisions of that Act

remain in force until rescinded, so it is also possible to

debate and discuss the proposition that the orders, rules, or

agreements, or whatever it is, which those previous boards made

are no longer in force. And that bears directly on the

Kovachich case.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the Kovachich case is one

where no matter what we see in our legislation that is before

us here, that we are examining, there is nothing in there which

would make retroactive the actions of any board that would be

created by this legislation, and you can't import it into it by

a negative means.

May I just quote further from the decision of Mr. Speaker

Irwin on Friday, January 20, 1956, page 10 of the Journals :

"There is nothing mysterious about the words sub judice and

a matter is sub judice when that matter is pending before a

tribunal having judicial powers. The reason for the rule that

matters sub judice may not be referred to in debate or upon a

motion is twofold. In the first place it might be inferred that

a breach of this rule would be not only a grave discourtesy to

the court, but also might be considered an improper usurpation

of the powers of the court, or an attempt to influence the

court, an attempt of the Legislature to influence that very

distinct and parallel part of government, namely the judiciary.

In the second place, it might prejudice that sacred right of

Her Majesty's subjects to a fair trial before the proper

tribunal."

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No, there again the rule is, as I have

already indicated, that a bill that strikes at the heart of a

proceeding in the court, in other words that would nullify a

proceeding in the court, is one where you are allowed to debate

it, but that is not this case. This is only collateral, and

therefore it in no way affects the case before the court; it is

not retroactive legislation that we are examining. Therefore it

follows from that that you should not discuss matters that are

in the pleadings because it might prejudice a fair trial and it

would be canvassing matters that a court is presently seized

with.

I would ask therefore that we continue with this debate

because we have taken a lot of time on this. I think we have

canvassed everything that can be canvassed. I would ask the

Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), please, to

proceed on his address.

Mr. Gibson: (Mike not on)…case before the

[ Page 4493 ]

court. Is it simply an agreement between the Egg Board and

Mr. Kovachich for the payment of certain moneys?

Mr. Speaker: Well, it goes beyond that to a question

of a settlement, and the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) pointed that out in his remarks, because he

has obviously read the statement of claim.

Mr. Gibson: Could you define for us, though, the

boundaries?

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member for Victoria

please proceed on his debate?

Mr. Gardom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we

to assume that as a result of these remarks of yourself this

afternoon that we are to be guided to the extent that the

issuance of proceedings in the Province of British Columbia

usurps the opportunity to debate? Because there is nothing

before this Legislature from you, Mr. Speaker, that this case

is being set for trial; we don't have from you, Mr. Speaker,

even copies of the pleadings. They are not before the

House.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member is going back to….

Mr. Gardom: With all respect, you are speculating,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You are going back to decisions in

England under May's Parliamentary Practice. As you know,

we also have the decisions of previous Speakers in this House,

and therefore we have to abide by them as our first course. If

our rules here or decisions here are silent, then, of course,

we can resort, under standing order 1, to May's

Parliamentary Practice for some guidance. But I'm

unfortunately in the position of not being able to speculate on

this as you would like me to do because we have a clear-cut

example here where the initiation is not enough. The initiation

of the court proceedings can be enough to stifle any canvassing

of the evidence that is before a court. It really is a matter

of practicality. If the Hon. Member had some evidence to

present to the House that this was a spurious proceeding, and

he's charging the parties with using this as a shield to

prevent debate, then certainly that should be laid before this

House.

Mr. Gardom: That is certainly not what I am alleging.

But the onus is on you, Mr. Speaker, to produce to the House

copies of the documents.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think that is true.

Mr. Gardom: Well, if you are going to make a ruling

of sub judice, we've got to know if there's been an action

started.

Mr. Speaker: It's been referred to by enough Members

now that I think it is pretty obvious what the allegations

are.

Mr. Gardom: But, Mr. Speaker, we had the same thing

happen in the spring of this year when a writ was issued with

absolute nullity, and, in essence, a ruling was made by

committee that we were not permitted to debate that matter in

the House. This dealt with some sort of a libel suit against a

radio station.

It ended up that the writ in itself was a nullity.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: The writ in itself was a nullity when it

was issued, my friend. You've probably seen it; you know

that.

Mr. Speaker, are you making a ruling today that the issuance

of proceedings in the Province of British Columbia prevents a

person debating anything relating to that matter in this

House?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I'm trying to deal with the matter of

evidence that undoubtedly, if this case proceeds, will be dealt

with one way or another by a court. I do not feel that any of

us are competent to canvass that evidence because we don't have

the witnesses here. We are not involved in a court case so far

as judgments are concerned; that's for the court. We should

proceed on parallel lines with the judiciary instead of

crossing their path. For that reason, I ask the Hon. Member to

try to avoid that course.

Mr. Gardom: But, Mr. Speaker, with every respect, you

are essentially making that judgment decision. You are saying

that the matters which are before the court, not knowing what

they are, are preventing this Member from making his speech

this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Well, if the Hon. Member wants me to

take the time to make a complete perusal to the allegations and

the claims and all the documents involved in the court, I could

do so. But, in the meantime, I would hesitate to say, "Go

ahead." I would hesitate indeed in the circumstances.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the argument that

we've had for the last 40 minutes illustrates that the bill

itself cannot be discussed in this Legislature, if we cannot

discuss the origins of it,

[ Page 4494 ]

without in some way influencing the courts. After all, if

this House makes a decision one way or another on the

provisions of this bill prior to a court case, if this alters

and wipes out the previous law and indicates that the people of

British Columbia through their elected government wish to adopt

another course, undoubtedly the court case will be influenced.

There's no way we can avoid that dilemma.

The strength of your argument for the last 40 minutes has

been that if you can't even discuss the origins of the bill

without possibly getting involved in the court case itself,

therefore there's no way we could possibly vote on the bill

without getting involved in affecting the outcome of the

lawsuit itself. If the judges are to discover that, whatever

might be the law at the moment, but the time they issue their

decision the Legislature has totally changed the law, this

undoubtedly would affect a judicial decision.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Of course it would. The

Attorney-General has spoken up and said, "Of course it would

not," and that is ridiculous. In other words, if a vote

will not affect the decision of the judge, how can discussion

of the origin of the bill affect the decision of the judge? To

that question, he's silent of course. If the argument of the

Hon. Minister and the Attorney-General is correct, of course we

can't vote on this bill. If discussion will influence a judge

but a vote determining the opinions of all the Members of this

House will not affect the judge, we're embarking upon….

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Member knows by now

that there's no retroactive effect to the legislation that's

before the House. Therefore, it couldn't possibly as I see it

at the moment, have any bearing on a court case.

But by discussing the evidence of a court case, he is

bringing us right into that arena, and I would prefer he

didn't.

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

question? What evidence from the court case have I introduced

today? I've been accused of it by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) made it very clear.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I would question that. But perhaps

the best thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is to go back to square one.

I will start again.

Perhaps the Hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) could either

leave the room or take a tranquilizer. If he hadn't started this whole thing

off, I would still be back where I started off, which is a quote from the Premier

and a quote from the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker: I'll have to see how the time is so we

know where we stand in time. I consider that while the referees

are refereeing, there must be a timeout in this game of hockey

we're playing. I would presume that we start now with your

speech where you left off before the point of order.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Could I ask, Mr. Speaker, why you

are limiting me in time? Under what rule of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I was not limiting you at all in your

discussion of a point of order, which was not really the

subject of your speech.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: With reference to your statement….

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry. In your case, of course,

under our rules, there is no time limit on your speech.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought

you might make a mistake on that as well. There is no limit

because there is no other designated speaker despite the

erroneous

interpretation of the leader of the Social Credit

Party (Mr. Bennett).

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to start again because a great

deal of time has been wasted by the Minister of Economic

Development who brought in these red herrings.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Wasted by the Liberal Party of

B.C.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Trying to get some debate on

public issues, Mr. Attorney-General; you know that. You're

trying to conceal things and you know that as well.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Back to the origins of the

legislation. On page 509 of Hansard of this year, 1974,

in oral questions, in reply to a question from the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland), the Premier replied:

Mr. Speaker, I did not order anyone to be given any quotas

related to broilers. There is dispute in this area, as there is

in the egg-producing area. I met in my office with some MLAs,

the Minister and some staff, and I said: "Gentlemen, please

work out some solution to this problem." Earlier, as I reported

to this House, I

[ Page 4495 ]

said that the Egg Marketing Board were acting like children.

I've long ago given up marital counseling, and I regret that I

attempted it again recently.

That was the statement of the Premier to which I referred in

more general terms earlier on.

In other words, the government back in October of 1972

apparently believed that there was some need to stop Egg

Marketing Board members acting like children.

If I could again repeat the quotation from the Minister of

Agriculture, page 588 of Hansard , February 26, 1974:

HON. MR. STUPICH: …the question of supervising marketing

boards: I think more and more there is some justification for

something along those lines — not necessarily that I believe

that the marketing boards perhaps always require that

supervision, but I think it's time we convinced the community

as a whole that the marketing boards can stand that kind of

supervision and that kind of examination, and give us an

opportunity to prove to the community as a whole that the

marketing boards are doing a job not just for the numbers of

their own organization but for the community as a whole.

So those are two quotations from two Ministers. There is

another Minister I'd like to refer to, namely the Hon. Minister

of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), where she — again on

page 951 of Hansard , March 8 — talks about the need to

have some sort of changes in the marketing boards. I won't read

her whole speech or a lengthy quotation from it, but she

said:

I support the concept of marketing boards, but I want to see

them changed.

She goes on to elaborate on that statement.

So Minister after Minister has made it clear that they

believe in the need to alter the system of marketing boards in

British Columbia.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Garrish in the Garrish report

indicated that there were needs for changes. This report is now

many, many months old, getting on for two years old. The B.C.

Food Council commissioned a report by F. Rex Werts Limited,

marketing consultants, and it was entitled "The British

Columbia Food Industry." That indicated a need for change, or

at least the belief of the authors in the need for change. It

went on:

"Thirdly, in the private sector, the interests of consumers

have often not been adequately represented in the development

of marketing controls. When the various marketing boards were

formed, the main concern was to try to develop a programme for

the individual industry which could direct or control

production and establish product prices which at the same time

promised a better and more stable return for the producers."

Mr. Speaker, I referred last night to the Forbes report, yet another report

indicating the difficulties in the area of marketing boards and the need for

changes.

The reason for all this difficulty stems from the original

Kovachich case. Ignoring the subsidiary aspects of this

question, which were canvassed at length this spring, such as

the truthfulness or otherwise the Ministers, the Kovachich case — the discipline imposed there — was essentially the basic

beginnings of this legislation that we're talking of today.

The Attorney-General in his debate on his estimates in the

spring also referred to the need to go to court to get some

sort of determination. But what we find at the present time,

Mr. Speaker, is legislation brought in dealing with the

question of appeal, dealing with the question of control,

legislation based on Ministerial statements which, in my mind,

have created a situation which goes far beyond the requirements

of the problem.

I should perhaps refer back to the Attorney-General's

statement on page 1211 of Hansard:

The Egg Marketing Board of the Province of British Columbia

intended to have a court case to test their powers under the

B.C. Natural Products Marketing Act.

That's the very Act we repeal, of course, with this

legislation here.

It intended to have a court case as to whether their levies

were legal and should be authorized and should, indeed, be

enforced. And they were told, according to the affidavits, that

"there will be no court case against Sy Kovachich," and

they were told this by none other than the Premier of the

Province of British Columbia. That was a quote from me during

the Attorney-General's debate.

The quote from the Attorney-General I'd like to read….

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Now you're beginning to quote

yourself, not me.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I will quote the

Attorney-General where he said in request to a question about

settlement in accordance with the law:

Well, I don't know. Now, if the egg board lawyer is having

trouble in enforcing levies or fines in the Fraser Valley, the

north, south, the east, I would presume he would seek a court

test — if they chose to go that way. That's the kind of

decision that should be left to the board.

Nobody has approached me. The lawyer advising the egg board

hasn't approached my department and said, "Give us an opinion."

I presume he doesn't need my opinion because I can't say how a

court test would go in any particular situation. That's for the

courts.

[ Page 4496 ]

They are free to take a court test if they want to have

their powers defined and clarified, by all means.

This background, I think, is important because out of it

came a motion on the order paper which effectively prohibited

debate from the third week of April through, indeed, to today — namely

motion 26 referring to the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture the investigation of the operations, management

policies and activities of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, the

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

and the schemes under which they operate. This completely prevented

since April until — about seven months — any discussion in this

Legislature of the problems of

the marketing boards. It was, of course, on the order paper.

Efforts made by Members to look into this matter were, of

course, rebuffed properly because the order paper prevented

discussion. The order paper motion, motion 26, prevented

discussion.

Now we come into the Legislature at this time; a session

called to handle the difficulties of municipal taxation and

which is also called, I understand, to deal with some of the

landlord and tenant problems which have come to light.

We find that this piece of legislation is brought forward.

We further find that, of course, as referred to earlier, a

lawsuit prevents proper examination of the origins of this case

and prevents proper examination of the need for such heavy

government control over the marketing of natural products. The

lawsuit, of course, is the Kovachich versus the egg board — or

I should say the B.C. egg board versus Kovachich.

There were possibilities referred to earlier in the debate

between the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk),

yourself and other Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, which

indicated that it might be that the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) might be called in that

lawsuit.

I asked questions on this earlier today during the question

period and, at that time, I believe again incorrectly, was

ruled out of order. At that time it was stated that this could

not be even examined because of this lawsuit. Why a question to

find out whether an individual might appear as a witness would

be ruled out of order on the grounds that it could be

prejudicial I do not know. But we do know, of course, that

travel will prevent any such testimony in the future.

I asked further questions today, Mr. Speaker dealing with….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I think it's incredible that the Hon. Member would presume

to usurp the role of a judge as to whether or not a witness will be called in

a court case. I think that is strictly with the jurisdiction of a judge. A comment

such as that is offending against the rule in a way that is clearly calculated.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we

face is this. The suppositions are raised by Ministers of the

Crown. You yourself have asked for outlines of speeches to be

made in the future in this House. We are trying to discuss a

specific piece of legislation which is intrinsically linked

with the Kovachich case because, of course, it sprung out of

it.

Mr. Speaker: You are, as I understand it, Hon.

Member, engaged in a discussion of whether or not a witness

will appear in a court case. I don't see quite how that has to

do with the principle of this bill. Therefore, when you say

that you're discussing the principle of the bill, I cannot see

it in what you've said now.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The discussion of the principle of

the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the need to control and to supervise

marketing boards. If we cannot discuss statements by Ministers

of the Crown with reference to this, there seems little point

in continuing discussion on the bill itself because voting on

the bill itself inevitably, as I pointed out before, must lead

to prejudicing the case itself.

Were this legislation to come up subsequent to this and had

there been the opportunity for debate during this period when

debate was barred by a motion put on the order paper for the

purpose of barring debate, perhaps then we could have entered

into this with adequate background. But we have essentially

been prevented from any discussion of marketing board questions

since April of this year due to that motion. The motion remains

on the order paper and, technically, it would be impossible to

bring in a bill on that subject until such a motion was

lifted.

Mr. Speaker: I must differ with the Hon. Member.

Bills always have precedence over any other business in this

House. That is a rule of this House: no motion can stand in the

way of a bill.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's precisely the point, Mr.

Speaker: the motion may not prevent the bill from being

introduced but it has prevented any debate from taking place on

the general question.

Now we arrive at a situation where, at the present time, the

antecedents and origins of the bill cannot be discussed by your

own rulings because of a lawsuit.

Essentially our hands have been tied in a free-ranging

discussion of this bill because of the combined effect of a

motion put on with the purpose of stifling debate and now the

use of the date of a lawsuit to again stifle debate on the

origins of this

[ Page 4497 ]

bill.

I find it impossible to understand how this bill can proceed

when we are faced with this dilemma. I find it impossible to

understand, Mr. Speaker, how you can continue to let this bill

proceed until after such time as the lawsuit itself is

resolved. It has been raised twice in debate by the Hon. Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland). He referred to possible deals.

None of these questions has been answered; they've been ruled

out. I find it at this stage, Mr. Speaker, in light of your

rulings and in light of the approach taken earlier today to

even prevent quotations from Hansard of this year

referring to the origins of this bill being introduced in

debate, simply impossible for us to discuss this bill

intelligently in this House.

I obviously have no choice but to accept your ruling and sit

down on this. But I find it intolerable that this Legislature

should have its freedom of debate deliberately curtailed by the

combined device of motion followed by lawsuit.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): I just have a few things

to say about the bill before us, Bill 165, called the Natural

Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Don't quote Hansard .

Mr. Fraser: Okay. I'll watch that, Mr.

Attorney-General. I'm getting warned here already. I don't want

to get into a wrangle for an hour and a half on a legal hassle

about procedure as the Liberal leader has. I assume that you're

going to let debate continue on this bill.

I want to say, first of all, that I'm not in favour of this

bill because of its status as a superboard, a super marketing

board, over the other 10 marketing boards we have. I can't see

any necessity for that at all.

The Member for Victoria just referred to the motion on the

order paper that commissioned the select standing committee to

look into this. Nothing has happened. Before we got to this

stage in legislation, this committee should have looked into

these marketing boards and had a report back to the House on

their operation.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for 10

appointments by the cabinet to comprise this superboard.

Because of the track record of this government since 1972 in

appointing task forces and boards and so on, probably the most

objectionable thing I see about this Bill 165 is the fact that

the cabinet will appoint 10 "Barrettcrats" I'll call them to be

on this superboard.

I don't know where they can get 10 more. I think every NDP defeated candidate

has their job, I imagine now you're going to start importing them. There are

quite a few that you have to bring in from other places because, you know, the

10 bureaucrats on the superboard are only the start and we'll probably end up

with 200 to 300. After they get going, they will start hiring staff, and down

the road, until we've probably got a couple of hundred of them, and $8 million

or $10 million worth later. Then we'll find what we found out when we traded

the Rentalsman — that when he has anything to decide, he recommends that it

be referred to a further commission. So, you know, this can snowball to no end,

and that's certainly the reason that I oppose it.

I would say that this superboard, and this Bill 165, is

different from the previous legislation inasmuch as it's called

the Natural Products Marketing Act. Where the others referred

to agriculture, this refers to products of the forest, the sea,

the lake, or the river. Therefore, the next thing we're going

to have is a chip commission from the Minister of…Woody

woodpecker over there. He's not in his seat as usual. But I

imagine that will be the next bill, creating a chip commission — probably before the end of this week — and the government

through that commission will then buy and sell all the wood

chips that are manufactured in the forest industry.

The other thing I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) is: who asked for this legislation? It's my

information that very few, if any producers, ask for this

legislation; and I don't know of any consumer group who asked

for it. So, why have we got it here at all? Is the Minister of

Agriculture responding to public requests? If he is, I'd like

to know where those public requests came from.

I do know about one segment that I am advised certainly

didn't ask for this legislation. I refer to the beef cattle

industry in the province. From my riding of Cariboo, we

certainly are interested there because it's probably the

largest area in British Columbia in the production and shipment

of beef cattle to market. I understand from them that they

didn't ask for any beef cattle commission. They were quite

astounded that this is now before us, which obviously

the heavy majority of NDPers will be making law within the next

few days. I see the Minister is making notes and I thank him.

Who asked for this no doubt we'll hear when he winds up the

debate about it, but I want to emphasize that. This bill, of

course, will make it so that a cattle commission can be

instituted. Maybe that vehicle is just there for that purpose,

but I repeat that it is my understanding the beef cattle

industry didn't ask for it.

One thing I wanted to mention, Mr. Speaker — I know you

can't refer to previous debates — but on Monday when the

amendment to the bill was being debated, which I agreed with, I

was not able to be here. But I want to acknowledge the fact

publicly and thank my friend, the Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), for voting in my

place, because that's actually what he did, and I appreciate

that fact. He saw the light for a

[ Page 4498 ]

few minutes on that occasion.

While we can talk about marketing boards and so on, I think

the crux of the thing is whether, from the consumers or the

producers, whatever product we're talking about, what is this

going to do to help the high costs of production or the high

costs of food? I can't see that this bill, in any way, gives

assistance to any group at all. As a matter of fact, with the

big bureaucracy that will be created it will only again be paid

by general revenue, and from all the taxpayers of this

province, so I really cannot see the purpose of it.

On the beef industry itself, I'd like to say a few things,

Mr. Speaker, about it. If the public are not from a beef

producing area, they don't understand. All the consumers seem

to be worried about is what the high price of beef is in the

different stores. But there is a lot more to the story than

that, and I would like to give the beef cattle producers'

version of their problems and relate it to this bill. Inasmuch

as that industry is in serious trouble, like so many others

are, and the real facts of life are that we have an

over-production of beef in the Province of British Columbia — not only in the Province of British Columbia, but in Canada,

the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and

the entire free world — and it appears that it's going to be a

long time before this surplus disappears.

In the interval, we have cattle going to market and being

sold far below production costs. You might be interested to

know that the cattle industry in this province has investigated

costs, and I understand that they've come up that the cost to

produce a calf for market is a $1.10 pound. Of course, you know

that the farmer is getting for that, on an average, about 30

cents so that's just an example of the terrific losses that are

taking place in the beef cattle industry.

What really has happened is that in 1967 the Government of

Canada urged all grain farmers on the Prairies to go into

cattle, and they sure did. They have taken the Government of

Canada's advice and now, as I stated earlier, we've got

terrific overpopulation and consequently a depressed

market.

The next thing….

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Well, I'm just coming to that, Mr.

Minister of — I was going to say Leo the Lip, but I shouldn't

say that — Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). I realize that

you're happy today, Mr. Minister, because this is the first day

after your 40th wedding anniversary and I want to extend to you

and your wife my congratulations, and my sympathies to your

wife who has been able to put up with you for 40 years.

to get rid of the grain said, "Put it into cattle, and in that way you can get

the price out of your grain." They have done that, and overreacted of course.

Throughout the world we have this surplus situation.

I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that I was quite amazed the

other day to hear quite a senior Minister of the Crown — and I

refer to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada (Hon. Mr.

Whelan) — state the fact that the high cost of meat to the

consumer was that the packers were to blame, and the retailers.

This is absolute balderdash. I want to make that point here. Of

all people, the Minister of Agriculture for Canada certainly

knows better, and I don't know whether Beryl Plumptre was after

him that day or not. But those are not the facts at all causing

the low price to the producer for beef and the high price of

beef to the consumer.

What has actually taken place in the industry is the fact

the high price of feed grain — feed grains have gone up five

times or four times in the last 12 months. The feedlot operator

has to pay these high prices for grain, and what the feedlot

operator or the buyer is doing at the cattle sales in the

Cariboo, right today, is forcing down the price to the producer

of the animal to make up for the increased cost of the feed

grain to his operation. To save himself from going broke, the

feedlot operator, in turn, is forcing the producer of the

animal into almost bankruptcy. It's very serious.

We go on to the consumer, after all this gerrymandering has

taken place. Of course, because of the high price of grain, the

feedlot operator then sells to the packer; in turn, it ends up

on the retail counters and the price has not dropped at all to

the consumer, which is most unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to hear this, but it is

my opinion that the general public are getting pretty fed-up

with we politicians, no matter what party. We talk about all

these problems, and that's all we do — re-cycle them through

long-winded talk. But I only point that out to show you that

there is somebody in this province who is actually doing

something about it, and it's taking place today.

Before I mention who it is — about the high cost of meat — I

might tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no financial interest

in this company whatsoever, so you won't think that I am biased

or trying to boost their shares. But I refer to

Woodward's stores, who are also cattle ranchers in the

Interior of British Columbia. Today, throughout all their

stores, they are putting 300 head of grass-fed beef on the

market through their stores in the Province of British

Columbia. They are doing something about it, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Right. Well, you can go out, Hon. Second

Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), phone

[ Page 4499 ]

your wife and get her to go, because it's only a few blocks

from where you live, I think.

In any case, they are actually doing something about it.

While all the rest of us politicians and everybody else are

just chewing up the chips, they've effectively found an answer.

They are putting it on an experimental basis with 300 head of

animals from the interior. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that this sale will be an outstanding success, and I hope that

they will continue and that other people will follow the

example that Woodward's are giving, to consumers and to all of

us in British Columbia, of a 20 per cent reduction.

There are prices quoted as far as different types of meat

are concerned, but it actually will have the effect of reducing

the price of sirloin steak from $2.49 a pound to $1.89 a pound.

I imagine the public will say: "Well, we can't afford even

that." But for the ones who do have to buy some kind of meat,

the hamburger down to a lower level will be 75 cents a pound

for hamburger compared with 99 cents. And it will be 69 cents a

pound for chuck roast compared with $1.19, and 99 cents a pound

for a cross rib roast compared with $1.59.

The other thing I would like to point out is the prices just

recently on the live level, or the level that the people in the

Interior get for the live animals, at these sales. Last year

the ranchers were getting, this

article says, 73 cents a pound — I think that's a little on the high side, but we will use it

anyway — for live beef steers compared with 25 cents this year.

I don't quite agree that that severe a drop has taken place,

but it actually has dropped about in half to the live cattle

producer.

Consequently, with the price of everything he needs to

operate on going up in some cases over 100 per cent, like taxes

which are put on by this government, and fuel costs and

machinery…. They have advanced 100 per cent, as have fencing

materials and so on, to say nothing of farm labour. We are now

starting to get practically full unemployment in the farm

labour section. So it's really serious from that

standpoint.

I can't see at all where this bill is going to help the

consumer public of British Columbia that this one merchandiser

in B.C. has the answer for getting reduced costs in these

highly inflationary times. I only hope that their competitors

as well as consumers will follow this line.

The public in all of Canada, I guess, have been peddled a

lot of bunk about grain-fed beef being the best beef there is.

The grass-fed beef is equally as good, probably a little bit

better in some cases. We should get back to these facts of life

and start eating grass-fed beef, and that will help our

pocketbooks and improve our health as well.

We won't have to depend on the high-priced Prairie grain to finish animals.

There has been a good con job done by some promotional people over the last

20 years regarding grain-fed beef.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is an insult to all producers in

this province — and the consumers as well — because in no way

here does it say how it's going to help either facet of society

involved.

I've been told by the farm organizations that they consider

it as such, a straight insult.

There's another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to

find out from the Minister of Agriculture. He says that the

consumer is going to be represented here. Well, what does he

mean by that? Who is going to be in the majority position of

these 10 appointed people? Are the consumers going to be in the

majority, the producers, or who — labour unions? I, as one,

prior to voting on this would like these sorts of things

answered. I know that their basic requirement is to be an NDP

hack but, apart from that, what segment of the community are

they coming from?

For what it is worth, Mr. Speaker, I definitely will not be

voting for this bill when it comes up to the time to vote, and

I'll just leave you with this last word.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Well, they seem to be enjoying my talk,

Mr. Speaker, so I should probably keep going.

I think the Minister of Agriculture made some notes, but I

can't understand…. I think one thing this government has

done is to create the committees that operate between the

sessions, and I agree with that that they get more mileage out

of them, But why did the Minister of Agriculture, speaking of

committees…why did he decide to bring in this legislation

without sending this to the agriculture committee, as the

motion said? I can't understand it. Maybe he would have found

out the facts of life from this committee, and that, of course,

is what they didn't want to have it.

If we're going to have a useful committee system and if

there were a shining example for it, it would be in this

instance here. They could go out and find out from the

producers. As I said earlier, they haven't asked for it, but

we, as legislators, would have known a lot more about it if

they had sent this to a committee.

I said in the Legislature last spring that in view of the

Minister over there, Recreation and Conservation, (Hon. Mr.

Radford) and that Minister over there, Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — everybody likes the motherhood

issue — putting in parks and playgrounds we would be finally

ending up with no beef cattle industry, because there would be

no Crown range left for them, which is so vital to them. We

would end up by eating grizzly bear steak and porcupine

pie.

[ Page 4500 ]

You know, the more I see happening in food production, the

more I'm inclined to believe that this is going to come into

being because of the plight the beef industry is now in due to

their high costs and so on. A lot of beef producers are right

now going out of business and selling their cattle at 50 per

cent below the production costs, and going right out of the

business.

Well, it is obvious what is going to happen in about two

years time as far as the meat supply is concerned. I hope that

we have eaten our way through the surplus, but then we'll go

into a shortage and then the consumer is going to get hit again

and away up will go the price of beef to the consumer.

You have no idea, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, nor this

House, how much feed grain has advanced in the world markets.

It is a world market situation that has caused it. The demand

throughout the world is certainly a big change from when the

that was about 1967-68. Now we see a reversal of it.

I want to repeat, and I can't remind you enough, about the

plight the beef producer is in.

I will just say another thing. They are presently meeting,

with their severe problems, and discussing about going into the

provincial assurance programme. I have reason to believe that

there will be some shenanigans go on at these meetings, but I

would like the Minister of Agriculture to watch very closely

when that vote…. I believe that vote was taken today among

the beef producers, whether they should join the plan or not.

But if it is a negative vote, I think I would suggest to the

Minister that he look into that and look behind that vote as to

why it would end up as a negative vote, because in my opinion

it is the only way the small cow/calf operation…and by

small I mean up to 200 head of female animals. This is small as

far as the beef cattle person is concerned. But they are doomed

to die and, as I say, they are dying every day.

So if the vote is not to join the plan, I would say, Mr.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Agriculture, please

examine why, with this serious condition they're in, they would

vote not to join. I think the Minister will get some real

surprises.

The other thing is again on what is certainly bothering the

beef cattle industry: the last thing they want is a bill like

this with more government control. They want less government

interference.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister Of Public Works): Do they

want income assurance?

Mr. Fraser: Well, that's nothing to do with this bill

at all.

An Hon. Member: Go pick up your rocks.

Mr. Fraser: Mr. Speaker, will you tell that Minister

of…. What is he now, Public Works? You go up to Merritt.

Why don't you get up in this debate? You have lots of cattle

industry in your area. But you are against everybody in your

riding. I don't blame you; you're afraid to go up there. Thanks

to your colleague over there on Bill 31, he's driven you right

out of your riding. But I'll go there for you and give them

your regards.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: I'm still waiting for you, Mr. Speaker. I

challenged this Minister to a debate up in his home town of

Merritt and he never answered. I'd like you to take that

up.

Mr. Speaker: I would remain the Hon. Member that it's

against the rules to question another Member's courage. That

leads to dueling across the floor, and it's dangerous.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, I wouldn't like to see that, Mr.

Speaker. I'm glad you pointed that out.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): The Minister's

vision isn't too good.

Mr. Fraser: Another thing when we're dealing with the

beef industry — and this is under this marketing Act to the

Minister of Agriculture — the committee made a recommendation

that would help the beef industry. As far as I know it isn't

the Minister of Agriculture's department, but I refer to

grazing tenure. Every cattleman wants grazing tenure. By

grazing tenure I mean, why wait on a civil servant until June 1

every year to find out whether you're going to get a permit to

turn out your herd of cattle? Why can't they have a tenure,

say, of 5 or 10 years, subject certainly to abuse and that it

can be cancelled.

Those are kinds of things on which the Minister of

Agriculture could get after the Minister of Lands (Hon. R.A.

Williams). It's his department; he issues the tenure, I know.

But I think you had better lean on the Minister of Lands and

wake him up.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, the Hon. Member has strayed

off on some kind of a cattle trail, and I wish we could get

back to the….

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Home on the range.

Mr. Fraser: Right, home on the range. But the reason

that I'm on this is that it's a large industry in British

Columbia and certainly in my riding, and

[ Page 4501 ]

cattle are specifically mentioned in the marketing board Act

that's before us. Specifically on that, I repeat that I want to

hear from the Minister about who in the cattle industry asked

him to incorporate the possibility of creating cattle

commissions.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing now, I want to repeat that the

cattle people, particularly as far as my riding is concerned,

want less government interference, not more, as this Bill 165

will certainly cause.

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): I've got to admit that

I agree with the previous speaker, even though he wandered down

a cattle trail, on the high cost of feed grain that's pushing

up the price of beef and that we should be concentrating on

grass-fed beef. However, I'd have to pose the question to him:

what do we do with all the feed grain that piles up through the

farmers that grow the feed grain, if the feed lots aren't going

to buy it? One problem simply leads into another, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the past day and a

half of debate has been interesting, but I'm afraid I can't do

it. I'd like to say also that it's been an intelligent debate,

but, in general, I'm afraid I can't do that either. What we are

seeing here instead of a debate on the principle of Bill 165 is

that it's being used as a subterfuge for a direct and definite

and bitter attack on our present Minister of Agriculture.

This is brought about because, as we all know from the press

in the last summer that's gone by, the leaders and Members of

the opposition parties have been touring the province trying to

get their ear to the ground and get a feel of the pulse, and

they are finding out that every month that goes by increases

this Minister's popularity with the agricultural segment of

this province.

They know, just as the people in agriculture know, that

there has never been as much done for agriculture in the past

25 years as in the past two under the leadership of this

Minister. All this has been so far is a cover for an attack on

the popularity that they know this Minister is building up and

the sincerity with which the agricultural community views

him.

I always thought that CN over the years stood for the

Canadian National. I think, from the last day and a half, I

have to change, and it now stands for Claptrap and Nonsense,

because mostly that's what we've been hearing. And this is what

we're still hearing in the interruptions from that corner up

there.

As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, this Bill 165….

Interjections.

Mr. G.H. Anderson: I believe that those comments are beneath answering

and beneath contempt.

I think I'd have to use a term for this Bill 165, Mr.

Speaker, a term of the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald's) — a "sunshine" bill. The marketing boards in this

province have been operating over the past years in a lot of

shadows, and there have been a lot of people probing in those

shadows. There are a lot of consumers that are concerned about

what's going on in those board rooms, and they want to know and

they want a little control over them.

The board is, after all, the first opportunity that farmers

have had in this province to have a trade union. For this, I

certainly have to compliment the Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) when he was Minister of

Agriculture, since the boards were brought in under his

direction in his tenure of office. This was certainly one

excellent move that was made in the Department of Agriculture

when he was Minister.

We've heard so many comments, Mr. Speaker, The Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that it's selfish to think of

ourselves, in the speech he made; we should be thinking about

the world food shortage. So did the Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) when she mentioned how many people were dying

every day or every week because of the shortage of food and the

starvation crisis that's facing the world. But no one has come

up with an idea of how to store the excess produce that will be

produced in British Columbia if complete and total production

is allowed on every square foot of land — which should be

done.

Everyone agrees it should be done. And everyone apparently

agrees that the farmer should bear the brunt of the processing

and storing until it can be sold. This is something that is

economically impossible for him to do. It has to be done by

society at large if it's going to be done at all. The farmer is

operating at the present time on a margin of from a loss to a 2

per cent return on investment. When you look at what they call

a family cattle operation now with 150 to 200 head, you're

looking at $150,000 to $200,000 capital investment and a

lifetime of work for a return of 2 per cent on your

investment.

The boards have corrected this in some ways with the

products that they regulate in the 10 areas that they're

concerned with. The producers do have a better deal. I'm happy

to see that the Minister has said there will be some consumers

on this board that will be formed under this bill, the

provincial board.

But let us not confuse the issue when we start talking about

producers and consumers. Producer marketing boards were never

set up for the benefit of the consumer. I don't care who makes

the statement; I will disagree with them. They are set up for

the protection of the producer, The producers in the past would produce a product and sell

it on the market in a year that the price was good. The next

year everyone went into

[ Page 4502 ]

raising the product, flooded the market and half of them

went broke in the effort of trying to compete. So the boards

were a stabilizing effect.

This was the first attempt in this province at stabilizing

income and production to consumption and, by and large, that

has been fairly successful.

But like any Act that's been brought in in 1960 and hasn't

been amended to any great amount since then, there are some

problems that have been creeping into its administration. And

like any other Act, it requires an amendment now and then to

make it work better for the benefit of all.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I listened with interest to the Second Member for Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) when he was discussing it in his speech. It turned

out he was talking about boards. He was saying that what

usually happens is that they become inept, bureaucratic, a

monopoly, and they don't care. I thought he was talking about

the directors of the bar association until he went a little

further in his speech, because they've had a pretty good

marketing board for the law profession in this province, and I

don't think it's been particularly to the benefit of the

consumer. It just isn't fair, in my view, that we as elected

people should be totally at the….

We heard references also to Moscow marketing. That's a good

term: "Moscow marketing." We have had this type of Moscow

marketing since 1960 under the present Act.

The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) said that the

world's economics are teetering on chaos. He said the world is

facing starvation. I don't think that anyone in this House

would disagree with him. Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm a member

of a democratic socialist party is because of the monopolistic

capitalist situation that has brought the world to that

situation that the First Member for Victoria referred to

today.

Mr. Phillips: Why can't China feed herself?

Mr. G.H. Anderson: Farmers have been trying for 100

years in this country to improve their lot.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order, please!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We hear that "quack, quack, quack" from that Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) continually in here on agricultural matters.

There's no better one to represent the farmers in South Peace River, of course,

than a used-car dealer. Nevertheless, the Peace River has been in agricultural

difficulties for the last 20 years, and none of the social Credit Members from

that area have done very much to assist them.

There was one — there was one who tried. He couldn't stand

it any longer and crossed the floor.

For a 100 years the farmers of this country have been trying

to improve their lot, and there shouldn't be anything wrong

with that — every group in society does. They started by the

attempt to form co-ops on the Prairies, the grain farmers did.

The co-ops were a help but not the total solution.

They tried to form a farmer-labour party a long time ago,

and finally succeeded not so very long ago. I think most

Members will remember the time when the farmers party was the

governing party in the Province of Alberta.

I think you'll remember the time too when things were rough

and they asked for a little assistance from Ottawa, and

Mackenzie King said: "Not one plugged nickel for that farmers'

government out in Alberta," and his party went down to

defeat. Ever after that, Mackenzie King very carefully walked

the centre of the line, followed by the Liberal Party to this

day: never stick your neck out; never get in a position where

you might make a mistake.

We still have the attempts by the farmers in the National

Farmers Union to organize, be certified as a trade union and to

receive bargaining rights like any other working group in the

province. They're not meeting too much success for various

reasons which I won't bother going into here.

But the boards, by and large, in this province have done a

good job under the legislation under which they were operating.

Several bad points have crept into it, into their marketing,

into their practices, into their allocation of quotas. It is my

opinion, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that this is

the sunshine bill that is going to cast light on these boards,

that's going to cast a little more light for the consumer to

see what's going on in the boards, and the reason why he has to

pay the cost he does. Hopefully it will let a little more

sunshine into his life with a renewed understanding.

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

Speaker, I just want to take my

part in this debate on Bill

165, the Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act,

after we had quite a procedural wrangle earlier in the day.

It seems to me that the task which faces Members of this

House, in analyzing the Natural Products Marketing Act, is to

ask here of the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, a few

pertinent questions which are being asked in the producing

community in British Columbia. This I've attempted to do on the

Saanich peninsula since the bill was introduced on Friday last,

and because of the nature of the peninsula, with particular

attention to egg producers and dairymen.

The Minister will not be surprised to learn, I think,

[ Page

4503 ]

that the response to his bill and his statements

accompanying the bill, is one of general skepticism among the

producers. Skepticism and the opinion that as far as they can

see — and most of you will bear in mind that these producers in

this part of the province are small family-farm units — as far

as they can see, the introduction of a superboard, layered over

existing marketing boards, whether they function effectively or

not, is going to be of little use to anyone, including the

producers and the consumers, about whom we've heard a great

deal during the debate, the amendment to hoist the bill for six

months, and so on.

It is evident, however, that it is going to ensure more

high-paying government-appointed jobs. That is the only benefit

which is apparent to the individuals with whom I have spoken on

this particular subject. The bill is far too vague, I think,

and they think, in terms of who is going to sit on this

board.

Who are the people who are going to be named to the

provincial board? Will the producers to recognized? We had some

response to the effect that, yes, they will be appointed, but

it's not in the legislation. They may be appointed, the

Minister said. Will the various appointees be conversant with

the individual commodity groups which are being covered by the

legislation? Will they be conversant with these two important

points: the objectives of the farmer; and then of the farm

industry itself?

What is regrettable about this is that — and there has been

lengthy debate, I recognize — but it seems that whenever this

government is in doubt about a particular problem, whenever it

wants to case something which has been identified for us as a

problem, it moves to solve it with the creation of yet another

agency — a superboard, another major commission. This will be

coming up in debate on other matters over the next few

days.

We have heard, Mr. Speaker, considerable comment on the

subject of consumer representation. I identify for you that I

am not an expert on marketing boards. I have had an opportunity

to learn a little about them in the course of the travels of

the agriculture committee in 1973 and at the beginning of this

year, I'm sorry that that opportunity was not extended under

Motion 26, and previous Speakers have referred to that, because

then I think we really could as Members of this House,

committee members, have got down to the nuts and bolts of

marketing boards. We could have found out for ourselves and for

incorporation into a report what is right with marketing

boards, what is wrong with marketing boards — one by one by

one. But that opportunity was denied us for reasons which are

still unclear, but reasons which I find most regrettable.

The commodity people with whom I have been talking, representatives of various

producing agencies, marketing boards themselves, indicate to me that they have

no strenuous objection to broadening the base of the existing boards. I don't

think anyone in this House should attempt to cloud the issue by suggesting otherwise.

If marketing boards have been too narrowly based — that is,

producer oriented only — then why in heaven's name was it not

possible for the Minister of Agriculture to introduce amending

legislation which would have ensured representation by

consumers, representation by others, representation by

wholesalers? Again, I believe that the wholesaler has an

important part to play in this total chain of getting food or

products from the farm to the consumer kitchen.

Surely that could have been accomplished without coming in

with Bill 165, which is, I think, in the eyes of so many

individuals who are directly involved in food production, just

going to sort of lay over top of all the existing boards and

agencies and help only to further cloud the issue and make it

more difficulty for producing groups to get their message to

government, and for producers and consumers to communicate on

matters which are of common concern.

So may we put that to rest. I am not aware at the

independent member level, in a marketing board, of any

strenuous resistance to broadening the representation on those

marketing boards. Indeed, in some cases I think it would be

welcomed because the producers are not blind to the fact that

they are not the only individuals with a direct interest in

what happens from farm to kitchen.

The member for Kamloops spoke about, as I heard him, shadows

in which existing marketing boards are operating — dark

corners, Again I repeat, there is no need to have introduced a

document of this kind setting up a major organization merely to

put some light in those shadowy corners. It could have been

done, perhaps, with unanimous consent of this house. I don't

rule it out, Mr. Speaker; I don't rule out the possibility at

all. It could have appealed to each party in this

Legislature.

Now the Minister of Agriculture must recognize, inasmuch as

he also represents a Vancouver Island riding, that this island

has been an underdog area in the production of certain food

items for a number of years — eggs, poultry, dairy products.

And this is a problem to which I feel he should be addressing

himself, not merely the creation of the agency proposed in this

bill.

If I am incorrect with my information, I hope the Minister

will correct me, when he rises to close debate, but in the last

7 years, since the creation of the B.C. Egg Marketing Board,

Vancouver Island has actually lost quota in spite of obvious

population growth. Young farmers who are committed to farming,

who are dedicated to it, who want to make it their life's work,

have no chance to grow with the market requirements. So the

market has been

[ Page 4504 ]

growing, but their quota has remained static.

In fact, recently, Vancouver Island producers were assigned

a quota cut of what I understand to be 10 per cent. It has been

labeled as a temporary measure, which is an interesting phrase

when a quota is cut. But nonetheless, the egg production quota

on Vancouver Island has been cut 10 percent.

This cutback is difficult to understand, and, I would think,

from the Minister's point of view very difficult to explain

when the island now produces only approximately 40 per cent of

our market requirements. A cut on one hand, and yet we're not

even at the halfway point in terms of producing the eggs that

this market consumes.

The most efficient and desirable unit in any commodity in

this province in the whole business of farming is the family

farm unit. Those families with whom I've spoken about this bill

see nothing in the Natural Products Marketing (British

Columbia) Act which holds promise to them of assistance or of

recognizing the pressures on the family farm unit which are

increasing on a very regular basis. They've greeted it with

skepticism and with very real doubts. They don't see any

assurance that it is going to be of assistance to them or,

indeed, as I indicated earlier, to the consumer.

Is the bill addressing itself to the very serious problems

of the farm industry? I ask again: is this bill addressing

itself to the very serious problems of the farm industry in

British Columbia? The answer in this party would appear to be

no.

As the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) said a few moments

ago: Who asked for this bill? Who asked for this legislation

placing a major board over the existing boards?

I would like to leave the Minister with a couple of

comments. Again, he may care to respond.

This was an

article which appeared in The Sidney

Review earlier this year. The headline reads: "End Is in

Sight For Dairy Farmers." I won't quote it all, Mr. Speaker,

but a couple of paragraphs, I think, are rather

interesting.

"One of the oldest of the Saanich Peninsula's industries is in danger of becoming extinct,

according to a man who has made his living from it for the last

48 years.

" 'The end of dairy farming on the peninsula is in sight unless something drastic is done.' "

This is a quote from Ivor Hoskin of 1666 Mt. Newton Cross

Road.

" 'Dairy farming will soon be nonexistent.'

"Hoskin cited himself as an example and as a warning of

what he said he could see coming. Two weeks ago" — and I point out that this

article is now a few months old — "he was forced to sell his herd of 60 dairy

cattle to an Alberta family which arrived at his farm early one morning, loaded

the cattle aboard specially-built trucks and headed back to their home province.

In one morning, 48 years of work and love was loaded and hauled away.

"Hoskin said: 'll guess it was time I retired but I really

wasn't ready to. You work all those years; you see the way

things are ending up. It's really kind of sad.' "

He was quoted later in the

article as saying:

" 'There are no young farmers interested in taking over

herds,' adding that he didn't blame the young farmer for not

wanting to invest their lives in what was fast becoming an

impossible career.

" 'In 1956,' he said, 'there were 100 dairy farms on the

peninsula. In the last few years the number has shrunk to 20' — that was before last July, 1974 — 'and since then another five

farms have sold their herds and gone out of the dairy

business.'

"He knows of at least four other farmers who are

contemplating doing the same thing."

Bill 165. We can have the

procedural debate; we can have the philosophy. Who asked for

it, Mr. Speaker? Who is it designed to help?

Will it help the producers? Probably not. No.

Will it help

the consumers? Help could be afforded with the existing boards

with minor changes which are within the compet