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)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4763 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Act (Bill 177).

Mr. D.A. Anderson. Introduction and first reading — 4763

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4764

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4764

Division on amendment to

section 2 — 4764

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Phillips — 4765

Mr. Wallace — 4765

Mr. Smith — 4765

Mrs. Jordan — 4765

Mr. Cummings — 4767

Mr. Phillips — 4768

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4768

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4770

Mr. McClelland — 4770

Division on amendment to

section 3 — 4771

section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 4771

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 4771

Mr. Wallace — 4772

Mr. Phillips — 4772

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4772

Mr. McGeer — 4772

Mr. Gibson — 4774

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4774

Division on amendment to

section 3 — 4774

Division on

section 3 — 4774

section 4.

Mr. McGeer — 4774

Amendment to

section 4.

Mr. McGeer — 4775

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4775

Mr. McGeer — 4775

Mr. Gibson — 4776

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4776

Division on amendment to

section 4 — 4776

section 6.

Mr. McClelland — 4776

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4776

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 4776

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 4777

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4777

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 4777

section 10.

Mr. McClelland — 4778

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4778

Mr. McClelland — 4778

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4779

Mr. McClelland — 4779

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4779

section 11.

Mr. Phillips — 4780

Hon. Mr., Stupich — 4780

section 12.

Mr. McClelland — 4780

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4780

Mr. McGeer — 4780

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4780

Mr. McGeer — 4781

Amendment to

section 12.

Mr. McGeer — 4781

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4781

Mr. McGeer — 4782

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4782

Mr. McClelland — 4782

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 4783

Mr. McGeer — 4783

Appendix — 4785

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

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

Speaker, I believe the Members have all received a sample

package of food from Swan Valley Foods Limited. This is one of

the enterprises in which the government has invested. The real

importance of this is that this is a new processing process

insofar as its application to white fruit and to vegetables is

concerned. A similar process is in use in other parts of the

world, but there has been a real breakthrough in the Province

of British Columbia.

The company in its earlier stages and opportunities to deal

with some of the big names like Weston's, Standard Brands and

Labatt's, but they preferred to try and negotiate with the

government and did so successfully.

The product first appeared on the market on Wednesday, I

believe, at the opening of a new Woodward's store. And as one

of the Woodward's officials enthusiastically said after the

initial public response, he thought it was an excellent example of some

free-enterprising Creston farmers cooperating with the

socialist Department of Agriculture and sold by, a B.C.-owned

retail chain in Shaughnessy Heights. The initial acceptance was

extremely good and they're looking forward with great optimism.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was really more of a

commercial than a statement. The Hon. Minister had advised me

that they were putting these on the desks for the Members. I

haven't seen one. Are there any free ones around?

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker,

that they've been delivered to the Members in their offices

rather than in the House.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order? The point of order has

priority. I hope it is a point of order.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Does the Minister

realize that the secretaries in all the offices who really do

all the work that we get the credit for weren't included. I

wonder if it would be possible...

Mr. Speaker: My suspicion was correct.

(Laughter.)

Mrs. Jordan: ...that they could be included.

Otherwise they're going to eat ours.

Interjection.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to

ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, what the price is. On the one

delivered to my desk, no price was indicated. In view of all

the publicity given by Consumer Services to avoiding

convenience foods and trying to get the best buys in

supermarkets, I would if we could get some indication of price

to value for this commodity?

An Hon. Member: Give him a hand, fellas.

Mr. Speaker: With leave of the House, the Minister

could reply.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are four

different products distributed and I have no idea which one the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey....

Mr. McGeer: Apples.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Apples: 39 cents for nine ounces of

apples. Absolutely no waste, peeled and cored, and ready to eat

within five minutes of heating.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, is this an emergency debate?

(Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I'd like an

opportunity to answer that. As I say, I distributed them to all

the Members so that they might taste them. I'm sure that

they'll like them so much that they'll all want to rush out and

buy samples for their secretaries.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Might I ask

the Hon. Minister what the price of the package is in

comparison to the price of the contents?

Mr. Speaker: We now have a question period on

Fridays, it seems.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I think that's a

question for the order paper.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES

ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 177,

An Act to Amend

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating 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.

[ Page 4764 ]

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Lea presented a report from the avalanche task

force which was taken as read and received.

Orders of the day.

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

on Bill 165, Mr. Speaker.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

(continued)

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

chair.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Could I make a comment to the

House? Following the completion of this, we'll move on to the

committee stage of the Public Schools Act.

On the amendment to

section 2.

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

Chairman, I believe the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) had concluded his presentation, for the

moment at least, when we adjourned last night. I'll respond

now, not that this will necessarily end it.

No, I'm not going to accept it, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated

earlier. The government will not accept it. The Member in his

presentation seemed to assume that the volume of the appeals

would be people who had really nothing to do with the working

of a particular commodity board. It's been my experience

since I've been in office that the real problems within the

organizations have been problems of that organization — that

is, problems between the producer's own marketing board and

individual producers.

So it's with that in mind that I feel that the present

system of naming people, whether by appointment or by election,

to serve on the various commodity marketing boards is a good

one. They are dealing mostly with their own members.

However, as we've said before, there are situations when

they do deal with the public or take actions that do affect the

public. It's when they take those actions that the public has

to have some right to inquire into and to question some of the

orders. If some consumer or consumer's organization or someone

having nothing to do with the actual management of a particular

commodity marketing board wants to challenge something that is

being done, then surely they will avail themselves of the

opportunities that are available to fully acquaint themselves

with the situation so that they can present a case before another court.

That will be the role of the British Columbia Marketing

Board in that kind of an appeal. In my experience, I would

expect — not that I expect there'll be a large volume — that by

far the largest number of the appeals that will arise will be

appeals that have to do with the management of the boards

themselves.

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

Chairman, it seems to me that the Minister, in his remarks a

few moments ago, has indicated why he should be supporting the

amendment rather than opposing it. He suggests that the people

who have the greatest complaints are producers, and the reasons

that they have those complaints is because the marketing board

is completely controlled by other producers. If that is the

case, then it would seem to me there is logic in making certain

that on these marketing boards there is someone other than

producers. Then the volume of complaints from people in the

production segment wouldn't be so great.

Quite obviously, what the Minister is saying supports what

the Member for — he's not here today — Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was

saying, that the marketing boards which are composed entirely

of producers are the worst possible friends producers can have.

What we want to do, Mr. Chairman, with this amendment is to

make sure that we break the stranglehold that certain groups of

producers may have on marketing boards, and open up membership

in those marketing boards to others who have no pecuniary

interest whatsoever, except the proper functioning of the

marketing board concept.

I'm just startled, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) is not up on her feet

supporting this amendment, because she is one who has

particular knowledge of the consequences of a close control

exercised over marketing boards by a small segment of our

society.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 21

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

King

[ Page 4765 ]

Lea

Young

Radford

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Webster

Kelly

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move the

amendment to

section 3 standing in my name on the order

paper.

I feel very confident, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of

Agriculture is going to accept this motion, because this is

exactly what he said in his press release when bringing this

bill in — that he was going to ensure that there would be

consumers on the board; he was going to ensure that there would

be producers on the board. Certainly we want to see that those

who are appointed to this board have been resident in Canada;

otherwise we might get a situation similar to what we have in

Can-Cel, where the bulk of the directors live in the United

States or over in Europe. So that's just a guarantee that the

members who are appointed to this board, indeed, are British

Columbians.

I feel that in view of the statements the Minister of

Agriculture has made, saying that he wants to ensure that there

are consumers on the board and that there are producers on the

board.... I know how the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon.

Ms. Young) feels. She will certainly vote for this amendment,

because it's right in line with the government's policy.

There is no way that they won't accept it, so let's have the

motion and get it accepted and make it become part of the

bill.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I would like to be on

record as supporting the amendment.

As we discussed in second reading, the main intent of this

bill is supposed to be to give a wider representation in

marketing board affairs to people who are not simply producers

of a particular commodity. I know that this is becoming perhaps

tedious and repetitious, Mr. Chairman, but nevertheless, in

attempting to amend a bill like this, one inevitably runs into

being repetitious by trying to change the general thrust of the

bill.

I commented in second reading that

section 3 just talks

about appointing not more than 10 members, with no specific

mention of how they might be selected or what groups they might

or might not support.

While I have every confidence in this Minister that he will make a mixed choice

from producers and consumers, it would be much more satisfactory to this side

of the House if there was some definition in

section 3 as to the proportion

of the 10 members who should be consumers — a minimum of three or two or four,

whatever the case might be. This amendment by the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) at least makes an effort to specify one-third from producers'

associations and at least one-third from consumers' groups.

Really, we've been on this principle many times in this

House on former bills, that the government tells us what their

intention is, but when it comes to spelling it out in

legislation, it is delightfully vague and general, leaving

tremendous scope to the Minister concerned. I think the word is

"discretion", but some Ministers are not as discreet as others,

and some cabinets are not as discreet as others.

It is my strong feeling that this is a very commendable

amendment since it simply puts into much more specific language

the general principle which we are all supporting on both sides

of the House. I would ask the Minister to give it most serious

consideration.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Speaking in

support of the amendment, I think it is probably clear in the

minds of all of us that we want something enshrined in the

statute which will give an indication of the government's good

faith and the Minister's good faith in carrying out what he has

verbally said through discussions about this bill on the floor

of the House and in the news media.

I think we all have too often seen appointed commissions and

boards where the people who ultimately were appointed by

order-in-council, after the passage of a certain Act through

this Legislature, have had really no experience in the position

awarded to them more on political favour than because of the

fact that they would fulfil the duties properly and had

expertise and experience to call upon.

I think there is a danger in the minds of the people in the

basic agricultural production area that the tendency will be to

load the board heavily in favour of consumer groups and people

who really, while they are consumers of products, have more of

an axe to grind than a contribution to make.

I would hope that the Minister would accept this amendment,

as it was put forward, to clarify the situation in the minds of

the public once and for all that not only do you intend to have

a broad cross-section of people appointed to this 10-member

board, but you are prepared to go the further step which

requires at least two-thirds of the board members to be made up

of the producer and consumer groups in the Province of British

Columbia, There is still lots of latitude, Mr. Minister, as to the

actual appointments, but I think it would only show good faith

on your

part if you would accept the amendment.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): In

[ Page 4766 ]

speaking in support of the amendment before the House, I,

too, must confirm what other Members have said.

The Minister assures us of his good faith, but this isn't

sufficient for the producers, even if it was sufficient for us,

which it isn't. They want to know why the very heart of any

strength they've got, in terms of bargaining or setting out

their position or dealing with other sectors of business,

should be put in a position where it is going to be so

weakened, as it could be under this

section of the bill if the

Minister doesn't accept the amendment.

During the debate on the principle of the bill the Minister

of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) summed it up very well.

Many factors were of concern, one of which is this section,

that there was so much extensive power enshrined in the bill,

and the assurances that the producers' need and the consumers'

need were not. She said: "We believe the Minister won't use

those powers and the government won't use those powers" that

are written in the bill, "and we believe that he will do the

things that he says he will do that aren't in the bill."

What she is saying is: don't believe what we write in the

legislation; believe what we say. That simply isn't enough, Mr.

Chairman. It's not, in fact, a responsible way to go about it;

it's the exact reverse of what it should be.

It's quite common knowledge that there is conflict within

the government ranks, and certainly conflict within the cabinet

ranks as to what, in fact, clout the producers and the

consumers should really have. I suggest that it's ducking the

issue in not accepting this amendment, and it's ducking the

issue in such a way that you're going to hurt the very people

that this

section of the bill, where it relates to appeal

boards, where it should be dealt with.

You know, one of the things that is concerning the producer,

and one of the reasons why it's important that the government

accept this amendment, is that he and she are asking: why us?

Why is the government establishing a superboard with 10

appointees, which is all-powerful over anything that our own

organizations, or our own cooperatives, or our own boards do,

when they wouldn't do the same for any other sector in

society?

If the government's intention is to establish a superboard

over unions, for example, does the Minister in all honesty feel

that the union organizers and the union workers and labourers

in British Columbia would accept a section, which was

completely open-ended as far as appointments are concerned, and

leave it to the discretion of any government of the day to

appoint who should sit on that board to have all power over

their affairs?

I see the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is frowning,

because he knows that if the Minister of Agriculture doesn't accept this amendment

he is confirming the suspicion that, in fact, the intent of this bill is considerably

more than what the Minister says it is.

It has been mentioned before, and I will just mention it a

moment again, the pattern that has been established by this

government and openly stated by the Minister of Agriculture —

that where there are boards and commissions, we will make

political appointments. "Why not, he says, what's wrong with

politics? We want people on those boards who think", as the

Minister said himself, "as I do".

Now supposing we get a different Minister of Agriculture. If

this present Minister of Agriculture's intention is truly

honourable in terms of the producer's best interest, supposing

the Minister of Consumer Services, in a shuffle, becomes the

Minister of Agriculture: what would then happen to the

producers in British Columbia?

The other point that concerns the producers in British

Columbia, regardless of their own grievances that some of them

may have with their own marketing board, is that it's not only

important to have an avenue of appeal, it is important that the

people involved in the appeal procedure, and who will rule on

the appeal that is made, not only be impartial but also that

they be informed.

We see whirling around us, right across Canada, and

certainly in British Columbia, devastating opinions put forth

by theoreticians — people who sit down and look at agriculture

and agricultural production and marketing as a theory. On paper

it looks tremendous: the only thing is that there's nothing

theoretical about agricultural production in British Columbia.

It's a very practical undertaking dealing with a perishable

commodity in an environment of trade which is very difficult

owing to our distance from market areas and external factors

such as tariffs, trade barriers, and this sort of thing.

So if the Minister, in his wisdom, appoints somebody like

Professor Forbes, for example, what opportunity is the producer

going to have, unless the Minister insists that Professor

Forbes go out and buy a dairy farm or an apple orchard, and

build it up, maintain it and carry it on from scratch? They

might get a very find theoretical decision and vote from

Professor Forbes, but it just wouldn't work in the practical

application of the production of products in British

Columbia.

The other area of concern, and it was brought up in the

former debate, but it is certainly a reason why this amendment

should be accepted, is that the Minister himself said: "The

producers in British Columbia have never struck; they've never

gone out on strike; they've never refused to deliver their

produce;" and to most intents and purposes this is quite

true.

It isn't because they haven't wanted to. It isn't because

they haven't wanted to exercise the same

[ Page 4767 ]

options that everybody else in society has in order to

receive a fair price for their commodity and a fair share of

the economy. It's because they are dealing with a perishable

product. They're dealing with a product which doesn't bring a

cash return until it's been sold. If a cabbage producer

withholds his product, he indeed loses his income for one whole

year — a whole year's work — and he still has to carry on with

his taxes and his overhead. So it's virtually impossible,

unless he happens to have another major income, for him to

withhold his produce.

If fruit producers withhold their produce or refuse to man

their orchard, which is their production machinery, then it's

not only the loss of the income for one year that they suffer;

it is a loss of the productivity and the efficient productivity

of that producing machinery in the trees. If they don't prune,

then they don't get fresh wood, and next year they won't get as

good a crop. If they don't thin, then they overload the trees,

over-use its resources and diminish the strength and

productivity of that tree for the next year and possible more

years.

In other words, if they don't spray and the codling moths

get into their orchard, they've got problems for years. If it

were someone with a cherry orchard and the cherry fruit fly got

into the orchard, it could be disastrous to the whole

industry.

So the producers in British Columbia, in light of the fact

of all the external problems and in light of the fact that

society in British Columbia has said that they must keep their

land in agricultural production regardless, need very special

protection if they are to survive and if they, together, are to

serve their partners, the consumers.

Mr. Minister, by not accepting this...or let me put it

positively. By accepting this amendment you would be assuring

the producer in British Columbia and, I believe, the consumer

that they are going to have some strength, that your assurance

to the House that they've never been on strike isn't a

smokescreen, and that we as a Legislature, and we as people in

British Columbia, recognize that they are an industry with most

peculiar problems, some of which are completely uncontrollable

by any provincial level of government and some that are

completely uncontrollable by any government — except perhaps

the most senior authority of all, who controls the weather.

I would urge the Minister to think through this amendment

very carefully, to think through the arguments and hopefully

the helpful suggestions that have been put forth by each Member

of the opposition, and to meet this commitment to the producers

and to the consumers in this province.

If not, then I suggest that the Minister is going to have to take the same

position in relation to other power groups in British Columbia, because he will

be setting the precedent. It will be he who is not enshrining in the Legislature

and in the legislation of British Columbia the rights of the producer that he

is prepared to enshrine in other legislation for other groups.

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

Chairman, I'm very pleased to take my place in this debate. I

would like to address a few words to the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), through you, Mr. Chairman.

When the Lieutenant-Governor appointed you, he called you

the Minister of Agriculture. I think he implied by this that

you should represent them, and help them to lead a prosperous,

happy life. It was necessary to create many boards so that his

income could be regulated.

We granted these boards immense powers — actually far greater

powers. I reject that a board is the equivalent of a union,

because a union has two checks on it. It has the check of

management and it has the check of government. These fruit

boards are a combination of government and management and the

worker, who is the farmer. There is another party, and this

party is the consumer.

Mr. Minister, I feel that there's a possible conflict of

interest in your position of being Minister of Agriculture and

being a very, very, fair and hardworking man.... You're

probably the finest Minister of Agriculture the farmer's ever

had. There's no doubt that you have surrounded yourself with

practical farmers in your department, botanists and other

people that have almost a vested interest in farmers'

interests. I feel that they even have a conflict of interest in

their advice they give you.

All we have to do is look to Ottawa for a Minister of

Agriculture, a federal Minister, who was charged by the

Governor-General to represent the farmers' interests. With all

deference to you, sir, there is a perfect example of a Minister

of Agriculture gone wild. We have eggs, we had other abuses,

all done in the name of holding down production to raise prices

- which is only one way of increasing income. I would suggest

to you that maybe increasing volume is another way, which is

probably a better way.

But after very, very careful thought, I have looked and I

realize that there is no possible amendment to this Act. It all

boils down to the good will of the Minister of Agriculture. I

am quite confident that our Minister of Agriculture will

realize that with this appointment and with this bill he also

has an obligation now to the consumers of British Columbia.

Therefore I would gently remind him that there are a lot of

consumers in the world, and it just boils down to good will.

Believe me, I look at the Minister and I am quite sure that he

will do the right thing, because he is a very dedicated and

fine Minister.

It's impossible to find wording; it still boils down to his

judgment of directors. I would like to impress on

[ Page 4768 ]

him that of these directors at least half of them should be

consumer-oriented.

The Liberals proposed an amendment on

section 2 which....

Mr. Chairman: We're dealing with

section 3.

Mr. Cummings: I was just going to touch on it. I

could not vote for it as it was ridiculous. You'll remember,

Mr. Chairman, that these directors had to have research,

because when you look at a claim of a group of producers, they

say it costs so much to produce, for example, eggs. You need

research people to delve into this and find out if it's the

truth, because after a while with almost any monopoly, which

these boards are.... Let's face one simple fact: they are a

straight monopoly. They are necessary, because under the free

enterprise system the farmer has to have protection.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): The Premier

will get to you when he gets back.

Mr. Cummings: I'm afraid you don't even listen. You

haven't even got a clue, and for 26 votes I have to be

inflicted for two more years.

Right now I'm making a plea to the Minister of Agriculture.

I'm sure he will bear in mind the fact that he now bears a

responsibility, with this Act, to consumers. Thank you.

Mr. Phillips: That was a real sideways shuffle we saw

just a moment ago because I remember when we were voting on an

amendment to hoist this bill for six months, the Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain voted with the opposition because he

was concerned at that time that there was nothing in the bill

that would guarantee that it would be fairly represented by the

consumers of the province.

He voted with us at that particular time and went outside

the Legislature and said to the press that he voted with the

opposition because there's nothing in this bill that guarantees

that consumers in the province shall be fairly represented on

this superboard.

Now, after listening to the Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain, I went out and got this amendment together to ensure

that the concerns of the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

would be looked after. It was because of his concern in drawing

it to my attention that this amendment is here.

An Hon. Member: You would never have thought about

it.

Mr. Phillips: I wouldn't even have thought about it, because I had faith

in the Minister. Now I bring the amendment in and the Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain is going to vote against the amendment about which he said less than

two weeks ago that he was concerned. Well, I'll tell you, if that isn't a sideways

double-shuffle, I've never seen one.

Now the party Whip has gone to China, and the Premier's gone

to China, and they won't be back for a while. I'm sure....

Mr. Chairman: Are you voting for or against the

amendment?

Mr. Phillips: I'm speaking for the amendment,

yes.

Mr. Chairman: Please go on with the amendment.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have

got my point across.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, there are two

possible reasons for supporting this amendment. One of them is

political gamesmanship, and I'm not suggesting that anybody who

took

part in the debate, or who's going to vote is using it.

I'm just saying that that is one possible reason for proposing

such an amendment.

The second reason is a firm belief that the amendment

proposed would actually make the proposed marketing board work

better. Now, that's the one I'm going to speak to. I'm not

going to deal with the first one at all.

It's my firm belief that it would not make the British

Columbia Marketing Board work better. Because I have that

belief, the government is not going to support this

amendment.

The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings)

raised the very reason why there has to be a separate board,

when in talking about the concern of the consumers, and

suggesting that the consumers in trying to make a case, for

example, against a price setting — a particular price that's

being set — he said they might want to even employ some outside

economists.

The difficulty is: if we were dealing only with the marketing board on which

those who are consumer oriented were in the minorit....and that was the first

amendment to

section 2, that we dealt with earlier. I'm bringing this up now

to support the principle that there should be a separate marketing board with

overall authority. In supporting that, the consumer-oriented people would be

in the minority, and in trying to persuade the total marketing board that something

should happen, that certain people should be employed to investigate something,

they could be very easily, and often would be, out-voted, as has been their

problem in the organization that I

[ Page

4769 ]

mentioned earlier.

So, for that reason I feel there has to be the British

Columbia marketing board that is proposed here.

With respect to the naming of the members of the board

itself — and reference has been made to the fact that in naming

another board, that is Can-Cel — we did not follow the

suggestions included in this amendment. I think we have to look

at why certain board members are chosen.

In the case of Can-Cel, we were looking for people who could

successfully — and I think they have shown they can — run a

forest corporation. If we had to go outside of the province, to

find the best people available for that job, I think our

responsibility to the people in the province was to find those

people wherever they might be.

Then when we came to appointing the Land Commission, we were

looking for people with particular knowledge of the Province of

British Columbia, who would represent all of the resource

users, if you like, and the people of the province. I think in

selecting that commission, as we did in the case of Can-Cel, we

chose an excellent commission. People who are able to handle a

job, I think, better than any other five people in the province

could have done.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Cabinet has not vetoed any of

Lane's decisions, Lane — and I assume you refer to the Chairman

of the British Columbia Lands Commission — has not made any

decisions that the cabinet has vetoed. He doesn't make

decisions.

The Land Commission does make decisions, and as the House

knows, decisions of the commission were subject to, in some

cases, approval or disapproval by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That was voted for when we

dealt with the legislation.

In the case of the British Columbia marketing board, again

we're looking for people who have particular knowledge of a

particular situation. This will come up later in the debate, I

appreciate, but we're going to get to the appeal section.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) isn't in his seat

right now, but the point that he made that he had — I forget

the word he used now — but he has faith in the present Minister

of Agriculture. The same sentiments were expressed by the Hon.

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings).

Suggesting that there might be a change and then the producers might have some

concern — can I just inform you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not speaking for myself

in this debate, I'm speaking on behalf of the government — even if there was

a change within the present government, this would not change government policy

on this. So it's a matter of having faith in the administration.

I assume, since the Hon. Member for Oak Bay said that, that

he was saying he trusted the present administration to do the

best thing possible for the farmers and for....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Yes, the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is raising the real question — that

there might be a change in government.

Truly that is something that would concern the people of the

province, and it would be very disastrous for the people of the

province if there was a change in the administration. For

example, if that group were to take their place on this side of

the House again, it would be bad.

But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that we can't guard

against that by changing this legislation. If we pass this

legislation in its present form and it's working well, and

everything is working well, and still there's some upset and

another administration takes office, they can simply change

this legislation and do away with all the good that had been

done by making any amendments.

So there's no way of guarding against what you fear by

simply changing this legislation that would stop any other

party. We can't guard against it that way. The only way we can

guard against it is to continue doing a good job of

administering the affairs of the province, and hope that there

will not be a change in the administration.

There are other reasons for not wanting to tie down in any

way the personnel of this board at this time. I've said we want

the best people for the job.

The legislation provides that there will be up to 10, but it

doesn't say that 10 will be appointed. It is not government

policy that there will be 10 appointed initially. It's

government policy that there will be, perhaps, five appointed.

There are appeal provisions included in the legislation later

on and it is our policy now — and we'll gain experience as time

goes on, and may change our position as time goes on in the

light of experience — but it's our policy now that.... Again,

from your reading of the legislation, you'll know that the

members of the board are appointed for no certain time, but at

the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

It's our policy now that when appeals do arise, as

appeals will arise, in order to deal with these people, the

membership of the board will be completed to deal with a

particular appeal situation. People will be named at that time

who will be particularly knowledgeable in the situation that is

being appealed.

That's one of the reasons, at least, that we don't want to

nail ourselves down at this time to saying who shall or who

shall not be on the board. We want

[ Page 4770 ]

to leave it the way it is.

The government will not accept the amendment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'm

compelled to intervene in this debate because of the totally

erroneous argument put forward by the Minister of

Agriculture.

He starts by saying that it really wouldn't make any

difference if another administration took office, because, of

course, they could change the law. Well, everybody knows that,

but at least they come to the Legislature to change the

law.

What this amendment does is put some limit on this and every

other future government unless they come to the people's

representatives and justify their desire for change of the

legislation.

The argument that has been put forward is typical of the

arrogance of the government which believes that Ministers

should have total power in every area.

This amendment and the amendment previous to it are not

major amendments, they're minor amendments in the sense that

they limit in a minor way the total discretionary power which

the Minister and the Cabinet has under

section 7 of this

particular Act. It's a minor limitation; it's a minor control.

It is a minor protection for consumers and the producers as

well.

To argue, as has been done, that, really, it doesn't matter

what's in any legislation because you really can only trust the

Minister, he's the only guy who counts at all, and that

legislation becomes irrelevant because in the future it might

be changed, is to totally miss the point of what a Legislature,

what a parliament and what responsibility to a parliament and

to the people's representatives is all about.

We do not elect every four years administrations to act

totally unfettered for the period of their office. The object

of having a Legislature and having sessions, and having

legislation, and having bills is to get away from unfettered,

ministerial discretion. Yet we have a Minister getting up here

and saying that it really doesn't matter because we would

change it if we wanted to change it, and any other

administration would change if they wanted to change it, which

just begs the question.

Why then have anything except one

section in a bill, saying

the Minister can do what he damn well pleases? That is

essentially what the argument of the Minister leads to.

Legislation is designed to put some sort of general framework

to give citizens certain rights against the administration,

against the marketing board, against the superboard, against

whatever. To suggest that legislation is irrelevant is to

simply miss what the whole thing is all about.

Obviously a government can bring in changes to legislation. Obviously if they

persuade the Members of the Legislature to change the legislation, the legislation

will be changed. But to put the argument back to front, as the Minister did,

that it really doesn't matter whether there is any replacement of the government

or whether there's a change of Minister because, after all, legislation can

be changed in the future, so let's right now grant total discretionary powers

to the government, is simply an absurd argument in favour of absolutism and

absolute executive control. Surely what we need is legislation which defines,

as we think it should define, the powers and the rights of citizens as well

as of the board.

The amendment put forward previously was a modest one which

we are amazed that the Minister for Consumer Services and the

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Ms. Young) didn't

support. This one is similar. It is a minor guarantee that

one-third will be consumers on this particular board. We just

cannot see why this also has not been supported by those great

protectors of citizens' rights, the people who are constantly

advertising government attempts to protect consumers on the

radio. Yet, when it comes to a minor amendment, a minor

fettering of the unlimited Ministerial discretion that this man

wants, we find them tamely voting with the government. It just

doesn't make any sense.

This type of amendment is a useful, positive contribution

from the opposition, and they should be considered in that

sense. We should not get arguments which are essentially the

arguments of absolute, dictatorial control by cabinet.

Mr. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I rise to support this

amendment, too. It is a relatively minor amendment but one

which would enshrine a very important concept of fairness in

this legislation. The federal Act, as I understand it, calls

for 50 per cent of the members to be active producers. I just

don't understand why the Minister couldn't accept the concept

that at least a third be producers and a third of the people on

the board be consumers.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: That's right. That still leaves lots

of room for party hacks on the other third.

The Minister's comments about this amendment sounded like

the old speech the Premier used to make about "trust us," and I haven't heard that for a long time. It is nice to

see you still have those feelings.

The Minister's assurance that only the best people available

will be chosen leaves something to be desired, even in

consideration of the Can-Cel experience where we do have mostly

Americans on that board. There is a fear by the opposition that

the same thing will happen with regard to the super marketing

board. In choosing the best people available, this government

seems to go out of its way to choose people who do think the

same way as the

[ Page 4771 ]

Minister thinks of the various responsibilities.

Just hark back to yesterday's question period when it was

pointed out that the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of

northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) had chosen his executive

assistant because he was young and hardworking and an active

party member. We're afraid that the same thing will happen with

regard to the super marketing board.

It isn't necessary to go outside the province; it isn't

necessary to look for other people other than active producers.

The Minister also frightens me to some degree by the comments

that he made on the radio when he was talking about this bill

when it was first introduced, He said that we may appoint some

producers to this marketing board. Well, really, what he was

saying when he said that was, "We may not appoint some

producers to this marketing board."

I think it is necessary that this be spelled out very

carefully in legislation or I am quite sure that what we will

get instead of a balanced proportion of people who are vitally

concerned that this marketing board does the kind of job that

apparently the government wants it to do is just another

depository for party hacks and party workers. Certainly the

board can never do any kind of a job if that is the case.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 21

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Webster

Kelly

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, when you report the

proceedings of the committee to the Speaker, I trust that you

will report that a division took place on the amendment to

section 2 and request that it be recorded in the Journals .

section 3.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, the Minister,

in some of his remarks recently, noted the enormous monopoly powers that by

this legislation we are giving to the board, and the need to provide countervailing

forces against those powers and to control them. Indeed, much of the debate

this morning has been concerned with exactly that — the control of tremendous

monopoly powers by marketing boards.

One of the chief ways of controlling power of this kind is

by information, by the public's right to know. Nowhere in this

bill, Mr. Chairman, do I find the public's right to know about

the details going into the decisions of marketing boards being

anywhere here positively affirmed. This right of access to

information is one of the chief conclusions of the Forbes

report, of which we have heard much in this Legislature, and of

which the Minister of Agriculture and others in the government

opposite have spoken warmly.

I would hope that the Minister would find it congenial to

reaffirm a policy that certainly the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) has always said is a part of the philosophy of that

party, the policy of sunshine — letting the sun shine in to the

crevices and crannies of these marketing boards and finally

open them up to public scrutiny.

That won't happen, Mr. Chairman, unless we make some

legislative provision for it, because the practice hasn't been

that way at all. The practice has been one of secrecy and of

the public not having the right to know, in spite of the public

having conferred upon these boards enormous powers.

It's a question of having to know about costs, as compared

to selling prices. It's a question of having to know the exact

figures about production capacity in whatever specific sector

of the agricultural industry the board might control. It's a

question of having to know about external competition and

pressures, whether from other parts of Canada or from

abroad.

Only with this kind of information, Mr. Chairman, can the

public be certain, first of all, that the marketing boards

themselves are doing their job and, secondly, that the B.C.

Marketing Board, this regulatory or appeal mechanism, is doing

its job properly.

Now we have here

section 3, which sets up the constitution

of the British Columbia Marketing Board. I believe, Mr.

Chairman, that it is of tremendous importance that the

constitution of that board should set forth affirmatively the

public's right to know what is going on in that board.

Therefore I move an amendment to

section 3 to add as

subsection (7) the following words: "All proceedings and papers

of the B.C. Marketing Board shall be open to public

scrutiny."

Mr. Chairman: Do you have a copy of that amendment to

send up here? I don't see it on the order paper.

[ Page 4772 ]

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to add

very briefly our strongest support for this concept. Once again

it is a philosophy which has been espoused by this government

that the people are entitled to know the people's business, and

nothing can affect the people more intimately than the sale

price of essential market commodities, essentially food. If

these boards are to have the kind of powers, which indeed they

do and which we will be discussing later under other sections,

then it seems to me nothing less than reasonable that we should

have the assurance in the legislation that all the

documentation, the papers and the correspondence, should be

available.

If we are going to disclose in this House about each one of

us and what our private affairs are and our involvement in the

marketplace and so on, I think it is equally as important that

the affairs of these marketing boards should be completely

accessible to the public. The public should have complete

access to this information.

I support this amendment very strongly.

Mr. Phillips: I rise to support the amendment

because, as has been previously stated — and I don't want to be

repetitious — everybody in this province is a consumer. This is

a superboard set up by the Minister of Agriculture to evidently — although in not accepting this motion to have consumers on

this board, or at least a third of them, I doubt.... But

evidently the purpose of the whole bill is to protect the

consumers of this province and to give to the producers of this

province some benefits which they have not been receiving.

This is public business, and it is an area where the

Minister is going to have complete control to appoint anybody

he sees fit to the board, complete control to look after the

marketing and the distribution and the production of all

foodstuffs in this province.

Now we had a case in point, Mr. Chairman, last spring. We

have a government Crown corporation called Ocean Falls, and

this Legislature couldn't even have access to the contract

whereby they sell the production from that mill. We found out

that it was being sold at giveaway prices to a group in the

United States of America, who were reselling it for a fantastic

rip-off profit to countries of the Third World.

Now we don't want to see the same thing perpetuated by the

superboard. The minutes of any group or organization — this

Legislature — are wide open to public scrutiny, and so should

be the marketing boards. Therefore I am definitely supporting

this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the government is not accepting this

amendment. The effect sometimes of trying to make everything public is that

what you do is hide everything. What you are saying is that anybody who is not

prepared to have every presentation they are making, every letter that they

are writing...if they are not prepared to make that public, then they have

no way in which they can communicate at all with the British Columbia Marketing

Board.

What we have provided in a later

section is that appeals

shall be public — open to the public — in that all of the

material relative to the appeal can be presented by either

side. They can bring on anything they want to public appeal.

Anybody taking

part in that appeal can bring out anything they

want. But any other material that the board may come across in

any way at all, we think, is a matter between the board and the

people or person raising that material as to whether or not

that person or the board at the time want — to make that

particular bit of material public.

We feel we have gone a long way in saying that all of the

appeals, and anything to do with the appeals, that want to be

raised by anybody, shall be open to the public. We will not

accept this amendment.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

as the principles behind this bill become unfolded bit by bit,

as the Minister declares government intent, it becomes more and

more ominous for the people of British Columbia.

We learned at our session last spring what a dirty business

controlled marketing can be. We learned this as a result of

secret dealings between the Egg Marketing Board and some of the

producers in British Columbia. We learned what a dirty business

it was when the Premier of the province called in members of

the Egg Marketing Board, threatened to kick the censored out of

them, and dismissed them to a hotel room to sign a secret pact

which was agreed to only after the Minister himself exerted a

heavy hand over the terms.

Earlier today we voted down an amendment that would have

guaranteed non-partisan consumer representation on the boards.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, what the purpose, what the real

purpose, of these boards is. The purpose is to keep prices

high, to eliminate competition and to control production.

The consequence will be guaranteed incomes for some,

unfairness in permission being granted to people to make those

incomes, just as there was with egg marketing. Profits went to

those in the Fraser Valley; northern producers were denied.

Also there will be under-the-table profits as quotas for

production get higher and higher black market values.

These are the seamy consequences of controlled production

and controlled marketing. We don't have to use our imagination

to recognize these consequences. They're all before us and they

have all been debated in this House.

[ Page 4773 ]

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is only

bringing forward some common sense. As a matter of fact, it

will keep the Minister and the government out of trouble if

it's accepted.

Enormous powers are given to these marketing boards: powers

to disturb the marketplace; powers that inevitably lead to the

seamy sorts of things I've been describing.

The Minister has denied one obvious protection: the kind of

protection that he and his colleagues, when they were in

opposition, continually demanded — consumer representation. You

couldn't have hospital boards run by doctors and hospital

administrators; you had to have the consumer there. Do you

remember that? Do you remember all the debates the NDP Members

gave us on that point? We didn't disagree; we only offered mild

objections when these non-partisan people turned out to be

party hacks.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Only mild objections.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: We drew attention to it; that's fair.

Mrs. Jordan: Name one on a hospital board.

MR. McGeer: Party hacks?

Mrs. Jordan: Yes.

Mr. McGeer: Liberal Party hacks? There aren't such

things. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Are you calling a senator a party hack?

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Shame on you!

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Certainly you can't call senators party

hacks, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Jordan: High-class or low-class?

Mr. McGeer: Members of boards, yes. (Laughter.)

No, there are high-class party hacks and there are low-class

party hacks. (Laughter.) I don't want to see that again.

(Laughter.)

But we're all doing this for the people, not for party hacks, Mr. Chairman.

And I wouldn't want to distort the principles that are involved here.

Mr. CHAIRMAN: I hope this discussion can get back to

the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) — I'm sorry that he's gone to China today. I wouldn't be sorry

if he went to China some other day, but today I'm sorry,

because I know, Mr. Chairman, that if the Attorney-General were

here he'd be supporting that amendment.

The reason is that when he sat in that very chair, he made

continual speeches decrying Star Chamber tactics — Star Chamber

tactics. Yes, he did — the kind of decisions that went on in

communist countries like Russia and China, where decisions are

made behind closed doors and the public was never told.

Mr. Phillips: He's gone over to get some more

lessons.

Mr. McGeer: And to think that the very day he is

going to one of those countries that practise Star Chamber

tactics we should be indulging in it here in British

Columbia.

I can hardly believe the irony of it but I can certainly

remember the fervour of the Attorney-General's speeches. I know

he was against Star Chamber tactics. Now it may change; he's

been studying right here in this chamber the sayings of

Chairman Mao. He was doing that the other night. Perhaps the

Attorney-General's sentiments have changed, but he made a great

impression on me, Mr. Chairman, when he was in opposition,

because he stood for the very thing that the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano stands for today: public disclosure of

public business.

Who's against that, Mr. Chairman? The government's against

that, yes. The Minister just stated that that was government

policy. He did that, Mr. Chairman, just in case one or two of

the backbenchers somehow got the idea that government should be

in favour of public disclosure of public business. That's a

dangerous idea for backbenchers to harbour, and the Minister

didn't want them to have the wrong impression. He put it on the

record.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I agree with the Minister

about that. I think public business should be a matter of

public record. That's why I'm supporting this amendment by the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. It's a test of principle,

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, a test of who believes in public

disclosure of public business, and who believes in Star Chamber

tactics.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

[ Page 4774 ]

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: The last Member to do that was a Social

Creditor, who sat in that very chair. I think he got upset that

day by some of the opposition's speeches.

In any event, the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), I think, has spoken very well in this debate. He's

spoken briefly and he's spoken to the point. He doesn't always

do that. But certainly I agree with him on this occasion, and I

think all Members who believe in public disclosure of public

business will support the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I want only to say that I

do not consider the Minister's explanation a sufficient answer

to the need for this amendment.

Subsection 6 of

section 10 which provides that: "...every appeal under this

section shall be open to the

public" says nothing about papers and documents, which are

essential to the understanding of marketing boards.

He states that persons could not feel free to communicate

with this board. Mr. Chairman, this is an appeal board; the

documents relating to appeals. This is only proper.

Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, this board will do staff studies

of all kinds relating to the agricultural industry in British

Columbia and the marketing boards. These are studies essential

to the formulation of public policy paid for by public

funds.

The government and this board will suppress those that are

inconvenient to it, and only allow to see the light of day

those which coincide with its policy. These are paid for with

public funds and the public has a right to them, Mr. Chairman.

This is public information.

The refusal to accept this amendment is just another

cover-up by a cover-up government.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the Member seems to

forget that there was an election over two years ago. Since

this government has been in office we have made a practice of

releasing reports when they become available...

An Hon. Member: What about the Ocean Falls

contract?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: ...and it's our policy to

continue.

You remember the Carruthers report that was buried for 20 years? We found it;

we made it public and we've made other reports public as we get them.

An Hon.

Member: What about the Ocean Falls contract?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 21

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

NAYS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

section 4.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman,

section 4 deals with

cooperation of the provincial board and any federal board. It

says that the provincial board and every marketing board and

commission may cooperate with the federal board.

The Minister last night pledged that there would be

cooperation between federal boards and the provincial board. I

don't have Hansard here and I can't recall his exact

words, but he definitely left me

[ Page

4775 ]

with the impression that it was the intention of these

provincial agencies to get along with whatever companion

federal agencies might be established in order that this whole

business of controlling production and prices and so on could

be done in an orderly fashion.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Minister, as he had said on other

occasions, doesn't control these boards. They're basically

producer boards. They are supposed to be independent of

government, though we know from the Sy Kovachich case that they

aren't always independent of government. They're supposed to

be.

If they really are independent, then there would be no

obligation of those boards to follow the policies of the

Minister or the wishes of the Minister in cooperating with

federal boards or agencies. It's quite possible that the

producers could nominate stubborn people who have their own

ideas and were genuinely independent not only in the provincial

government but in the federal government.

It might be their position, for example, to seize eggs, just

to take one hypothetical situation. Suppose another province

decided to dump their surplus eggs in British Columbia — just

hypothetical — I'm not trying to be specific about anything,

but it is possible that surplus eggs might be.... It's

possible that a provincial board could attempt to seize those

eggs. Remote as it may seem, something like that could

conceivably happen.

It's also possible that something like that could be done in

defiance of a federal egg marketing board. I'm not saying that

it would happen. I know a lot of people here, particularly in

terms of what the Minister said, would regard as a ridiculous

suggestion. But, Mr. Chairman, it is possible something like

that could happen, and therefore, I think this legislation

should not be just permissive in the matter of cooperation,

but they should be obliged to cooperate just to guard against

this very remote possibility that something like I suggested

might ever happen.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that in

section 4 the word

on the first line, "may", be changed to "shall". Just for the

benefit of all the Members, I apologize for not giving notice

of this amendment, but it's really a very small one and a very

simple one — it's easy to understand.

If this amendment were to pass, Mr. Chairman,

section 4

would say:

"The provincial board in every marketing board or commission 'shall' cooperate with the federal board to regulate the

marketing of any natural product in the Province and may act

conjointly with the Federal Board, and may perform such

functions and duties and exercise such powers as are prescribed

by this Act or the regulations."

The obligatory

part is only in the first line saying that: "The Provincial

board and every marketing board or commission 'shall' cooperate with the Federal

Board...."

What is does, Mr. Chairman, is to embody the suggestion of

the Minister himself, in saying that there would be

co-operation, into law to be certain that these independent

boards don't vary from the express wishes of the government.

I'm sure the Minister will accept it and I'm very pleased to

offer this helpful little amendment that follows through with

his policy.

Mr. Chairman: We are on the amendment proposed by the

first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the government is not

prepared to accept this amendment either, because we don't

think it will in anyway at all improve the legislation, and

what we want is good legislation.

When any marketing board in any province is considering

entering into an agreement with other marketing boards, between

the marketing boards in total and the national or federal

marketing board, there is a considerable amount of negotiating

going on. Now, if our marketing board went into those

negotiations with legislation that required them to cooperate,

then, of course, they're going in there knowing that whatever

comes out of the agreement reached among nine other provinces,

and between those nine provinces and the federal, whatever came

out of that the B.C. board would be obliged to go along with it

because the legislation said they would have to.

So we're prepared to leave it as it is, which allows the

provincial board full opportunity to negotiate and to get the

best agreement possible on behalf of everyone concerned.

Mr. McGeer: I take it from what the Minister said

that this is a little different point of view than the Minister

put on the record last night. I gather what he's saying is that

a provincial board may not cooperate with a federal board.

Well, it may be that nothing's wrong with that, but I think

we're heading down a dangerous path. That path is putting on

initial controls, then putting on controls on controls, and

finally engaging, as it seems to me we are committed not to do,

in interprovincial warfare.

If memory serves me right, we've already commenced on that.

I think it's regrettable. Indeed, I think it's essential that

if we do embark on controls we make these so broad in scope

across the nation that we don't engage in any more divisive

interprovincial acts than we've engaged in so far. That's why I

believe it would be most unfortunate if we condone in any way,

through controls introduced

[ Page 4776 ]

in this Legislature, an invitation of British Columbia to

commence that kind of action. It's why I asked the Minister

last night what the situation was with regard to parallel

legislation across Canada, and the situation with regard to

federal legislation.

We are starting to get ourselves into trouble, Mr. Chairman,

and I think we should recognize it right now.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, based on the Minister's

remarks, I'm just wondering if he understood the exact thrust

of the amendment by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

The requirement is on cooperation. The suggestion of

conjoint action in line 3 of the clause remains permissive:

"that the provincial board 'may' act conjointly with the

federal board," but it's not required to do so. What it

is required to do is to cooperate, which means to have a

harmonious relationship with and do the best to work out with,

as I would read that word. It seems to me that a board should do

that.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Once agreement has been reached,

then it is "shall" cooperate, because they are legally bound

to cooperate. And right now there is some question as to

whether some provinces are cooperating properly with CEMA.

It's quite possible that if, as seems to be the case, it is

found out that certain provinces are not cooperating in the

way that they had agreed to do, then legal action will be taken

against them.

So once we reach agreement, and I feel that we have to leave

every door open for the producers to arrive at a reasonable

agreement, the marketing boards, then the rest of the amendment

is not necessary at all because they do have to cooperate when

they sign the agreement.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 32

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Jordan

Smith

Chabot

Bennett

Phillips

McClelland

Fraser

Richter

Schroeder

Curtis

Morrison

Mr. McGeer: When you report to the Speaker, would you

inform him that a vote took place on this

section and note that

the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) was

stuck in the revolving door? (Laughter.)

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): I was looking

for Shuswap.

Mr. Chairman: I think we'll have to leave out the

revolving door part.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, just a brief

question.

This

section seems to turn over a lot of the rights of the

provincial marketing boards to the federal government. I wonder

what the intention of this

section is. Could the Minister

briefly explain it and could he tell us whether or not there

are moves afoot to move into more national marketing board

situations given the fiasco that we have with the Canadian Egg

Marketing Association and the Turkey Marketing Board which are

both in a shambles? I would think that the province would want

to move pretty slowly before we move into any more situations

like that. Perhaps the Minister could explain.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I agree with the Member that any

other boards entering into agreements on the national level

would certainly want to move slowly. This is copied entirely

out of the previous legislation. It's permissive, and, frankly,

why it was felt to be necessary when our legislation was

originally drafted in 1948 I am not aware. There has been no

attempt on the part of the federal authorities to move in to

any of the fields that are occupied in any way by its

provincial marketing board, and I can't imagine that there

would be. Beyond that, I don't have any explanation.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

Mr. Gibson:

Section 7 is easily the most disgraceful

and dangerous in this bill.

This is the

section where we in the Legislature are asked to

delegate all of our powers in a very broad spectrum to the

cabinet for a further redelegation by the cabinet at the stroke

of a pen as and when it sees

[ Page 4777 ]

fit in a very wide range of activity in British Columbia.

Read part of the enabling sentence:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations and

may vest in the provincial board or any marketing board or

commission such authorities and powers as considered necessary

or advisable with reference to the marketing of any natural

product....”

And so on.

"...such authorities and powers as considered

necessary or advisable...." No hindrance or stay-put

upon that at all, Mr. Chairman. There's no reason why the

government couldn't by order-in-council, if it saw fit, pass an order calling for

the slaughter of all black-and-white cows in the Province of

British Columbia or pass an order-in-council saying that milk

could only be delivered to people over the age of six years. It

could pass an order to do any silly or dangerous thing that the

government wanted.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the delegation of that

kind of power without some control over it is a very wrong

thing. It's something that we in this Legislature should not

agree to.

We should have, perhaps, a general committee in this House

on statutory instruments to review them and to see how the

government is making use of the power that is delegated to it.

But we don't have such a committee. So, at least in respect of

this particular very bad example of the delegation of powers, I

want to provide some control over it. I will do so by moving

the addition of

section 7(3) to read as follows:

"Any regulations passed under this Act shall be interim in

force only unless and until confirmed within 30 days by the

Legislative Assembly, if then sitting, or within 30 days of the

commencement of the next sitting."

Mr. Chairman: I declare that the amendment is out of

order. It's negative. If you wish to vote against the

section

you can do so.

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order, I'd like to speak to

that for just a moment. What this amendment proposes to do is

to....

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: I'm speaking on a point of order, Hon.

Member, to the Chairman's ruling. I am suggesting that what this

amendment proposes to do is to restrict the power, the

unbridled power of the government, in making regulations. In

other words, it's not negative; it's restrictive.

As May makes quite clear, restrictive amendments are

what amendments in committee are all about. I'll find a

reference for you if you give me a minute.

Mr. Chairman: We interpret it to be negative to the

section and therefore out of order. I'm not going to listen to

an argument on that. You can challenge the ruling if you

like.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, what kind of a procedure...?

Mr. Chairman: You've made your point of order. We've

checked it and double-checked it. We're ruling that it's out of

order.

Mr. GIBSON: Well, I most certainly appeal that

ruling.

Mr. Smith: The Hon. Member is entitled to quote his

reference.

Mr. Chairman: I have listened to the point of order

and I have made the ruling and it has been challenged.

An Hon. Member: Ha! Talk about closure!

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, in committee dealing with

section 7, I ruled that a proposed amendment was out of order

and my ruling has been appealed.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, shall the ruling of the

Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division.

YEAS — 21

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

NAYS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

[ Page 4778 ]

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

chair.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

Mr. McClelland: With respect to the appeal

section of

this Act, I would like to ask the Minister a couple of

questions. First of all, I noticed the Minister said earlier

that he didn't expect there would be very many appeals to any

orders made by the various boards, but I would like to take

some exception to that because I think that once the avenue is

open there will be appeals and there will be lots of

appeals.

It seems to me that many of the marketing boards are going

to find themselves or one of their representatives before this

appeal board a great deal of the time, and I would expect that

each of the boards will now have to hire legal council on a

practically full-time basis.

I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, who will pay

for these additional costs? Will the marketing boards

themselves have to incur these costs? Will the provincial board

pick up some of the cost?

I think it is an important question because if it becomes a

repetitious procedure, then, Mr. Chairman, the marketing boards

could find themselves bankrupt in a very short time and then we

would be left with only the provincial superboard and perhaps

that is even the method behind this Act, I really don't

know.

But I would like to know whether there will be a procedure

made for some kind of a fund, and whether or not there will be

some kind of guarantee written into the regulations, Mr.

Chairman, that the cost of these appeals won't be added on to

the consumer cost of the various products which are

involved.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: There have been several instances

in the past where marketing boards have had to carry legal

battles, I suppose under the previous administration and under

the present one. Where the government of the day has felt that

it is in the interests of the legislation itself that the court

cases be proceeded with, arrangements have been made to share

the cost.

Now, with respect to your question, I can only say that it

would depend upon the circumstances of the total situation. If

a particular marketing board found it was being plagued with a

lot of appeals and that it was a challenge of the very system

of orderly marketing itself that was being engaged upon, then

likely that marketing board would appeal to government for some

financial assistance in meeting these legal challenges.

I did say that I didn't expect there would be that many

appeals. I expect that as people become more aware of the

operation of marketing boards and the reasons for what they are

doing, that there will be less and less. But I think I can't

answer it any more explicitly than that at this time.

Mr. McClelland: Subsection (9) is, I think very

sloppily draughted where it says that an appeal may be made to

an appeal board consisting of all available members of the

provincial board who did not actively participate in the

consideration of the making of the order appealed from. This is

section 10(9), Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me that if a board has been operating for some

time and if it is five members, as you have indicated it might

be, and they've been working together for six months or eight

months or a year, or whatever, a group of people like that

tends to develop like attitudes. Certainly they get to know

each others' thought processes, and it is a bit of a danger in

any kind of a group of persons like this.

I would think that if three members of the board overturned

an appeal, it's very unlikely that those other two members —

who may have happened to be on vacation in Hawaii or someplace — it's very unlikely that those other two members, and maybe an

additional member appointed by the government, would have very

much of a different avenue of approach from the regular appeal

board.

Then in subsection 10, Mr. Chairman, the Act goes on to say

that where there are less than three members of the provincial

board qualified, in accordance with subsection 9, the cabinet

shall appoint additional members to the appeal board so as to

ensure at least three members hear the appeal. Mr. Chairman, I

would suggest that that would happen most of the time, because

there would obviously be three of those five members always at

a board meeting hearing appeals, or at least we would hope

so.

I'd just like to advance the thought to the Minister that if

there were, for instance, 10 appeals pending at any one time,

and there is a time limit of 30 days, unless otherwise ordered

by the board, that would be an additional 30 people — 30 more

people that may have to be appointed at one time — to hear

appeals from the appeal board. I think we're just piling cost

upon cost upon cost. I still say, Mr. Chairman, that these

costs can't be borne by anybody but the consumer.

Certainly it's a very cumbersome appeal process. It might

have made a lot more sense, Mr. Chairman, just to have said

that there will be within the Department of Agriculture

perhaps, as there is now, a three-member marketing board

situated within the department. It would have been a lot more

simple for me to say: "There shall be an appeal board,

consisting

[ Page 4779 ]

of a certain number of members and the Minister" or

something like that. But this is very cumbersome, and I

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's going to become very costly as

well.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, we couldn't get

into the situation where there would be as many as 30 people

acting on the board at the same time, because the maximum

according to the legislation is 10. If we got to the point

where there were too many appeals for the 10 to deal with, then

it would simply mean that the marketing board would have to

otherwise order that the date be longer than 30 days before the

appeal was heard. So there couldn't be any more than 10 serving

at the same time. But as I did indicate earlier, depending on

the nature of the appeal, the members on the board might

change. Some of them might be appointed for a relatively short

period to deal with a particular situation.

There are several ways of handling the appeal, that's true.

One of the interim draughts suggested that they would be

handled by the Supreme Court of Canada — or court of appeal,

rather. That was considered. We decided that we would try it

this way and see how it works and it would be the actual board

itself that would hear the appeal. We would not appoint the

full number. We would add to it to deal with the appeal. Now,

in light of experience, it might well be that we will be

recommending to another sitting of the Legislature that there

should be some changes.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister

for indicating that he would consider changes if it becomes

necessary. But the comments that only 10 people can sit on the

board.... That would seem to be negated by subsection 10,

because subsection 10 gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

full right to appoint, I would think, as many people as it

feels necessary, and there could be a number more than 10

serving.

But even if I'm interpreting that

section incorrectly, and

then the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has to vary the times

in which an appeal must be made, we're getting into an even

worse situation, Mr. Chairman, because we're going to see, if

there are a number of appeals pending, that those appeals will

have to be sent back farther and farther and farther, and any

marketing board, for instance, which attempts to take advantage

of the fluctuating market in an emergency will then have that

emergency negated because of the tendency on the part of the

government to set back those time limits. So we may be, instead

of waiting 30 days, maybe waiting 60 days, 90 days, six months,

to have orders from these appeals heard.

The other question that comes to mind is: what happens, Mr. Chairman, to these

orders once an appeal is made? If a marketing board, for instance, initiates

an order and an appeal is made, is that order suspended until the appeal is

heard? If so, then perhaps that order will have to be suspended for many months

if a backlog of appeals comes up.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to appeal very strongly to the

Minister of Agriculture to take another look at this whole

section to see if the appeal procedures can't be streamlined

and guarantees built in so that orders of the board or appeals

can be heard as quickly as possible so that the orderly

marketing situation doesn't completely break down.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, the Member has asked

me to take another look at this. In that it will not be long

before the Legislature will be in a new session — we're well

into November now — I can promise that we will be looking at

that, because there have been representations about the appeal

section — different suggestions. There's not one that I can grab

on and say, well, I prefer this to what is presented in the

bill that is before us now.

So with that, I'd like to ask the House to accept the appeal

section as it is here, with the undertaking that this will be

reviewed in the time between now and the next session.

Mr. McClelland: What will happen to orders that are

appealed?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: It will vary with the orders. For

example, if it is a pricing order, I would think that in that

situation the marketing board would say: "Well, that order is

suspended until we've had time to hear the appeal." There may

be other orders allocating quota, for example, that might be

suspended or might not. I think it would depend on the

order.

The marketing board has the authority to suspend them and

then hear the appeal, or to hear the appeal and then deal with

the....

Mr. McClelland: But will the marketing board be

obliged to suspend those orders?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The provincial marketing board?

Mr. McClelland: Well, the....

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The provincial marketing board

would have the authority, depending on the particular order. In

its judgment it would either suspend or let the order be

operative until after the appeal had been heard.

Mr. McClelland: Won't there be problems

[ Page 4780 ]

arising if the appeal procedure backs up?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister if he wouldn't

recognize that there could be some serious problems arise with

regard to the variance of orders and the suspension of orders

if the appeal procedure does develop into a backlog

situation.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: I think that's one of the

considerations that the marketing board would have in mind in

deciding whether to suspend or whether to allow an order to

stand until the appeal had been heard.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask

the Minister exactly what this is: "A marketing board may, with

the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — sub

section 3 — "purchase or otherwise acquire, hold, and dispose of

real property." Does this mean that the marketing board — the

superboard — will have the power to actually build and own

processing plants, or is this clause in there just for them to

acquire real estate for the purpose of an office building? Or

are they going to go into the cattle business, such as the Land

Commission has done, by buying ranches and going into the

direct production of foodstuffs? Is the marketing board with

this power planning on going into the poultry production? Are

they planning on taking over the alfalfa-cubing plant? What is

the purpose of this section? Why are they given this particular

power?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I suppose, because

the names are so dissimilar, I think there was some confusion

in the remarks of the Member for South Peace River. At one time

he was talking about the superboard and another time about the

marketing board.

The marketing boards under this

section are marketing boards

to deal with a particular commodity. This is not the

section

dealing with the provincial board.

Now the marketing boards already have this authority. It

gives them the authority — the opportunity, if you like — to

take advantage of using federal money that's available for

storage facilities. But many of the marketing boards do own

those kinds of facilities. All we're doing here is continuing

that authority.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

Mr. McClelland: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to

ask the Minister a question, and I must refer to another

section in asking this question. Am I correct that

section 14,

dealing with marketing commissions, specifically mentions

processing, and yet this section,

section 12, dealing with

marketing boards specifically leaves out processing? Is it the

intention of the Minister not to allow marketing boards to get

into the processing of their own commodities, while the

marketing commission may?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the

question might more properly be: why do we bother saying

"processing" in

section 14? I've asked the legislative counsel

the same question that you just put to me. I'm told that the

word "producing" can be extended so that it's not simply the

primary producer. But if the primary producers of a particular

product want to carry it one stage further in their marketing

board organization, then using the word "production" does not

rule out the possibility of them carrying on to processing at

some stage.

So when we say in commissions that they can process, we're

being redundant.

Mr. McClelland: Well, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it make

some sense, then, not to be redundant in the Act? It's

certainly open to some dispute. Why doesn't the Minister put in

an amendment to change that redundancy? It would make things a

lot more simple and certainly make the Act more efficient and

businesslike.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Chairman, in that the

House has been good enough to have gone along with the wording

up to this point right through to

section 12, I can't see any

reason, in view of my explanation, for changing any of the

words in this point.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: That's crazy.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, the arguments for caution

here are getting more and more compelling as the Minister runs

out of excuses to defend what ultimately will prove to be a bad

bill.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: That's what you said about Bill

Mr. McGeer: Look at the difference between what that

Minister first introduced and finally what he settled for.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: How do you feel about Bill 9?

[ Page

4781 ]

Mr. McGeer: They were completely different bills.

The Minister would do well to listen early to what some of

his helpful critics have to say, instead of listening late as

he did with Bill 42. Actually, in the end the Minister did a

bad job in Bill 42 because he withdrew too far under fire.

Mr. Chairman, when we discussed this bill in second reading

you will no doubt recall that there were some disagreements

between the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), the Speaker and some Members on this

side of the House, notably myself as the Liberal leader, and

the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), as to

whether or not discussion of this bill in all its ramifications

were sub judice.

We offered the opinion, which the Speaker rejected, that

this bill in no way.... The Speaker's position was that the

bill in no way interfered with the court case between the Egg

Marketing Board and Mr. Sy Kovachich.

We stood on May the parliamentary guide, which stated that

if the bill has the effect, or can have the effect, of changing

the circumstances of a court case, then it is appropriate that

all the ramifications be discussed in the Legislature. To do

otherwise would deny proper debate on a bill, as well as to be

tantamount to interference with free speech.

Subsection 2 of this particular

section quite clearly can

have the effect of interfering with that court case. May I read

to you? According to subsection 2:

"The Provincial board may, at any time, amend, vary or

cancel any order, rule, or regulation made, before or after the

date this Act comes into force...."

"Before or after", Mr. Chairman, "before or after the date

this Act comes into force." We can only conclude that it is the

intention of the government to take such action now as to

change the effect of the decision of the Egg Marketing Board

which got the government into such problems because it chose to

defend one of its party Members and supporters, Mr. Sy

Kovachich.

Now, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said it

is definitely out of order. What's out of order, Mr. Member, is

the bill.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: What's out of order is the bill, because

the bill, if you will read

section 12(2), says that this new

board may change any order, rule or regulation before or after

the date this Act is passed.

In other words, contrary to the position taken by Mr. Speaker in second reading

of this bill, it clearly is retroactive legislation. I can only conclude from

the attempts the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce made

to stifle debate on this bill that it was his intention, and the intention of

the government, specifically to change the circumstances surrounding the Sy

Kovachich case in order to snuff out any continuing embarrassment this sorry

affair has brought to that Minister, to the Premier and to his government.

Now it may be, Mr. Chairman, that my suspicions are

ill-founded. It may be that I've been in opposition so long,

watched so many things that have slipped through this House be

later turned against the public for the advantage of the

government, that I've become hypersensitive.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Yes, like the Minister of Transport and

B.C. Rail.

I don't want to get into something sub judice, but there was

a very interesting little item in the paper today about suits

between the B.C. Railway and one of the contractors that the

Minister tried to defend through the then executive

vice-president of the B.C. Railway before a hearing in the

House.

I only mention this, Mr. Chairman, because it was another

instance where something just slipped by. And it may be I'm

hypersensitive. If that is the case, if it really wasn't the

intention of the government to do what I suggested, then, of

course, they will want to make certain that there are no

retroactive provisions in this Act.

So in order to give the government an opportunity to prove

that I'm hypersensitive and even a fool about this, I'm

suggesting...in fact, I'm moving the following amendment to

section 12(2): to delete the words "before or", which appear in

line 2 of subsection 2, so the subsection will say: "The

provincial board may at any time amend, vary or cancel any

order, rule or regulation made, after the date this Act comes

into force."

It merely takes away the power to pass retroactive rules or

regulations. Of course, this would make it impossible to fiddle

with the Sy Kovachich case and it would be established that

what I said here is wrong.

On the other hand, if the government rejects this amendment

and wishes to keep the retroactive provision in this

legislation, then I think it will make it perfectly clear that

it is the intent to interfere with this, or any other

situations that have cropped up with the Egg Marketing Board

that might lead to political ramifications.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The Member, of course, will draw

whatever inferences he chooses to from this section, and will

probably vote according to his own suspicions. But there are

reasons why the government cannot accept this amendment.

There are orders other than the one that seems to be

uppermost in the minds, up to this point at least,

[ Page 4782 ]

of the leader of the Liberal group, and to quite an extent

in the minds of all of them, I suppose — one particular order,

or orders, associated with a particular case. But there are

many other orders that marketing boards have passed recently,

and may pass before this particular bill becomes law, which the

provincial marketing board may want to interfere with.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You are defying the Speaker's

ruling in second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: For example, Mr. Chairman, very

recently the egg board, for reasons best known to itself and

reasons that were not explained to me, decided that the

producers in the Fraser Valley, who up to that point were

marketing 80 per cent of the quota they were entitled to market

.... Very recently this was changed by order so that they could

market 100 per cent, technically. That makes quite a difference

to some of the producers in the valley, and makes a difference

to the producers in the rest of the province too.

Now, the marketing board might very well want to look at

that order and wonder at the timing of it. There may be an

explanation, I don't know, I haven't heard it, I haven't had an

opportunity yet to ask the question even. But an order like

that could very well be examined into by the marketing

board.

There are other orders that have to do with determining the

quantity of chicken being produced at a time, for example, when

we have near record supplies of all poultry meats in storage.

But there are orders from time to time that are issued that

have to deal with just how much chicken will be produced.

It's quite possible that there are orders already in effect

or that may be passed between now and the time this bill

becomes law, as I hope it will soon, that the marketing board

may wish to interfere with on the grounds that it is bad for

the industry in total and for consumers to have storage

building up that somebody is paying for. So, we require this

retroactive provision, if you like, to deal with orders such as

those.

Certainly the government has no intention of dealing with

the one order or orders associated with the particular case

that, as I say, is uppermost in the minds of some people in the

House. But we do require the legislation to be able to look at

other orders that have been passed or may be passed between now

and the day the bill becomes law.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the

Minister?

When the Speaker offered his opinion that there was no retroactive aspect to

this legislation and asked for opinions from the Members of the House about

this, we said there were. The Speaker, in effect, said there weren't. And the

Minister who was sitting there in the House at that time sat silent. He didn't

say one word during second reading, Mr. Chairman, to refute the opinion of the

Speaker or to offer him any help.

Now he stands up when we have an amendment on this

section

before committee in the House, after second reading has passed,

and freely admits that there were retroactive aspects to this

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, what do you think of a Minister who does that

kind of thing? The Speaker passes down a ruling on second

reading of this bill, based on the fact that there is no

retroactivity to this legislation. The Minister, knowing

perfectly well that there is, sits silent in this House. Then

that vote having passed and come to committee, he has the gall

to stand up here and admit to the Legislature and to the public

that there were retroactive aspects to that bill.

It's disgraceful for a Minister of the Crown to do that kind

of thing. It's openly deceiving the House Mr. Minister, and

that's what this Minister is guilty of.

Mr. Chairman: I don't think that kind of debate is

relevant to the amendment.

Mr. McGeer: Relevant! It's relevant to the whole

process of democracy, Mr. Chairman. Can't you see that? You're

going to have a Minister slipping something by the House one

moment in order to get a vote favourable to him, and then

admitting at the next turn that by his silence he was deceiving

the House. Nobody knew better than the Minister what the

meaning of his legislation was.

Mr. Chairman: Order! We're not here to rule in this

committee....

Mr. McGeer: I don't believe the Speaker was.... I

believe the Speaker didn't realize the implications of that

bill. But the Minister did, and he sat silent! It's

disgraceful, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, it's my

responsibility at the moment to explain

section 12 and to

answer questions about it to see what we're doing with it. If

the Member opposite has some question he wishes to take up with

the Speaker, I'm sure the rules provide him with the

opportunity to do that. But I'm not answering for the Speaker

in this debate.

Mr. McClelland: I'm speaking in support of the

amendment, Mr. Chairman. It's significant of the language the

Minister used in replying to the amendment in the first

instance. The words were, "interfere, interfere, interfere."

And it came over and

[ Page 4783 ]

over. I know we can't talk to the principle of this bill,

Mr. Chairman, but that's what is wrong with this whole Act.

It's a deliberate attempt to give this government and the

Minister full power to interfere, interfere, just as they did

in the case that has been referred to.

The only difference is that the government wishes to

legalize its strong-arm tactics. That's about the size of

it.

The Minister has the power within all of the present

legislation to sit down with the Members of marketing boards

and his staff to talk to them about their various orders. The

Minister has even admitted that he hasn't even asked the

question yet about the example that he used. He has the

authority to go and ask that question. He has the authority to

go and sit down with those people involved with the marketing

boards and persuade them or convince them of the error of their

ways and ask them to change any orders that he wants them to.

And it can all be done through free and easy negotiation rather

than through this — heavy-handed, ham-handed approach — the

big-club approach that this government seems to be wanting to

get into more and more.

The Minister has certainly confirmed our suspicions by the

use of that word, "interfere" because that's what this

government is attempting now to legalize: the interference in

areas where previously the people had full independence. That

can no longer be true.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Yes, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, it

seems to be the only solution that this government has to

anything, whether it's in its education policy, in its labour

policy, or in its agriculture policy. Heavy hand, use the club,

strong-arm tactics, threaten, blackmail, coerce, rather than

negotiate and discuss.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We're going to ask the Member

for Langley to withdraw the word "blackmail."

Mr. McClelland: I'm sorry, would you repeat that, Mr.

Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I would ask you to withdraw the word

"blackmail."

Mr. McClelland: I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the Hon. Member for

Langley said, I have no authority to call the marketing board in to discuss

with them their orders. I have an opportunity; I can telephone or write and

ask them to come if they chose to come. I have no authority. That's what's wrong

with this legislation up to this point. Government policy is that there shall

be some authority.

I'd like to read from a letter that I received from the

chairman of one of the marketing boards. It was received in my

office November 12.

"I am extremely pleased that you have finally got Bill 165

well underway.

"I suppose, not unnaturally, I had some inquiries from the

opposition, hoping that I would help lambaste the appeal

section in particular. I told them in no uncertain terms that I

felt it high time the consumers and others had a chance to

confirm their suspicions, or, as I envisage it, to see for

themselves that marketing boards are not by and large the

monsters that they had been painted of late."

That's from the

chairman of one of the marketing boards. It's quite in line

with government policy. In that is in line with government

policy, we want subsection (2) as is.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Chairman, I've been asked who?

I don't have the writer's authority to publicize this. But I

will....

An Hon. Member: Come on now, come on.

Hon. Mr. Stupich: If anyone wants to know his name, I

will ask this person whether or not he would like his name

released to them.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote to

you from page 4492 of Hansard , which was the November 6

issue. When my colleague, the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), stated quite correctly that

what was in the bill:

...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.

Here's what Mr. Speaker said....

Mr. Chairman: Order! You're not speaking to the

amendment; you're trying to redevelop the debate on second

reading. That's out of order.

Mr. McGeer: No, I'm not.

Mr. Chairman: I want you to deal with your amendment.

That's all you're to deal with; you're not to re-enter the

second reading debate.

[ Page 4784 ]

Mr. McGeer: That's precisely, exactly, definitively

and essentially what I am dealing with here. It's whether or

not, Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate to delete from

section 12

the words that say, "before or" because those words are the two

words in this Act that give it retroactive effect. There can be

no question about that.

Mr. Chairman, the Speaker said, and I quote from page 4492

of Hansard :

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 that would make retroactive the....

Mr. Chairman: Order! What is on the floor of this

committee right now is your amendment. Order! Will you take

your seat. Order!

When I call this meeting to order, you are to take your seat

and you know that. I want to remind you that you are dealing

with an amendment that calls for the deletion of the two words.

You're not dealing with the Speaker's ruling, and that is out

of order. And you know what procedure you can take on that

matter.

Mr. McGeer: ...the length of time that it takes to

read a paragraph....

Mr. Chairman: I've already ruled that that's out of

order. Now you deal with your amendment or take your place.

Mr. McGeer: ...ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman.

It's a quote from Hansard .

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to point

out to you is that by his silence at that time, the Minister of

Agriculture, who knew better than anyone in this House the

contents of that bill, acknowledged the Speaker's ruling for

the purposes of second reading debate.

If there had been any retroactive provisions, it was the

duty of that Minister to stand up then and declare those

retroactive provisions. By what he has said here during

committee, he has acknowledged that he knew full well the

import of

section 12(2), and he refuses to accept that

amendment that would give force to the Speaker's ruling on

second reading.

What I am trying to say to you, Mr. Chairman, is that the

Minister is morally obliged to accept this amendment. If he

does otherwise, then he will have been guilty of misleading the

House at the time the Speaker in all innocence made a ruling

which Members on this side of the House suggested at the time

was wrong.

Now the Minister isn't pleading ignorance. The Minister is declaring full knowledge.

He willfully permitted the Speaker to make a wrong decision. He did that for

the purpose of getting this bill through second reading without a debate on

the Kovachich case, or without the Kovachich case being mentioned.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. McGeer: He had an ally in this, the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

Mr. Chairman: Will the Member take his seat? You are

imputing improper motive, and I've told you that you're to be

debating the amendment — that's all. You must deal with that

amendment, and that's all. You cannot involve this committee in

second reading, which is the matter of principle and has been

dealt with.

Mr. McGeer: There's a pretty important principle

involved in this amendment. It's a personal one, Mr. Chairman,

personal with the Minister. We're trying to make an honest man

of him.

Mr. Chairman: That's improper. Will you withdraw

that?

Mr. McGeer: Yes, I do. We're not trying to make an

honest man of him. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. McGeer: I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I'm going to ask the Member to

correct that situation. You know you must withdraw without

reservation.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, I'm doing my very best to

correct the situation. I'm offering the kind of amendment....

Mr. Chairman: Order! I'm asking you to withdraw

without reservation the statement you made earlier.

Mr. McGeer: I withdraw without reservation.

Mr. Chairman: Now let me once again remind you to

deal with the amendment. Let me remind you that you're dealing

with the amendment and you're not going to get involved in

principle discussion of this bill.

Mr. McGeer: You see, what we're involved with, Mr.

Chairman, is this matter of trust and integrity, truth. These

things were mentioned under another section. There's been this

kind of moral sanctity

[ Page 4785 ]

about the government and the Minister, that they should be

trusted, because they're marvelous fellows with the highest

possible standards and they know better what the public should

have for themselves than the public itself knows. If only we

pass the legislation, the public will come to realize what

wonderful good things the government is doing for them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

progress and asks leave to sit again.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that when you report

asking for leave or divisions to be recorded, whoever wishes

the divisions to be recorded, I think, properly should make a

motion to the Speaker after leave has been granted.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I'll tell you what I'll do on the question, because

it's been raised with the clerks: I'll discuss it with them. But it seems to

me that in order to keep our records correct, there should be some motion. All

I'm doing now is asking leave that the divisions be recorded.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: I'll discuss the other question of

procedure later with the clerks; I haven't got time to really

look into it.

Hon. Mr. Stupich files answers to questions. (See

appendix.)

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I'd just ask leave to

withdraw question No. 222 in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: The order of business on Monday

will be continuation of the Minister of Agriculture's debate on

his bill, and then we will move into the Public Schools....

Then we will tell you where we go next Monday.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

198 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of

Agriculture the following questions:

1. Has the Department of Agriculture expended funds

for the purpose of site preparation and operation

of any "rent-a-garden" sites within the Province?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) what was the

total cost involved and (

b) what was the total recovery,

if any, by way of rents charged?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. $56,474.30.

"3. $3,680."

223 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of

Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the Department's predator-control

activities—

1. What extra sums have been allocated to predator-control

programmes since July 1, 1974?

2. In what ways and with what results have predator-control

activities been expanded?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

" 1. None.

"2. Not applicable."

[ Page 4786 ]

APPENDIX

226 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of

Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the administration of the Farm Income

Assurance Act —

1. How many segments of the agricultural industry have so

far become participants in farm income plans?

2. What has been the total Provincial financial commitment

to farm income plans?

The Hon. D. D. Stupich replied as follows:

" 1. Four.

"2. Commitment has been made to pay a percentage of the

difference between the cost of production and market returns for a five-year

period for each commodity group."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada