1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3989 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Mr. Macdonald –– 3989

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act –– 1980 (Bill 29). Second reading.

Mr. Howard –– 3991

Mrs. Dailly –– 3992

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3992

Division on second reading –– 3992

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 30). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3993

Mr. Howard –– 3993

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3993

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 37). Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3993

Mr. Nicolson –– 3993

Mr. Barber –– 3994

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3994

Division on second reading –– 3995

Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 26). Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 3995

Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr

Wolfe)

section 8 –– 3996

Mr. Cocke

Division on

section 8 –– 3997

Report –– 3998

Livestock Act (Bill 50). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3998

Mrs. Wallace –– 3998

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3999

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act (Bill 57). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3999

Mrs. Wallace –– 4000

Mr. Cocke –– 4002

Mr. Barber –– 4003

Mr. Stupich –– 4004

Ms. Brown –– 4005

Mr. Barrett –– 4005

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4007

Insurance Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 40). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4008

Mr. Cocke –– 4008

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4009

Land Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

section 5 –– 4009

Mr. Howard

Mr. Hanson

section 11 –– 4010

Mr. Hanson

Pension Plans (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act (Bill PR 402). Second reading.

Mr. Segarty –– 4011

Mr. Hanson –– 4011

Mr. Cocke –– 4011

Mr. Segarty –– 4011

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR 403). Second reading.

Mr. Ritchie –– 4011

Appendix –– 4012

MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions to make to the House today: first

of all, from my constituency of Kamloops, Art and June Hooper. I'd ask

the House to make them very welcome.

In the members' gallery

today with my wife Patti and daughter Kim are three very important

visitors for me from the city of Toronto: my son Ken, his wife Laura,

and — someday to be heard from in this chamber, no doubt, and perhaps

sooner than all of us would wish — my grandson Ken. I'd ask the House

to make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it is

my great pleasure to introduce in the gallery this afternoon Bill and

May Hamburg, friends of Ina and Cliff Ludke. As many of you know, Ina

is my secretary here in the buildings and Cliff is on the

Sergeant-at-Arms' staff. For the past six years Bill and May have

served in Canadian embassies in: Beirut, Lebanon; Ankara, Turkey;

Warsaw, Poland; and Budapest, Hungary. On returning from holidays they

will be serving the Canadian embassy in Vienna, Austria. I would ask

this House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

It's my pleasure to introduce a neighbour of mine from Prince George,

Mr. John Whitmar, who is the president of the Council of Forest

Industries this year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'd like to

join the Minister of Labour in welcoming John Whitmar. With John today

is a group of people from the Council of Forest Industries: Tony

Chevrier, Bert Gayle, Tom Buell, and John Ross. Would the House please

welcome these gentlemen as well.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have some visitors today from Langley. I'd like the House to make welcome Mr. Bill Milne and family.

Oral Questions

APPLICATION FOR NORTH DELTA

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question

for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs relating to the pub

that went to Gerry and Bob Olma last December. It's in the Kennedy

Shopping Centre, 88th and 120th Street, Delta. The minister said there

was a public hearing, and that it went to his discretion after being

turned down by the liquor branch. Was there notice of time and place

given to anyone that the appeal was going to take place? Was it in the B.C. Gazette , in the newspaper, or were letters sent out to people advising the time and place of this public hearing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not aware of any public hearing in the sense of that terminology. It was an appeal open to the public, quite different.

MR. MACDONALD: I wanted to know — on behalf of the public, of whom I'm one — how the public would know that the appeal was taking place.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The appellant, of course, is advised, as would be members of the liquor

control branch, who also have a role to play in such a hearing. They

are the principals involved in the application, and they are advised.

The public is served in that if they have a particular interest in

that, they would be made aware of that in some way. But the public is

also served by the access of the media to such hearings as they have

attended in the past.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: was the press notified, and if so. In what form?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No, the press was not notified specifically in that instance. The

press, I think, generally appreciates that the hearings are usually

held each second Wednesday, and if they request when a hearing takes

place, they are advised, as they have been in the past.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, did anybody, except the liquor administration branch — and

the appellant, of course — know that this appeal was coming up? How

would they know about this particular appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I can't speak on behalf of all people, and perhaps some

knew. I have no way of knowing if some people knew. There could have

been some people who were aware, but I don't know who they might be.

MR. MACDONALD:

Then I take it that the Catholic church across the road from the pub

site, and Mr. Pridie, who had been rejected for his application in the

same area, didn't have any notice of this, as far as you know.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I am not aware that they had any notice.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a great appeal procedure, I must say.

ask this question to the member. You said that the hon. member for

Delta (Mr. Davidson) was in the room, sitting on a chair against the

wall, when the appeal took place. That was his function and his role.

How would the hon. member for Delta know that the appeal was to take

place, and its time and place, if there was no notice of it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, presumably it is because the member for Delta takes an interest in constituency matters.

MR. MACDONALD:

Assuming for a moment that the Catholic church across the road was

objecting to the proposed pub and was willing to take an interest in

the matter, how would they know? Was the Catholic church across the

road from the pub site given any opportunity to make representations?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Catholic church which the member refers to had the opportunity of making representa-

[ Page 3990 ]

tion

in this matter. I met with them in my office in Richmond. They also met

with the general manager of the liquor control board, and their

concerns, in part, brought about certain conditions when the licence

was issued. The meetings with the representatives from that church and

school were most cordial. They admitted that they were coming at a very

late hour, but they wanted their concerns heard. And their concerns

were heard, and some of their concerns were considered and brought

about the conditions of the licence.

MR. MACDONALD: Was the Catholic church that you refer to given notice of the time and place of the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Not that I'm aware of; it's possible that they may have, but the

Catholic church representatives asked for and received a meeting well

after the appeal had taken place, prior to the issuance of the licence.

Perhaps the member is confused as to what the appeal is; it's not an

appeal for a licence, Mr. Member. The licence occurs some time later.

The

church made representations to council, I believe, and also to me and

the general manager of the liquor control branch. They were accorded an

audience and their concerns were taken into consideration, as reflected

in the conditions of the licence.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm relieved to know that after you had decided to

grant the application for the appeal over the refusal of the liquor

control branch the church then had an opportunity to say something. It

wouldn't do them any good, but they had that opportunity.

I ask the minister: who filed the notice of appeal, and who put up the $100 deposit which is required on appeals of that kind?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, I presume it was the appellant; that would be consistent with the concept of the appellant appealing.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to file with the House the

notice of appeal and the $100 deposit and take as notice the question

of who actually filed that appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member would like, I presume, the name on the letter of application for appeal.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Will you file that in the House?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No. I'll get the information for you, if that's what you require. I

presume you want the letter which was sent saying: "We would like to

appeal the decision." I'd be pleased to give you the information you're

asking for and the names of the people who were signatories to such a

letter. I don't know what good a $100 cheque would do; presumably it's

been cashed by now.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, would

the minister advise the House as to who was helping with this appeal

and actually filed the documents — not who signed them?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't know whether that information

would be available — unless the member is asking if there was a law

firm acting on behalf of the appellant. If there was a law firm, sure,

I'd be pleased to provide you with that information.

MR. MACDONALD:

I specifically ask the minister: will he look into that and report back

to the House on who filed the appeal, who set up the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly.

MR. MACDONALD: All right.

My next question: did the liquor control branch make representations in writing or otherwise at that appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

It would be a matter of looking into the records, Mr. Speaker. The

liquor control branch representatives were there. On occasion there may

be some written evidence, but usually it's oral evidence.

MR. MACDONALD: On this occasion?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to check.

MR. MACDONALD:

Will the minister undertake to come back to the House with that

information and table with this House a submission if it was in writing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll do the best I can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

Prior to the appeal being heard, was the hon. member for Delta in

communication with the minister relating to this appeal, in any way?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

It's quite possible. I have no specific information on that. It's

possible the member could have phoned, asking when an appeal was to

take place, but I don't know of any other type of communication.

MR. MACDONALD: Is the minister saying specifically that this was not discussed at all with the member for Delta?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Did he say he can't remember?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, it's not unusual for members to contact my office or the

deputy's office or the general manager's office to obtain information

with respect to dates of appeal. The appeal procedure had some backup

for a while, and they were being cleared as rapidly as possible. It was

quite common for members to make contact on behalf of a constituent, to

determine when the appeal might be heard. So it's quite possible; it

could have occurred in any of the cases.

MR. MACDONALD:

I ask the minister: in view of the fact that a member of the

Legislature communicated with you and made representations in respect

to an appeal of this kind — and you were to be the judge sitting at a

later date.... That would be a highly improper thing. I am asking you why you don't remember and why you give the answer to the

[ Page 3991 ]

House that you have no recollection of such a meeting between yourself and the hon. member for Delta. Wouldn't you remember it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of having many meetings with the

member for Delta and members for other constituencies. A great deal may

be discussed at such meetings. The member said certain representations

may or may not have been made, or could or could not have been made. I

presume that is a probing question of some kind. If the member wants to

get the entire picture in view, the appeal was decided on the

information presented at the appeal and on nothing else.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have the minister's answer — as best I can get at this

time — in terms of whether he had personal communication about the

appeal, not about the time or place. Obviously the member for Delta

knew that. I ask him: was the hon. member for Delta in touch either

with other people in his office or with the liquor control branch with

respect to this appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have no knowledge of that, I'm sorry.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. minister come back to the House and give us that information?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, that is presuming that there is such information.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, will the minister check to see whether or not that is the case and come back to the House and let us know?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to look in the file, and if there is such communication I will so advise the member.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, my question was not just about a letter. My question was

whether the member for Delta had been in touch, relating to this

appeal, with the liquor administration branch or with anyone in the

minister's office, including the minister. Will the minister refresh

his recollection, come back to the House, and advise the House

accordingly?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it's not

a matter of recollection, since I'm not the person to whom the member

for Delta may have been speaking and since I'm not an official of the

liquor control branch. I suppose we could begin by speaking to the

general manager and all the many people on the staff. I'm not quite

sure how long it might take to communicate with everybody in the liquor

control branch. Thankfully, he didn't ask on the liquor distribution

branch; we'd have to interview all the clerks in the liquor stores.

I'll try to find out but I'm not sure where to begin.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, the liquor board regulations say that, "In reviewing the

site the branch is concerned with the following factors: proximity to

churches" — and there is a church right across the road — "...and

shopping centres are not considered favourable sites for neighbourhood

public houses." In view of the fact that the Olmas owned this parcel of

land under separate title, and it was all part of their shopping centre

which they had also acquired, how does the ministry explain the

apparent breach of regulations that occurred in this case?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member is not reading regulations.

MR. MACDONALD:

I am reading from a

summary, "Liquor Licensing in British Columbia,"

put out by the liquor control branch. Was this brought to your

attention on the appeal — that there was a church across the road and

that this was part of a shopping centre all owned by the same people?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

From the best of my memory, there were three reasons cited by the

general manager for the refusal. I'd have to check precisely, but they

were concerned about traffic, which was one of the conditions of the

license. Another concern was the total number of seats in licensed

premises in that area of Delta. I think the third concern was proximity

to a shopping centre. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite confident, subject to

precise analysis of that letter, that there was no reference to the

church location in the refusal; that was not one of the reasons cited

for refusal of the preclearance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

members, again I must cite from Beauchesne's fifth edition,

section 359

on page 132, which stresses the amount of urgency in a question.

Section 5 of paragraph 359 says: ''The matter ought to be of some

urgency. There must be some present value in seeking the information

during the question period rather than through the order paper or

through correspondence with the minister or the department." I read

that for the benefit of members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, in our gallery today we have Mrs. Peggy Lee from

Vancouver. With Mrs. Lee is one of her three daughters — who are

triplets — and I'd like the House to welcome Barbara, who is a sister

to Deborah and Cathy. Barbara is here in our Legislature for the very

first time today, and I would ask the House to welcome her.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed — with leave — to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (TEACHERS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

(continued)

MR. HOWARD: Last Friday we outlined, as did the

[ Page 3992 ]

second

member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) on an earlier occasion under a different

bill, our views with respect to this particular piece of legislation,

and our objections to it.

MRS. DAILLY: Just before

the minister winds up reading, he should, I think, correct a statement

he made when speaking on the bill on Friday, and I hope he will. He

suggested that the teachers of British Columbia had accepted and were

in agreement with what has been presented to them in the bill. I think

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) should be aware of the fact

that the teachers rejected this proposal at their last convention.

think the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) gave an excellent outline of

our objections to this bill on Friday, and I certainly don't intend to

repeat those objections.

I have just one final word. I hope

that when the minister winds it up he will explain, not only to the

opposition but for the benefit of the teachers of the province, why the

teachers have been treated inequitably in comparison to the BCGEU

members — and we are very happy to see the manner in which they have

been treated. But we still fail to understand why the teachers have

been treated in another fashion. I hope the minister will explain this

to us, especially when the teachers have said that they are willing to

move into changes in the financing of their funds similar to those

accepted by the BCGEU. Therefore we fail to understand why they're not

included in a similar bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In

closing debate on the second reading of the Pension (Teachers)

Amendment Act, I have just a couple or three brief comments. The member

for Skeena and the member for Burnaby North made reference to the fact

that the teachers were not in accord with the amendments which we have

before us and that it was incorrect to indicate that there had been any

agreement. Mr. Speaker, I should explain that the changes before us are

really the result of long negotiations — discussions — with the B.C.

Teachers' Federation and others, which originated back in 1978. The

results of these discussions were pursued by the Teachers' Federation

before my two predecessors as Provincial Secretary, who were asked to

attend to these amendments at the soonest opportunity. At a very early

date after my appointment of last November as Provincial Secretary, I

was approached by the Teachers' Federation and asked when we might

consider introducing these amendments.

There might be some

difference of opinion as to whether the word "agreement" is a proper

word to apply to this series of amendments. Suffice it to say that what

we have before us is a package of amendments which the teachers are

well aware of. The package includes substantially improved funding in

the interests of correcting the unfunded liability problem in the

Teachers' Pension Fund. It includes the recommendations of the joint

Wiggins report, which improves elderly teachers' pensions by an average

of some $50 each. It includes other things, such as further recognition

of part-time teaching, new flexibility in terms of interest rates

applied to contributions which an employee withdraws, and the new

controlled fund for indexing, or what is now called the inflation

adjustment account.

If I may, I'd like to table two letters

— one was addressed to my predecessor, Mr. Curtis, and one was

addressed to me; one is dated March 29, 1979, and the other is dated

November 26, 1979 — which include the items of this so-called package.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to include with that a further

schedule

which will explain, I think, in fairly brief terms the difference in

the funding between the teachers' pension plan and the public service

pension plan. But in reference to the teachers' convention, the package

I'm referring to, which was developed into the amendments before us....

The teachers, in their most recent convention, considered the matter of

open-ended indexing and passed a resolution to maintain open-ended

indexing.

This bill was at the eleventh hour of proceeding

into this House. That was at a very recent date. For two reasons it was

not possible to consider that matter. First of all, we had a package

before us, and if you remove one element of the package — a very

important one — it's very difficult to consider the other items in the

package. Secondly, it was simply physically too late to consider at

that time. It's sufficient to say that the government is committed to

having a fund for the payment of any indexing in the future; not an

open-ended fund which has no way of being paid for, but a controlled

fund for the payment of any indexing or inflation adjustments.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to table these two letters.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

On the matter of funding per se and why it is that there may be a

difference between the funding for the inflation account of the public

service and the funding for the inflation account of the teachers, it

is simply this, Mr. Speaker. There is now a substantial difference in

the contribution being made by the employer, or the government, towards

pensions of teachers and in the case of public service. In the case of

the teachers' pension plan, including the inflation adjustment account,

the government is contributing, in effect, some 10.2 percent of salary.

In the case of the public service plan, the employer or the government

is contributing what amounts to 9.0 percent. It is therefore not a

credible case to suggest that funding on behalf of the employer for the

teachers' pension plan could be increased at this time. We have just

increased by some 2.5 percent the level of the government contribution

to teachers' pension plans to arrive at this 10.2, at a cost of upwards

of $13 million increase in the cost to the teachers' pension plan on

behalf of the taxpayer.

In closing the debate on second

reading, I say again that this is a package of benefits improving

funding which includes the new controlled fund for indexing. With that,

Mr. Speaker, I move second second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

[ Page 3993 ]

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

29, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, very

briefly, this bill amends the Public Service Benefit Plan Act,

primarily for the purpose of enabling certain matters. One amendment

clarifies that the act applies to persons who are in receipt of an

allowance under the Public Service Superannuation Act, employees who

are in receipt of long-term disability benefits, and Members of the

Legislative Assembly. The other amendment clarifies that benefits may

be provided under either an insured or a non-insured arrangement, and

that the terms of a benefit plan which is not insured may be specified

under the terms of this act.

MR. HOWARD: I would make

just a brief commentary in the same vein as the minister's. It is

valuable to clarify pieces of legislation to ensure that legislation of

this nature does apply to people who are pensioners, people under

disability benefits, and the like, where there is doubt that that may

be the case at the moment. We see this bill as falling under that

category of simply clarifying the intent of the original act.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, once again I would point out that this is enabling

legislation. Any such adaptation of these plans goes by way of

order-in-council. The act simply clarifies that the extension of

long-term benefits and so on to people on superannuation is enabled.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

30, Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this

bill basically provides two amendments to the Public Service Act. The

first one proposes the repeal of

part 3 of this act. Arrangements for

the arbitration of differences would, after this repeal, be as agreed

upon by the government and its unionized employees. In other words, the

repeal of

part 3 in effect abolishes the present Public Service

Adjudication Board and its function. In the future, failing any

agreement between parties on a matter of grievance, the Labour

Relations Board would have the necessary jurisdiction. It is felt that

the Public Service Adjudication Board, during its effective term, has

performed a useful service in attending to a great many very

complicated matters of grievance. Having done that on what are to quite

a degree legal matters, the time has come now where these matters can

proceed better with the more direct process that existed heretofore.

Secondly, this is a move which will make labour relations still more a

matter of immediate and contending concern to those actually involved.

The same types of arbitration between the same parties will continue,

and the Government Employee Relations Bureau and the unions involved

will provide the administration services,

The other

amendment has to do with including, under the description of deputy

ministers, the description of assistant deputy or associate deputy

ministers, insofar as their applying to the public service definition

and their hiring is concerned. It has the substantial motivation of

understanding that assistant deputies perform very directly through a

minister's office, as does a deputy, as a part of his team in trying to

perform his function for government in whatever portfolio is his

responsibility.

I think there has been some degree of

misunderstanding as to this amendment. It is a fact that when you

examine appointments of senior executive members of government over the

past number of years.... In fact, going back some eight years I find

that there are a substantial number of appointments to the office of

assistant deputy minister and other senior executive functions, outside

of deputies, both by order-in-council and not by order-in-council. In

fact I counted some 132 persons in the course of the last eight-year

period who were appointed to senior executive offices, in effect, with

or without competition — some of them with and some without

order-in-council being applied. So the thrust of this, once again, is

that we include assistant deputies in the same category as deputy

ministers for the purpose of appointment only. These would then be

appointed, essentially speaking. by order-in-council under the same

part of the Public Service Act as exists for deputy ministers.

I move second reading.

MR. NICOLSON:

The official opposition will vote against this, because in spite of

what the minister has just outlined he has not really sought to

regularize the appointment of assistant and associate deputy ministers,

but rather to politicize their appointment. We're going to see another

step down the path toward Duplessis-style government and administration

in this province. It's only one small retrograde step which fits in

very well with the existing pattern of this government of open-ending

the number of people that can be in cabinet, and appointing infinite

numbers of people. If they wish, to ICBC boards of directors, and here

politicizing the level of assistant and associate deputy minister. I'm

sure that this year it is much more germane to difficulties that they're

[ Page 3994 ]

having

in the Ministry of Finance in terms of reorganizing things the way they

want them, and perhaps the Bonnell situation is symptomatic of

something which this government is really trying to pull off. So for

that reason we'll be voting against this.

MR. BARBER:

This bill is another Socred trespass against parliamentary tradition.

This bill is another attack on the impartiality of the public service

of British Columbia. This bill is another message to civil servants

that unless they support the Socred machine they can no longer rise

higher than the level immediately below associate or assistant deputy

minister. Together with my colleague, Mr. Hanson, I represent a public

service town. We represent a group of people who have strong and

important feelings about the traditions of an impartial, disinterested

and non-political public service. It has always been the case that in

the capital cities of this country an impartial and respected public

service has known that on the basis of ability alone their members can

rise to the very top. They have known that on the basis of merit

exclusively they have a chance, as public servants pursuing a career,

to go to the very highest point their skills, imagination and

administrative talents will take them — that is, they knew this until

today. Today, under the coalition, they now get a very different

message. Under the coalition there are now excluded from the impartial

administration of the Public Service Commission the second- and

third-highest positions formerly available to public servants in this

province.

Now it's a matter of public record that certain

ministries are in internal disarray, the Ministries of Finance and

Tourism chief among them. It's a matter of public record that in the

cases of both those ministries, where extreme steps have been taken to

get rid of people who apparently will not toe the party line — ask

Lionel Bonnell about that one....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Gross exaggeration.

MR. BARBER: No exaggeration at all. Take your place in this debate, if you can defend.... If the Minister of Finance would even....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member; you will address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: That's right — as should the Minister of Finance.

the Minister of Finance is prepared to defend this politicization of

two more of the most senior ranks in the public service, let him do so;

but he also has public servants in this riding, Mr. Speaker, and I

doubt that he'll do so much. I also doubt that it will appear, much, in

his campaign literature next time — assuming he runs next time.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Or in Mr. Rangel's campaign literature — whoever it is.

The

point is that no administration should be permitted — nor in any

capital city should they feet supported — to get away with an attempt

to further politicize the administration of public policy in this

province This is a message to public servants that they have removed

from their career options two more ranks that were formerly open on the

basis of ability alone and will shortly be open on the basis of cabinet

approval alone — and that always means politics. This is a retrograde

step; it betrays a primitive impulse; it betrays the traditional Socred

attempt in this province to control and muzzle senior public servants.

Witness the miserable way in which Lionel Bonnell was treated by this

government and by government members in the public accounts committee,

who abused and insulted him openly. It is a further message to public

servants across Canada that once more — thanks to the Socred government

— the British Columbia public service is being treated as a joke and is

being insulted and ridiculed at every opportunity.

The

official opposition cannot support this bill. The official opposition

has more respect for the historical role in the British system of an

impartial, disinterested and apolitical public service, able to operate

to the very highest levels.

MR. REE: Full of NDP supporters.

MR. BARBER:

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano says more than he should have:

"Full of NDP supporters," he said. Well, if that's his analysis, I

guess his answer is to fill it with Socred supporters, and thus we have

this bill. But there are two problems: first of all, the analysis is

dead wrong; and secondly, so is the answer. It's a matter of record

that the only deputy minister sacked by the New Democratic

administration in '72-75 was Mr. Ronald Worley, who was a most curious

deputy minister and who once wrote a book called The Wonderful World of W.A.C. Bennett ,

in which he praised, in a very partisan way, the then Socred Premier.

To the best of my knowledge that was the only deputy minister sacked by

our government. That's because our government had respect for the

traditions of impartiality that have always governed and illuminated

the role of the public service, This government proposes to diminish

the value, the worth and the strength of that tradition. It's to their

shame that they would try to get away with it.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, it's pretty obvious that the opposition, and the first

member for Victoria particularly, wishes to distort the intent of this

bill, because it's clear that what he says is completely misguided. If

he will examine — which he didn't choose to do — the answer to question

No. 75, which was on the order paper, which lists in detail all of the

assistant deputy ministers appointed since the year 1972, he'll find

that there are some 132 persons appointed without competition.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

There are 132 appointed without competition. In 1972 there were 7; in

1973, 19. I could give you their names, Mr. Member; just look up the

answer to question 75.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply

makes clear for the protection of these assistant deputy ministers that

they have the benefits of the Public Service Act as applied to deputy

ministers, so there is no confusion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The member is sort of blubbering away, Mr. Speaker. He's confused over

my answer to the question and doesn't understand, because he lives in

Victoria and feels he wants to kowtow to all of the public service and

so on here. He doesn't choose to really study the matter to

[ Page 3995 ]

understand

that it's for the benefit of the assistant deputy ministers to be

included in this category. As I say, people in this category have been

appointed without competition for many years; there have been some 132

appointed in the past eight years, including 48 during the term of the

previous government. So I ask him to refer to the answer to question 75

on the order paper. If he misreads this as meaning that you can hire

and fire at will, as he might think in the case of a deputy.... The

Public Service Act does not protect a person against poor performance.

An employee can in fact be terminated, regardless of whether he's hired

under the Public Service Act or not. This simply clarifies the

appointment of these people. So let's not make a "fish nor fowl" of

this practice....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I must ask the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) to

remain silent while the member is speaking — the same courtesy as was

afforded him by the minister when he was engaged in his dialogue.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, it is to clarify. It is not, as has been said, to inject

an attack on the public service and not to destroy the element of

public service hiring on merit. The intent is very clear. It has been a

practice in many cases to hire senior personnel without competition.

This is to give the minister freedom in the function of his own

personal obligation and portfolio in government. With those few words

of explanation, I disagree completely with what the previous members

referred to in commenting on the bill.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 17

Barrett

Howard

King

Lauk

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

37, Public Service Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (COLLEGE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 26: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

26, Pension (College) Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a very short introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

I have two good friends in our gallery today, Peggy and Jim Aldred.

They are from White Rock in the constituency of the Hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). On behalf of the minister and

myself I would like to ask the House to join with us in welcoming them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I also ask leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 3996 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, on this very lovely summer day we, have a very lovely

guest and her husband with us in the gallery, Jane and Gary Brookes,

good friends of the government and, furthermore, the daughter and

son-in-law of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (MUNICIPAL)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there are two

amendments. Amendment (

a) states: "In paragraph (

a) by deleting 4.77

percent and substituting 5 percent."

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That amendment states: "In paragraph (

b) by deleting 6.27 percent, and substituting 6.5 percent."

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, it would have been a surprise, possibly, but it certainly

would have been a pleasant surprise had the minister moved an amendment

section 8. That's the

section that should be amended. This is the

section where the government is dipping their hands into the pockets of

the municipal employees and taking away indexing. We've discussed this

to some extent under the three other bills which were not amended.

They

not only amended but they substituted for the provincial government

employees, but they haven't substituted in terms of the municipal

employees. What they've done is taken B.C. back a decade or two and

placed the province in a position where we are advocating that there

should be no protection for the municipal workers in terms of inflation

when they retire — protection, if you will, for those municipal workers

and all other workers that have trade unions as their advocates or

others working on their behalf.

The intent of this

section

1s to tell those workers that when they're retired there will be no

indexing of note. I understand there is to be some, but the minister

himself indicated that there is a real cutback in terms of putting the

ceiling on the indexing the way we have. I think it's just unfortunate.

I think that the people in the province should be wary of a government

that's prepared to turn back the clock every time they have an

opportunity in the name of some form of conservatism.

Leadership

of this kind can only lead us up the path of providing more benefits in

terms of welfare and other benefits to those people later on.

Eventually you're going to have to pay the piper, because we're faced

with near double digit inflation. Under those circumstances, if you

have a pension plan that doesn't reflect that, then what you have, Mr.

Chairman, are people who become increasingly poor on pension.

Fixed-income people are the people who should be helped rather than

hurt, and this

section hurts the fixed income people.

I ask

the minister: why did you do it? Why, at least, did he enhance the

situation of the public service employees and not do likewise'for the

teachers, college teachers and municipal employees? We have had the

benefit in this province of a large investment pool, and that

investment pool has helped us build dams, bridges, schools and

hospitals. Then we say to the people who provided a large portion of

that pool: "We're not going to stand behind you in the future when

you're retired." One of the reasons for that is the fact that they

don't have much muscle at that time. A pensioner can't strike and

hasn't recourse to any kind of action that would wake the government

up. I think that that's precisely what we're doing. How are we getting

away with it now to some extent? We're getting away with it now because

a lot of people can't even imagine retirement, and so they don't think

about it. But I say it's a disaster, and I would just like to warn the

government that they're on a very rocky course. In my view it's a

travesty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before carrying

on, the Chair must inform the committee that there were two amendments

section 7. The first one was passed. I will now introduce the

second. Shall the second amendment to

section 7 pass?

[ Page 3997 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I want briefly to respond to the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke), who once again seems to be a little mixed up in terms of the

purpose and how the funding of the Pension (Municipal) Act functions.

Number

one, the government does not fund the municipal pensions. We administer

the payment of these pensions, but we only amend their legislation at

the request of those bodies. We have before us amendments which are

clearly endorsed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, in fact,

their joint pension committee which functions with their union

employees. I have before me a public statement made by that

organization on May 27, in which they state:

"'The

government's intention, through Bill 27, to discontinue open-ended

automatic indexing provisions of pensions paid to retired employees in

favour of a more controlled system has the full support of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities,' said Mayor Charles Lakes, UBCM president. 'In

addition,' said Lakes, 'it is significant that the UBCM also has the

support of our employees, whose representatives, during a series of

joint discussions on the topic over the past two years, agreed that the

time has come to place a limit....'"

I'd be

happy to table that statement, and further, a letter from the municipal

employees' pension committee to me as Provincial Secretary, May 26.

"The

members of the municipal employees' pension committee, representing

approximately 42,000 subscribers, wish to thank you for presenting Bill

27 to the Legislature."

I just don't want the member to be

confused. We operate this act at the request of those bodies but we do

not provide the funds for them; we administer that. I'm referring only

to the Pension (College) Act and the Pension (Municipal) Act when I say

that. We do fund the Pension (Teachers) Act, and in a certain way we do

fund the Pension (Public Service) Act. I wanted to explain that in

commenting further on

section 8.

MR. COCKE: I can

table the exact same correspondence; I have it before me. If that

reflects the feelings of the union.... Tell me it does — I dare you, I

defy you to stand up and tell me it does. What a bunch of nonsense! It

reflects the opinion of a very small rump group of people, and the

minister knows it. As far as I'm concerned, I still say this is

absolutely abysmal leadership. It's not giving any kind of leadership

at all. If this reflects the feelings of some of the leaders in those

municipalities, so be it, but it's rotten leadership. Having been

involved in this particular area most of my working life, I'll say that

in any form you like in this province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Say it in New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Yes, in New Westminster. I'll debate you right in New Westminster on this subject any old day you like.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay. Happy to. You'd better get more information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

The minister says I'd better get more information. I don't want the

kind of information you're espousing. What you're doing is saying

you're prepared to give the kind of leadership that doesn't turn back

the clock too far in the case of our own employees, but you're not

prepared to do that in the other one that you fund, the teachers. Nor

are you prepared to do it to give some leadership to the municipalities

and offer some real definite leadership rather than this business of

going back on indexing which came in unanimously endorsed when it began,

Now

what are we going to do, turn tail and run? Are we going to let the

trust companies and insurance companies in this country dictate the way

we produce pensions? They've been doing that and selling us out to the

point that our economy is now 70 percent owned outside the nation of

Canada, One of the reasons for that is the fact that we've never had

guts enough to invest in our own country and the growth of our country.

Instead of that we've been loaning to the multinationals so that they

can invest and give us a measly return. That's our problem — no

imagination, no guts. That's what drove me into politics and will keep

me in politics until we can teach some of these conservative thinkers

that they've been on the wrong course for so many years it's not even

funny, and every time there's a move forward they try to turn the clock

backward again. It's a rotten shame.

Pensioners in the

future will suffer as a result of this abysmal policy. I've nothing

more to say, Mr. Chairman, than that it's a mistake.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 3998 ]

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN:

On behalf of myself and the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), I would like to introduce a neighbour of mine, Carol

McGregor, and her daughter Tisha.

section 9.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the amendment to

section 9 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill

27, Pension (Municipal) Amendment Act, 1980. reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

LIVESTOCK ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In rising to move second reading of the Livestock Act, I'd just like to

outline that the purpose is really to consolidate three bills, the

Animals Act, the Livestock Production Act and the Livestock Act. These

acts have dealt with the control of livestock relating to livestock at

large, the trespass and damage caused by animals at large, the

establishment of pound districts in which livestock owners must fence

specific livestock, and control over livestock artificial insemination

practices to ensure that the quality and health of livestock is

maintained and that insemination is carried out by qualified

individuals. The act also deals with the establishment of bull control

areas to ensure that the users of the range in a specified area meet

their responsibilities in the provision of acceptable bulls, and also

the establishment of livestock districts in which specified livestock

can be enlarged. This act, Mr. Speaker, is simply a consolidation of

livestock legislation into one statute and does not assume any

significant powers beyond those that are already contained in existing

legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, it seems that whenever we start dealing with agricultural

matters, there are certain members of this Legislative Assembly who are

very entertained. I would hope that that doesn't happen again, because

certainly agriculture is a very important industry in this province.

When we're talking about bull control, as we will be talking in this

act, I think perhaps that we must be sure that there is a little of it

in this assembly as well.

Mr. Speaker, certainly the

minister has done a good job of reading the explanations that go along

with this act. He has indicated that it is the consolidation of three

other pieces of legislation. I would be the first to agree that the

three pieces of legislation which are being consolidated certainly need

to have some changes made to them. The opposition agrees that it's a

very bad policy to include three such varied items as are included in

this piece of legislation under one very vague title. It's bad just

from a matter of administration to try to find a particular piece of

legislation relative to a certain topic when there is no indication in

the title of the act what that particular act includes.

seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that by putting the legislation relative to

pound districts, livestock areas, bull control areas, bull control

committees, artificial insemination centres and technicians all under

one piece of legislation and intituling that the "Livestock Act" is

akin to putting housing, municipal and health legislation into one bill

and intituling it the "People Act," because it tells you just as much

about what you're going to find in that bill if that kind of a title

was relative to those other pieces of legislation. So we, on this side

of the House, do not agree with the concept of combining so many pieces

of unrelated information into one act intituled the Livestock Act.

There is no justification for doing that when you have other livestock

bills. You have the Livestock Public Sale Act, the livestock brands

act, and other livestock bills dealing with specific items that relate

to the livestock industry. To put these three very important items

under just the heading of "Livestock Act" seems to me to be giving very

short shift to some very important subjects in the realm of agriculture.

The

other item that we object to in this bill,, Mt. Speaker, is that once

again this government is up to its old tricks — and this minister is up

to his old tricks — of taking the specifics out of legislation, making

the legislation very vague and very general, and putting everything

into regulation by order-in-council. It's another example of cabinet

government. We have in this new bill a whole page of regulations

ranging from (

a) to (o). A great many of the very important things that

will occur under these three various sections of this act will be

specified by regulations with no input from the Legislature and no

public knowledge, really, of what those regulations will be.

We're

being asked to vote on a bill that is removing from legislation,

because it's repealing these other three acts, some pretty specific

items that are set out in the statutes and are being rescinded. There

are, for example, items relative to the amounts of reimbursement of a

keeper of a pound. Certainly those things change as time goes by, but

without any guidelines in here except by regulation, there is no

assurance in passing this legislation that the keeper of a pound will

be adequately compensated for the time and effort that he puts into

that; neither is there anything that covers the appeal procedures,

except for going to court. There used to be something set out in the

old legislation that covered that. Those things would now be more or

less covered by regulation, and completely out of the control of the

Legislature.

[ Page 3999 ]

There is another

section that....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Can we deal with it in committee?

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, I will deal with those in committee, Mr. Attorney-General, but

these things relate to the principle of this bill, which is taking out

of legislation things which we believe are very important to have

spelled out in some degree of exactness, rather than in such vague and

general terms. We object to this government by regulation, which means

that it's out of the hands of the Legislature, and very often out of

the hands of the minister, because it's in the hands of the people who

are in some instances far removed from the actual piece of legislation;

they're giving their

interpretation to it in the field without too much

assistance and without very close direction. Certainly it is much

easier for those people if there is something specific spelled out in

the legislation.

So for those reasons — the fact that it is

definitely combining far too many things under a very vague title, and

because it's putting so much into regulations — we are opposed to this

bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: If I may, I would just ask leave to table letters I referred to during the debate on the pensions act.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I have just a few comments in general, because I know the member for

Cowichan-Malahat will be dealing with specific items in committee. With

regard to the comment about a vague title, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure in

regard to vagueness, but one of the acts that we are consolidating is

the Animals Act, and that is far more vague than "livestock," as

"livestock" relates to agricultural animals; the Animals Act could

relate to domestic pets. It could relate to wild animals, or it could

relate to livestock. So I think we've been more specific as opposed to

being more vague.

The member talks about regulations. Yes,

the

section on regulations deals with a number of items which will be

administered by regulation. But I'd like to take the positive approach

to that, the fact that it gives the Minister of Agriculture and his

staff the ability to react to the needs of an industry rather than

having to wait until the next legislative session and attempting to

have amendments brought into the act. The member herself mentioned that

change takes place as time goes on, and I concur with that. That's why

I feel that regulation on those items that are specifically mentioned

section 19 of the bill will enable us to react and to pass

regulations to assist the industry rather than further delaying the

change.

With those comments I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill

50, Livestock Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

AND FOOD ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: I must say it does give

me great pleasure to rise to move second reading of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food Act. I've worked toward this for the last two or

three years. After becoming Minister of Agriculture I felt that we

should have a better identity with the total food chain in this

province. Although our farmers produce the primary product, in the end

that product is consumed by the consumer. I'd like to be able to have

the ministry somewhat modernized, to identify with many things that we

are doing right now, to give a public presence that we in the Ministry

of Agriculture deal in food — the production and, you might say, the

processing of food — and that many of our activities should be related

to the total food chain as opposed to just that area within the farm

gate.

The bill broadens the mandate of the Ministry of

Agriculture to include activities in the segment of the province's food

system which lies between the farm gate and the supermarket shelf,

basically broadening it to include the food and beverage secondary

manufacturing sector.

Preliminary estimates for 1979 show

that the food and beverage secondary manufacturing sector shipped $2.1

billion worth of products. This accounts for approximately 18 percent

of the manufactured shipments of the province, a performance surpassed

only by the wood-manufacturing industry in this province. If you add to

this the $632 million in farm-gate receipts — farm cash receipts — you

will have an industry which contributes substantially to the provincial

economy. There are 43,400 people employed in the primary agriculture

and secondary food manufacturing sectors: 25,000 people in farming and

18,400 in the processing and distribution sector of the food chain. The

resource on which this industry is based is highly renewable. That

speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. The province cannot, in my opinion,

overlook the fact that we have a renewable, viable industry in this

province — one that contributes considerably to the provincial economy.

Since

1894, when the first Department of Agriculture Act was passed, statutes

have been revised to keep pace with the growth and development of

agriculture in this province. Over the years the Ministry of

Agriculture has devised programs which work closely with the secondary

manufacturing sector, but it is time, in my opinion, for a major step

to be taken in this direction. This sector of the economy lacks an

appropriate focal point in government, and the expansion of the

ministry's mandate will enable it to embrace the food industry as a

whole. I consider it a part of a natural evolution in

industry/government relations.

The effects of such an

expansion in scope will be widespread. Increased efficiency and

competitiveness in the foodprocessing industry will be encouraged. The

ministry will explore domestic and foreign market opportunities, and a

profound contribution will be made to the overall development of the

basic industry in British Columbia. A replacement of importation of

foodstuffs will be a prime target of my ministry.

This

change in the ministry's mandate will be accompanied by a major

reorganization to deal more effectively with each sector of agriculture

and food. The enlarged mandate will be complemented by a

regionalization of ministry services dealing with the primary

production of foodstuffs. These programs will be geared to the distinct

agricultural make-up of each of the five regions in this province and

will

[ Page 4000 ]

coordinated by five regional directors. Programs related to the

processing and distribution sector will be concentrated in the new

division called the economics and marketing services branch. They will

cover a wide range, from food promotion to market development and

economic forecasting. Financial assistance to the processing and

distribution sector will be stepped up under

part 4 of our ARDSA

program and our farm products finance program.

Thus the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food will assist in the smooth functioning

of the entire food system, offering services equitably among all its

sectors to ensure that all parts work well together. A broadened

mandate complemented by the regional organization will give the whole

industry distinct government representation and service.

Mr.

Speaker, I distributed to the members of the Legislature a package and

a brochure which outline the new ministry. The title of that package

and brochure is "A New Name for a New Decade." I would say to members

of the House that we aren't the first to take this approach: Nova

Scotia has a Ministry of Agriculture and Marketing, Ontario has a

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the state of California has the

Department of Food and Agriculture. So many departments and ministries

of agriculture in Canada and other places have realized that they

should relate farther beyond the farm gate than they have in the past.

It's

more than just a name change, though, Mr. Speaker. I wish that members

of the Legislature and the public would recognize that it is a move to

modernize the ministry. It's a recognition of services to the primary

agriculture industry by regionalization, which will provide fast,

efficient service to the farm community and will be able to respond

much more quickly to their needs. It's a recognition of the importance

of the economic evolution of the industry and its markets, and it will,

of course, provide assistance, encouragement and support to that sector

of the food industry beyond the farm gate.

With those comments I move second reading of Bill 57.

MRS. WALLACE:

We're dealing with a very unusual bill here. I would agree with the

minister that it is far-reaching. To coin a phrase that's far from

original in this House, Mr. Speaker, it has some awesome...

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sweeping!

MRS. WALLACE: ...far-reaching, sweeping powers. Yes, indeed it does — awesome, sweeping powers.

What

the minister has said about expanding the control of the Ministry of

Agriculture beyond the production area into the whole food chain is

very worthwhile. But when he talks about this bill being used to

modernize the ministry or to contribute to the things that he is

already doing in those areas, I don't see it in this bill. It is a

far-reaching bill, but it deals with something entirely different than

the minister has been talking about. I think that particularly in the

section where we talk about the purpose of the bill and the powers of

the minister, we really are into awesome, sweeping powers. "For

purposes relating to agriculture and food the minister may acquire,

administer, dispose of, operate on and make improvements to land."

The

minister may acquire land. Mr. Speaker, I don't profess to give a legal

interpretation of the word "acquire," but I certainly know what that

government's

interpretation of the word "acquire" was back in 1973 when

the Land Commission bill was introduced. Their

interpretation at that

time was that "acquire" meant expropriation. Is that what this minister

means? Because if he does, that is hypocrisy in government. It is

absolute hypocrisy in government to make such a fuss for hours and

hours on the floor of this Legislature relative to what the New

Democratic Party was doing with the Land Commission bill and insist to

the degree that the government of the day listened and brought in an

amendment that they would acquire by means other than expropriation —

which this government removed, incidentally, back in 1977.... It is

nothing but hypocrisy to take one stand when you're in opposition and

another stand when you're in government. It's very interesting when you

think of the hours and hours of debate that went into this Legislature

back in 1973, and it is very interesting to look at some of the

speeches that were made.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One

of the points that was raised by the member for South Peace River (Hon.

Mr. Phillips) in dealing with this bill was: what happens to the

municipal tax base when that minister acquires land? He said: "Mr.

Speaker, what is the government going to do by way of paying taxes to

municipalities when it buys up large tracts of land within that

municipality? Is it going to be a grant in lieu of taxes?"

That

was the concern at that point. What is this minister going to do? He

said: "Well, it really doesn't mean anything. We're just going to have

experimental farms." They have farms now; they don't need this bill to

do that. So it must mean something else. If it doesn't mean anything

else, it has no business before this Legislature. I think that minister

has to tell us exactly what that particular

section means and why it's

in here. Does it mean he can acquire land by means other than

expropriation, or does it mean he can expropriate land?

The

now Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) spoke for 14 hours, I think, in a filibuster to prevent a

bill that did far less than this bill is doing. And here they are, the

same government, introducing a bill with those "awesome, sweeping

powers" — as he termed them — that deals not only with land, but also

with the acquiring of.... "The minister may acquire, administer,

operate, make improvements to and dispose of agricultural facilities

and equipment." Again, does that mean he can expropriate those? Is that

the meaning of this bill? The minister says: "Oh, no, it doesn't mean

that. We're just going to have a few more demonstration centres."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, it's a very strange bill. They can lease stores, elevators,

processing plants and product warehouses from other persons. Yet this

is the same minister who couldn't save the turkey industry a few months

ago and was going to give it all to Cargill. Now here he's going to, be

leasing processing plants. It's hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. It's just

amazing. I don't understand.

The now Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development, in speaking in this House on March 20,

1973, said: "I wish I could took in a crystal ball." Well, I wish I

could look in a crystal ball, Mr. Speaker. I wish I could look and see

whether that minister intends to expropriate the

[ Page

4001 ]

whole

Fraser Valley and turn it into one large farm. What is he going to do

with that farm? You know, it's not this government's mode of operation

to go into the farming business or any other industry. They're opposed

to government interference in the marketplace or the business world. So

is it his intent to try and modernize agriculture by creating large

corporate farms and turning them over to some large corporation like

Cargill?

MS. SANFORD: Foreign interests.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, foreign interests. Is that the intent of this bill? You know, the

minister really has to answer some questions on this one.

The member for South Peace River went on:

I wish I could look in a crystal ball, so that I could predict

more so than I have already. There are certain things that I know, Mr. Speaker,

that are going to happen, and they're not good predictions. The things that

I predicted are not good, but it's the things that I can't predict that

really worry me, and it does really worry me, because there have been far less

controversial bills introduced in this Legislature that have had far-reaching

effects. But this changes the whole concept of our basis of agriculture, of

land use, of industry, of taxation — there is no one in the province of British

Columbia that Bill 42 does not affect.

suggest that if this bill is taken in toto, in the way it is written,

there is no one in the province of British Columbia whom this Bill 57

does not affect.

I've talked about acquiring land, and

"acquire," according to that government, meant expropriate. I've talked

about acquiring agricultural facilities and equipment, and "acquire,"

according to that government, meant expropriate. It goes on. He can

lease stores. Is he going to lease the SuperValu, the Safeway? What is

the intent of the bill? What does the minister intend to do? When you

read the content of the bill, it just does not relate to what the

minister says he's trying to do.

MR. HOWARD: He's going to set up state farming institutes.

MRS. WALLACE:

State farming or corporate farming, Mr. Member. My colleague says he's

going to set up a state farm. Or is he going to set up a corporate

farm? He can not only lease stores; he can lease elevators. Does he

have some arrangement with Cargill to lease elevators in British

Columbia? Or is he going to lease the elevators that were formerly held

by one of his colleagues who sits on that side of the House? He's going

to lease processing plants. Well, we didn't see much action as far as

Maplewood was concerned, and certainly he was very anxious to got rid

of Panco. Why does he want to lease processing plants? We must have

some explanations on this. He's going to lease warehouses from other

persons, and he's going to buy, store, transport....

He told

us the other day — in answer to a question that I asked about

transporting feed to Vancouver Island — that he had no jurisdiction,

that that was a federal problem. Now he's going to get into the

business of transporting food. Talk about awesome, sweeping powers —

this bill has them.

In the Legislature during the great

filibuster on Bill 42 on March 22, 1973, the hon. member for North

Okanagan, now the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is she?

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, where is she? She said: "They can go into any piece of land in

British Columbia that's privately owned, and they can say: 'I want that

land, you're going to accept this price.'" If Bill 42 said that — and

I'm not saying it did — if that was the government's

interpretation of

Bill 42 in 1973, then the opposition has no alternative but to put the

same

interpretation on Bill 57 in 1980.

The member for North

Okanagan went on: "You have no appeal as an individual; you have no

right to negotiate that price; you have no right to say I don't want to

sell; you only have the right to stay alive if they kick you out, and

even that may be questionable." That's what the government thought Bill

42 was going to do. Yet they introduce something that relates not only

to land — the same terminology, the same wording — but goes much

further than land: processing, stores, transportation, selling, buying,

the whole food chain.

MS. BROWN: Totalitarianism.

MRS. WALLACE:

That's the very reason why the people of British Columbia will not

accept this state control, and they will not accept the airy-fairy,

flim-flam explanations given by this government and these members. I

don't like to use those words, but that member used those words —

"airy-fairy," "flim-flam." To say the very best, that's all we heard

from the Minister of Agriculture when he introduced the bill.

"There is the power in this act," continued the member for North

Okanagan, "and this government has proven its naked hunger for power and

its hell-bent-for-leather attitude to bring about social revolution."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think this government is trying to bring about

social revolution. But what are they trying to bring about by introducing an

act like this in the Legislature? State control? A dictatorship? We in the opposition

just don't understand what is behind this bill.

I'm

very glad to see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is in

the House. I think there's nothing I like better than to quote back to

the Attorney-General some of the words he's used in this Legislature,

particularly when he was a Liberal. Here I am quoting back the words of

the Attorney-General on March 20, 1973:

We must have farmers on the land, and this government has brought

in no legislation which will ensure that the farmer stays on the land...

I wonder what the farmers say about that now, Mr. Attorney-General.

...will

replenish its productive capability and will produce the things which

we need in this province. There's nothing in this bill that encourages

the farmer to stay on the land. On the contrary, once you've locked the

farmer into the land, you can only leave him in a position where he's

constantly under the fear of domination from government — completely

and utterly under the control of the economic condition which he finds

himself in today: locked in with his land and locked out of the profits

which should come to him from this production from that land.

suppose this is also what makes this legislation unacceptable, because

it's a direct, planned, and unmistakable attack upon individuals in

this province, their rights and their freedoms.

If that was

true of Bill 42, Mr. Attorney-General, it is ten times true of this

act, because it's the exact same words. It will cover far more than

just agriculture. It covers agriculture, wholesale processing,

transportation, selling, the whole gamut. If Bill 42 were this bad, Mr.

Attorney-General, I'm surprised that you are party to bringing in a

bill like this. He continues:

[ Page 4002 ]

It's

a thinly disguised attempt to dominate the individual. Surprisingly

enough, it takes rights away from the citizen and returns them to the

Crown.

Those who have been in this House will

recognize that the process that we go through each year, each session,

is to grant supply to the Crown in exchange for the rights that the

Crown extends to the citizens. Yet with this bill we are reversing that

trend. This Legislature is being asked to pass legislation which takes

away rights from the individual and returns them to the Crown without

compensation.

If "acquire" meant

expropriation in 1973, according to the Social Credit government, Mr.

Speaker, then it must mean that to them now. They are the ones who have

introduced this bill.

The Attorney-General continues: "This

bill subjects us to increasing centralized control by the government,

control that the previous administration never dreamed of." Well, maybe

the previous administration didn't dream of it. The present

administration is not only dreaming of it, but it's presenting a bill

here that goes far beyond what the minister has indicated he is

proposing to do.

It's a bill that no one seems to

understand. I have had calls from all over this province, asking me

what this bill means. I don't know what it means. Certainly the

minister didn't tell us what it means when he introduced it. He told us

something, but he didn't even relate to the content of this bill. Under

this bill he could well move to ensure that the broiler growers, for

example.... I have heard that minister indicate that he felt that we

should have larger broiler farms because ours weren't economical and

they weren't as big as they were in the United States. Is this what

he's proposing in the way of modernizing? Is he going to take over some

of the broiler farms — expropriate them, if you will — and turn them

into one large corporate farm and probably put them under the control

of some major foreign corporation to operate them?

Does this

spell the end of the family farm, in an attempt to modernize farming?

Is that what this minister is going to do with this act? That's what it

seems to say. I really can't believe that that's what he intends, but

why bring in

an act that allows these kinds of controls, this kind of

power, if he doesn't intend to use it? What is the reason? Why do we

have this bill?

The act goes far beyond the scope of

anything the minister indicated when he introduced the bill, It goes

completely into what could be either a state control or a corporate

control of all agriculture in British Columbia. That's the power that

is given in this bill, if it's interpreted to its fullest. And what the

minister says it does is completely without regard to the awesome,

sweeping powers that the government indicated were included in Bill 42.

completely change their stand from when they were in opposition to when

they are in government certainly represents a very hypocritical point

of view. Their hypocrisy, as government, to bring in a piece of

legislation like this when they took the stand they did against Bill 42

is one of the most amazing things that we have seen in this Legislature

in the five years that I have been here.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, deja vu. This is a nice day in the Legislature of B.C. The

only difference is you have an enlightened opposition. The

Attorney-General laughs. That group used those phrases, Mr. Speaker.

They went around this province talking about the acquisition of land,

the dangers of those socialist hordes, and what their intent was. And

now they have the same kinds of clauses in this legislation. "The

minister may acquire land..." it says. "The minister must report to the

cabinet, but must report to the Legislature when practicable...."

Mr. Speaker, what you have here is a bill that I think most

thinking people can agree with. But the only thing is that they used

these very phrases in the days when we were government to try to hang

us....

MR. HOWARD: Just to get into power.

MR. COCKE: Just to get into power at any cost.

They had exactly the same legislative counsel staff in those days as they have now.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Virtually the same. One or two have died and one or two have gone on to other rewards.

Mr. Speaker, it was the utilization of phrases out of legislation that took

these people all over this province scaring the people to death. I can remember

them on hotline show after hotline show talking about the Agricultural Land

Commission and all it would do: "take away your watch," "take

away your house." All it was suggesting was that we were going to keep

agricultural land for agricultural purposes. They haven't changed it all

that much since they've been in power.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, they're going to get to it.

MR. COCKE:

Oh, yes. And there'd be more erosion yet if they thought they could get

away with it. But, Mr. Speaker, that's it! Let's remember that these

kinds of phrases giving the minister the power to acquire land, giving

the minister the powers that he's given in this bill, were the

political harpoons that they threw for the next couple of years. We

listened to filibusters from the then member for Peace River — still

the member for South Peace River. In those days they gave him the name

"Leatherlungs," because he lasted 14 hours, roughly, debating Bill 42,

which gave the minister power to conserve agricultural land for

agricultural use, so that the heirs of the people now living wouldn't

starve. They used it politically.

And the Attorney-General —

we heard some of the statements that he made then — was as wrong in

doing what he did then as the rest of that gang. They've seen the error

in their judgment, the error of their ways, and we have in place at

least some protection for agricultural land in this province. I'm sure

that this minister means to do well by this act, but, Mr. Speaker, it's

only good fortune that you have an opposition in this province now that

doesn't go around and treat responsible legislation in a reprehensible

way. What a bunch of political opportunists! What a bunch, when you

consider it. They should hang their heads in shame. They should go out

and apologize to the people of B.C. and come back'm here a lot more

humble than they have been heretofore. I'll never forget the debates

and I'll never forget the hours that we listened to all of our

intentions. Heaven alone knows that the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) was the most responsible Agriculture minister this province

has ever seen. He did a first-class job and had the confidence of his

then constituency with good reason. I'm talking about the agricultural

community.

[ Page 4003 ]

MRS. WALLACE: He still has.

MR. COCKE:

He very much so still has, because, Mr. Speaker, he didn't act in an

irresponsible way, and he didn't use legal phrases to lampoon his

political enemies. Take a lesson — harpoon a gang of thuds. No, both

ways of doing business.... Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when we take

what we did for a piece of legislation, it makes this pale and

insignificant in terms of its importance to future generations in this

province. It's no wonder we have to say a few words about this bill and

about those people who spoke on the other one.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, if the bill had an accurate title, it would be called "The

Socred Hypocrisy

(1980) Act." If ever a government could be accused of

absolutely hypocritical statements and dealings and of a demonstrably

hypocritical record, it would be this government as defined by this

bill. There are good causes from time to time when the government must

be granted the right to acquire land; there are good reasons from time

to time when that right. especially in the agricultural field, might

supersede the right of individuals, but when those reasons are offered,

they must be done so in a credible way. In this field, Social Credit

has no credibility at all. They have instead only the pale and

ridiculous offering of their own hypocrisy, when debating a bill which

contained, in one phrase, strikingly similar language just a few years

ago.

The chief hypocrisy must be borne by those who were

members of the Liberal Party at that time; it was believed at that time

that they at least were sincere. It is observed at this time that they

would prefer not to hear read back into the records their own comments.

It would not, I suppose, be a nice thing to read back the comments of

the now Attorney-General, when he talked then in a totally misinformed,

misguided and wrong way about the spirit, the intentions and, as it

turned out, the applications of Bill 42 — our bill — to save the

agricultural option in this province. It would, I suppose, not be fair

to read back to him certain of his comments made on March 20, 1973.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

If you were right then, why didn't you amend our own legislation now

that you've had the chance? You were not right then and you haven't

amended it, that's why.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Oh, come on, Allan. You know you don't believe that; you know no one

else believes it and we know you don't believe it either. Anyone who

can jump from the Liberals to the Socreds can rationalize any other

thing.

However, the point remains that this bill, its

language and its intentions epitomize the utter hypocrisy of Social

Credit and the utter willingness of that dishonourable coalition to say

anything and do anything in opposition, and ignore what they said and

did when in opposition while back in government. Can you imagine the

hysterical screams from certain members opposite had we brought in a

bill to establish, potentially, the corporate control and the state

control of the agricultural industry that this bill, potentially, could

do? What if the government of the day said: "But you know, you've

misread our intentions, you don't understand what's in our minds''?

What if the government of the day had replied and said: "What an unfair

criticism! Why are you looking at the language of the law? You should

be looking instead at the spirit of our intent." Well. of course, that

was not an acceptable excuse then, nor do we find it an acceptable

excuse now. What matters in the British system is the language of the

law its precision, clarity and specificity.

What also

matters in our system — somewhat more subtly, somewhat more difficult

to apprehend — is the honour of the people who make certain arguments

from time to time. The Socreds, in this bill, demonstrate that they

have no honour — none. The Socreds, in this bill, demonstrate they have

no serious commitment to principle — none whatsoever. Were this not the

case, we would be unable to find in Hansard

page after page of quotations from them, when they were in opposition.

attacking the power — as it was put in Bill 42 originally — to acquire

land for agricultural purposes. This bill confirms irrefutably the

hypocritical attitudes and the hypocritical intentions of all those

opposite who attacked our agricultural bill when we brought it in as

government and who now try to sneak through this House a bill which

offers far vaster powers. far more sweeping and awesome authority, to

the hand of the Crown. What hypocrisy this bill represents!

Let

me illustrate again the fact that we agree, as a matter of the public

interest, that it may be a good thing, from time to time, for the Crown

to be able to obtain land for the benefit and the purpose of the public

interest. We don't dispute that principle at all. nor are we such

hypocrites as to pretend to dispute it in order to make a point or two

on a bill like this. We don't dispute that point: the Crown must have

the inalienable right to act in the public interest, which may

occasionally involve obtaining land for parks, for sewage treatment

programs, and for any number of other purposes, when the public

interest is thereby best served. We don't object to that. But to read

back the speeches of these Socreds — or Liberals, once — and to read

what they screamed and ranted then, opposed to any form of social

intervention in this field, opposed to any form of Crown resolve to

perpetuate and maintain the agricultural option, opposed to any attempt

at all to secure the ability of generations to come to feed themselves

by protecting farmland against speculators, developers and those who

would pave Victoria to Sidney and Vancouver to Chilliwack with parking

lots and K Marts, is to read the record of hypocrisy. One wonders why

they would have made such a fuss then about the language "to acquire"

and why they make no fuss now about their own bill, which clearly, as

some might read it, does the same thing they were purportedly and

hypocritically opposed to.

MRS. WALLACE: And a whole lot more.

MR. BARBER:

It does a great deal more, and that was most ably illustrated by my

colleague the agriculture critic and member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace). She demonstrated clearly that in the language and the

application of this bill the powers the government wishes to give to

itself are far greater than any of those the Socreds then imagined were

being granted by our Land Commission Act.

The real issue is

not singly whether or not the Crown shall have the right to make a

social intervention in the agricultural industry. On this side of the

House we believe it should because, you see, that's the public

interest. Therein lies the

[ Page 4004 ]

public

benefit; those things protect the public good. Now the minister for

Cargill may not see it that way; the minister for Cargill apparently

has a different agenda. Our agenda as New Democrats at least has been

consistent these many years. The agenda of the Socreds consistently has

been only this: any opportunity to gain a point, no matter how

contradictory, how hypocritical, or how much in the long run it

shortchanges the public interest, is fine by them.

Let me read the ghost of Hansard

past to the now Attorney-General. He said, referring to our legislation

— Bill 42: "This bill subjects us to increasing centralized control by

the government, control...."

MR. BARRETT: Who said that?

MR. BARBER: Well, it's recorded as being said by "Mr. Williams."

...that the previous administration never even dreamed of.

I suggest that with Bill 42 we are taking steps towards a government which is

counter-democratic.

He went on to say something even more ridiculous:

I trust we aren't reaching the position where in Canada we

are saying as we pass bills of this kind that the provincial governments can,

through some property legislation, abolish rights and establish some kind of

"ism," with the possible result that we may have in Canada ten separate

provincial governments, each with their own ten separate philosophies and separate

of legislation? I suggest that we are.

is a member of a government which is the third most separatist

government in the country, after Quebec and Alberta. He is a member of

a government which has engaged, systematically and insidiously, in more

Canada-bashing than any other government but two, Alberta and Quebec.

He no doubt would have it the case that we not bother to look up Hansard

and read back to him his presumably — but no longer — sincere comments

about ten provinces going their own ways and attacking the integrity of

MR. BARRETT: You're making him out to be a hypocrite. You can't do that.

MR. BARBER:

One can't do anything or say anything more damning about the hypocrisy

of this government than to simply read back to them their own words. If

anyone makes anyone else a hypocrite, it is the verbatim record of what

these guys said then and the clear evidence of their silence now. If

they believed then that the government should not have the awesome,

sweeping powers to intervene socially in the ownership and control of

land to preserve the agricultural option, let them stand up and attack

Bill 57 today. If they don't stand up and attack it, this is surely

hypocrisy.

If they believed then what they said then about

the awesome, sweeping powers given under Bill 42, let them at least be

honourably consistent and vote against Bill 57 today. If they're not

prepared to do that it can only mean two things: (1) they've changed

their minds; or, (2) they have not changed their hypocrisy and they

remain willing to say anything and do anything to get into and stay in

power.

MR. BARRETT: I think it's 2, Charles.

MR. BARBER: The Leader of the Opposition thinks it's option 2. It may be.

This

bill gives the Agriculture minister power more profound, more

unchallengeable and more arbitrary than any bill ever gave any other

Minister of Agriculture in the history of this province. The

arbitrariness of this bill, the lack of legal challenge for its

application, and the clear hypocrisy of that government opposite —

Liberals, Socreds, Tories, and members of Action Canada, as was the

member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) at one point in

his varied political career — make it perfectly clear to any rational

people that if this government will institutionalize their own

hypocrisy through a bill like this today, we can only anticipate what

wonders we may see tomorrow.

We wonder, for instance, about

a bill to rationalize and justify the unprecedented overruns which

Social Credit has foisted upon the people of British Columbia. Perhaps

they will simply write a bill, and after writing the bill — called

Socred Institutionalizing of Their Own Comments Concerning Government

Overruns Act — we will then no longer be the victims of the sordid

spectacle of more overruns coming from this group than ever came from

any other government at any time in B.C.'s history. You see, if they

don't do that, Mr. Speaker, we can only conclude that they are content

to live with their own hypocrisy or would prefer that the record had

been erased and no one could remember it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Get your hands out of your blue jeans.

MR. BARBER: Put yours back in yours. They're holding up your head and you know you want to fall asleep.

Mr.

Speaker, we do not hear the formerly esteemed member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) getting up and ranting in a completely — I

should be polite — irrational way about the awesome, sweeping powers

that his own colleague will want to have. He may argue that it is

because he knows his colleague would never abuse the powers, and

therefore he has confidence. But if he argues that, he thereby

disfranchises the whole notion of written law and not men providing the

governance in British Columbia. It is the law and not the man which is

debated. It is the law and not the individual which is upheld. It is

the law and not the intentions of the minister which the court must

examine. So even though the member for South Peace River may currently

like the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — even

though they were respectively Socred and Liberal at one time — the

point remains that we cannot judge this act on the basis of the

individual who administers it. It can only be judged on the basis of

the language which it contains. If the Socreds were sincere in 1973,

they should surely oppose their own bill today, because the language of

this bill creates powers far more awesome, far more numerous and far

less challengeable in the courts than ever the powers allegedly granted

under Bill 42. However, if the Socreds support this bill today, what

they will have done, for all time, is proven their own hypocrisy in

MR. STUPICH: Very briefly, I'd like to talk

about one phrase in the current legislation that seemed to attract so

much attention from the members of the opposition — the three

opposition parties in the days when Bill 42 was introduced and being

discussed. That was the phrase that gave the Land Commission the

authority to acquire land — exactly the same authority that is included

in exactly the same words in the legislation before us now.

The hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has just left the House. I can recall him — he was a member of the

[ Page 4005 ]

five-man

Liberal party at the time — speaking out very eloquently and at great

length about the powers that the government was taking unto itself when

it included in this legislation the authority to acquire land. I did my

best to reassure him, on the advice of legislative counsel, that giving

the authority to acquire land excluded the authority to expropriate.

Unless the words in there gave the Land Commission, the minister or

whatever the authority to expropriate, then indeed that authority was

not present in the legislation. But that kind of reassurance didn't

interest the then member of the Liberal Party, the current

Attorney-General. It didn't interest the then member of the

Conservative Party in the House, the present Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis). It didn't interest the hon. member for South Peace River,

now the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips). They weren't interested in logic or truth; they were

interested in practising what my colleague for Victoria calls hypocrisy

in government, although then it was hypocrisy in opposition.

They

knew the legislation did not include the authority to expropriate, yet

they talked in this House hour after hour. The hon. member for South

Peace River at that time is said to have talked for 14 hours. I thought

it was 44; it seemed like 44. But perhaps it was only 14. The hon.

member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) at that time even went so

far as to read The Little Red Hen

in order to stretch out the debate as long as possible, hoping that the

government would withdraw legislation that included in it less

authority than is now included in the bill before us. The then leader

of the Conservative Party in the House moved a want-of-confidence

motion in the Minister of Agriculture because of this legislation.

The

then leader of the Conservative Party, out of the House — he didn't

have a seat but he was the leader of the party — debated the

legislation with me at meetings in Vancouver, at UBC, and in the

Okanagan. and always dwelled on the awesome, sweeping powers in this

legislation that would give the government the power to expropriate his

lot in British Properties. He knew it didn't do that. The members in

the House who are still here who were here in those days knew that it

gave the government no such authority, but they weren't interested in

the truth of the legislation before them; they were interested in

making political capital out of the legislation that was before them.

That was all they were interested in.

The member for

Victoria talks about hypocrisy in government; then it was hypocrisy in

opposition. They had absolutely no concern for what the legislation was

trying to do, although they did say they believed in the principle of

preserving farmland, That was as far as they went in supporting the

legislation. They certainly didn't believe in the legislation. They

didn't believe in what the government was trying to do because they

offered no constructive suggestions, only obstructionism. They did it

in the Legislature to the greatest of their ability. They did it

outside of the Legislature. They organized marches on the Legislature

and a demonstration on the front lawns to try to defeat that

legislation. Now they're bringing in legislation that has more in the

way of awesome, sweeping powers than the legislation they were then so

violently opposed to. There doesn't seem to be any word that would be

appropriate other than hypocrisy in government. The people who were so

violently in opposition to the authority given to the Land Commission

in that particular legislation are now standing up and voting in favour

of legislation that is much worse from the point of view of taking

power out of the hands of the members of the Legislature and

concentrating that power in the hands of cabinet and the Minister of

Agriculture himself.

Mr. Speaker, time has certainly wrought

many changes. I can just imagine the opposition that those same

members, here still in the House, would be putting up today if this

kind of legislation were introduced by anyone other than themselves.

This legislation may well serve the farmers of the province, but I

can't imagine it serving the province's farmers well. It may well serve

them, but I can't imagine it serving them well as long as this

administration sits in office and the Minister of Agriculture

introducing this legislation is the one responsible for handling that

legislation.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I too would like

to read into the record, because I think it's very important for us to

know what these powers that the minister is giving unto himself in this

bill really mean. I think we should be grateful, actually, to the

government members for telling us and explaining to us what these

powers really mean. So for the benefit of the new members in the back

bench in particular, who have been strangely silent throughout this

entire session.... I think that they would certainly benefit from

hearing some of the words of the brilliant members of their own caucus.

One

of the gifted children that sit over there has got to be the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and I

think we should hear his

interpretation of what these powers really

mean. He says, and I am quoting from his speech on March 26, 1973, in

the Legislature, referring specifically to Bill 42 and the exact.... It

is not even the exact wording of the present legislation, because it

doesn't go as far. He said:

There isn't any

way that the public of British Columbia is going to stand behind a

government and its supporters when the kind of legislation which denies

the right of the little man is being brought into this House. And if

there's one thing that stands supreme government after government,

policy after policy, it's the rights of the little man. When a

government is so big and so confident and so arrogant that it forgets

that principle, the little man reminds that government at the next

election.

So be it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, was the minister going to close the debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. BARRETT:

Doesn't the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams)

wish to speak on this bill? Doesn't the member for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) or Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) wish

to speak on this? Will none of those voices which fought so vigorously

against lighter legislation brought in by a previous government now

stand up and fight this bill? Are we witnessing simple crass hypocrisy,

Mr. Speaker? Not this day.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, we are.

MR. BARRETT:

No! I thought that my colleagues were just tweaking noses — that there

would be a rush to the defence of the little man, which the former

opposition member, when he was a Liberal Party member, said would take

place. Surely not the car dealer from South Peace River, that great

freedom fighter who got on hotlines and attacked the

[ Page 4006 ]

vicious

socialism of my colleague for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — surely this day

is not going to see his courage fade. The member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem), interspersing his fights with sasquatches, came down to

give his voice, too, to the defence of freedom and the rights of

property owners. How about the silver-tongued orator from Saanich and

the Islands, who used to be a Tory and who would stand up and fight

against this kind of bill? Don't let cynicism overcome me, Mr. Speaker.

Please let these members get up and repeat their old speeches that they

gave against the hoary socialists at the gate who were going to take

property away by acquiring it.

Let's hear it from all the

gang over there. The whole force that brought them together in a

coalition was against this kind of legislation. Their purpose at unity

meetings throughout this province was to stop this phrase of "acquiring

land" by the state. Even when they were working in credit unions up in

Penticton as sober citizens in that community, this legislation, if

brought in by the NDP, would have scared the hair right out of their

heads.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No! I wondered what happened.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. They came down here to fight in the trenches, and

what are they doing? They're bringing in worse legislation. Thank

goodness the citizens of British Columbia are asleep this August day,

so they don't see the hypocrisy.

I remember walking down the

street after listening to their attacks on us, and citizens coming up

and talking about hotline shows. I remember one hotliner who said:

"Don't take the guns out to Victoria yet. Don't assault the socialists

yet."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he here in the Legislature?

MR. BARRETT:

No. Where is he now? He was here earlier in question period, talking

about public appeals where everybody is invited in, except those who

weren't notified.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I hope none of this

ever goes in the classroom, so little children in this province will

see the hypocrisy of Social Credit. I wouldn't want little children in

this province to read about this government attacking the line

"acquiring property" and then bringing in this bill themselves. Are you

a secret commie, Mr. Minister? Are you really a card-carrying

red-baiter who, now you're in power, ripped up your card and you're

acting worse than what you accused people of being in government? Mr.

Speaker, cynicism, hypocrisy....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or do you become what you hate?

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, that's really interesting. He sits next to the former mayor from

Surrey, who used to make speeches when he was a Liberal. He sought the

Liberal leadership, attacking the socialist attempt to grab land. He

believes in greater democracy than the rest of his colleagues. He wants

to give office spaces the right to vote, he believes so much in

property. Now you're going to have legislation that seizes office

spaces, and somebody else is going to vote for that land that's been

seized under this bill. Aren't you going to defend that?

There's

the other fellow from Langley sitting over there, holding up the books

and the benches. Those fuming, fiery speeches he used to give on....

Oh, Mr. Speaker, his morality was unimpeachable.

They used

to get up here, and they made Richard Nixon look like a piker. They

made Joe McCarthy look like an amateur, on this kind of legislation.

Joe McCarthy would only ruin careers, but these guys would ruin

everything now that they're in power.

Mr. Speaker, is there anything in Beauchesne, in May or in Standing Orders

that's against hypocrisy? There are rules against everything else. I

read all through May, and there's nothing against hypocrisy. I went all

the way through Beauchesne, and there's nothing against hypocrisy. The

only rule is against using the word: you can't call an individual a

hypocrite. But it's not necessary in this case; the whole group — as a

group psychosis — are hypocrites. All hypocrites — the whole works of

them; every one a hypocrite. You remember Huey Long, when he ran the

state of Louisiana and he had that song, "Everyone a King"? We're going

to paraphrase it in British Columbia: "Everyone a hypocrite in Social

Credit domain; everyone a hypocrite as long as in power we remain." Do

anything, say anything; a little fib here, a little exaggeration there;

rip up party cards; change principles as you walk across the floor.

The

one guy who's got a little bit of conscience left, who has yet to

praise the Premier publicly, took off in the middle of this debate as

soon as the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) read his excerpts

from Hansard . The rest of you guys are so jaded it doesn't

matter. But the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr.

Williams), still struggling with 50 additional copies of the latest

editorial in the Vancouver Sun ,

trying to figure out whether it kicked him or praised him, drifted out

of the chamber as my friend from Victoria was reading his old speech

back. After all, a West Vancouver lawyer doesn't like to be reminded of

what he said a week ago. It's only politics, Mr. Speaker. After all,

what's politics? It's just a big funny game. You say anything and do

anything to come to power; once you have power you grab the same things

that you attacked, and you do it worse.

I'm too old now to

regain any of the purity I once had as an adolescent. I'm too old and

over the hill now as I reach my fiftieth year to think that there's any

purity left in the world. But, lo, that there be some citizens in this

province who actually believe this group in government as a group that

tells the truth! Let us protect those citizens; let us expunge from the

record what is happening here today; let us not expose our citizens to

this level of hypocrisy. I don't want our children to think there's no

hope except by crossing floors, ripping up cards and parties, joining

any group and saying anything to get power. Surely cynicism doesn't go

that far, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Come

back, Allan, wherever you are, and give us that speech against this

bill. Garde, do you hear me? Turn up the volume on your set. I'm

calling you back here today to defend the right. Would that minister

come in from outer space on his dish — the other member from

Vancouver–Point Grey — to give us his speech to defend the little

people? Let a 50-year-old man have heart and understand that hypocrisy

is only a game. Please give me something to go home with today and feel

a little bit better. Or were you all fibbing, and lying, and doing

anything just to get elected?

[ Page 4007 ]

MR. HOWARD: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Frank. Do you believe that, Frank?

MR. HOWARD: I do.

MR. BARRETT:

Oh! There is no hope left, Mr. Speaker. It is a government of

hypocrites. Tch! Tch! Tch! If I could use the word "phonies," Mr.

Speaker, I'd use that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just

wanted to take the opportunity to respond to a fairly good act on the

opposition side of the House, and maybe by the time I'm through some of

them on the other side will be rather quiet.

This is the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act — a positive move in the 1980s to

give better identity to the agriculture and food industries in this

province. I would have thought that the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who sat long

hours on the standing committee for agriculture, Mr. Speaker — along

with yourself.... We worked long, hard hours; we travelled around the

province. One of the recommendations that came out of that study was

that the Ministry of Agriculture should be more involved in the entire

food chain. I do recall that the recommendation was that we should look

to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that is what we've

attempted to do.

I just wanted to point out that the

opposition has zeroed in on one specific area, to which I will respond;

but I wanted to make the House aware of the importance of the other

sections of the act and the reasons for them, and the fact that we were

responding to a great deal of work that was done in the past with

regard to modernizing this ministry.

Mr. Speaker, they have attacked the words "acquire land."

MR. BARRETT: No, we were just reading your own words back.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, Mr. Member, I guess we all look back in history and can come up

with some pretty quotable quotes. I wasn't here at the time...

MR. BARRETT: Well, now you are.

HON. MR. HEWITT: ...but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They're picking on me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Naw, we wouldn't do that.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I want to tell you that the small opposition — the Social Credit

opposition, the Liberal opposition and the Conservative opposition —

that was against that large majority party when they were in government

fought tooth and nail to ensure that amendments were made to the Land

Commission Act. They know over there that they had to make amendments

because of the strong, hard fight that that small opposition made

against them, Mr. Speaker. They know that their act, as it was

originally written, gave control of the people on the land and not just

the land. They had zoning in that act. They were going to control what

was going to be done. They were after the people; they weren't after

the preservation of farmland. It was socialism all the way down the

line, and they all know that, Mr. Speaker. Greenbelts.

MR. BARRETT: What about this bill?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I just want to talk about the acquisition or.... I think the bill

actually reads: "For purposes relating" — relating, Mr. Speaker — "to

agriculture and food, the minister may acquire, administer, dispose of,

operate on, and make improvements to land."

MR. BARRETT: Same section?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Same section. Well, if there was a real concern.... Let me quote you

the Agricultural Land Commission Act as it is today: "For these objects

the commission has power by itself or in cooperation with Canada, any

of its agencies or corporations, a ministry of the province" — and bear

in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Agricultural Land Commission reports to

me as the Minister of Agriculture — "a municipality or regional

district, to acquire or dispose of land." Itos in there, Mr. Speaker;

it's in the act at the present time.

MR. BARRETT: That's what you were opposed to. Now you've got it. Ding! Ding!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Agriculture....

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not confused. The point that is being made here is

the fact that the act of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the

broad ministry act. The Agricultural Land Commission Act does give the

power to acquire and dispose of land, by itself or in cooperation or

conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr.

Speaker, so that the members over there aren't panicked too much, let

me just relate what a number of ministry acts state. I will quote from

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act: ''To carry

out his duties, functions and power relating to energy" — you will

recall that my act relates to agriculture and food — "the minister may

acquire and dispose of property." The Ministry of Forests Act gives the

minister the power to acquire property: "To carry out his duties,

powers and functions the minister may, on behalf of the Crown...acquire

land." The Ministry of Lands. Parks and Housing Act states: "For the

purposes of this act the minister may acquire land." The Ministry of

Transportation and Highways Act states that to carry out his duties,

powers and functions, the minister may acquire and dispose of land.

Some

of the members talked about expropriation and whether this "acquire''

means expropriation. I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) mentioned this. In regard to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). he has the right to acquire land: in

that particular act, for the purposes of highways in this

[ Page 4008 ]

province,

the Minister of Transportation and Highways has the explicit power to

expropriate. I point out, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of some of those

members across the way that there is a difference in regard to

expropriation and the acquisition of land.

Mr. Speaker, I

know I am taking the time of the House, and I know the opposition has

had good fun with this. I think it is good for the record.... I'm sure

some people do read Hansard and I'd like to make sure that the story is told correctly, and not on a politically experienced basis.

regard to our Agricultural Produce Grading Act, there are reasons for

section 5(2), which deals with the acquisition of products and the

leasing of buildings, and the member of Cowichan-Malahat is fully aware

of the reasons for these things. We can assist in an economic

emergency. We have done so in the past; I can give you two instances.

In the grape industry we had a problem a number of years ago, and

through the Grape Marketing Board we provided funds or a guarantee, and

they purchased the product. It meant that instead of having the grapes

fall off the vines because they didn't have a market to go to, we were

able to crush those grapes and hold the concentrate. Instead of doing

it by the back door we are giving the Ministry of Agriculture and Food

the ability to step in in an emergency situation to acquire

agricultural products that may well not have a home. The recent turkey

processing situation at Maplewood is an indication of how we can be of

assistance in an emergency situation.

I think the statement

was made that this act would spell the end of the family farm. Mr.

Speaker, this act is to assist the development of agriculture in this

province, not just at the primary level but at the food level.

I mentioned before, the Agricultural Land Commission gives the ability

to acquire land. The commission reports to the Ministry of Agriculture

and, in conjunction with the ministry, can acquire land. That is the

reason why we have to have that ability under our ministry's act.

saw the righteous first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) stand up and

go through one of his speeches — I guess he picks up all the research

material from the member for Cowichan-Malahat — and talk about

hypocrisy. The Leader of the Opposition does the same thing.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, could you bring this unruly House to order? I listened to

them; I'd like them to listen to me. It's as simple as that.

MR. LEA: But you're not saying enough.

MR. HOWARD: Jim, you're trying to put us to sleep.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm trying to exhaust you with reason. I know that's very difficult over there for you people.

MR. LEA: You haven't got any.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Minister of Agriculture does have the floor, and we should afford him every courtesy.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the point I wish to make is that this bill attempts to

assist the agricultural community. If we wished to look at a

demonstration agricultural centre, in conjunction with the Land

Commission or by ourselves at the Ministry of Agriculture, we wouldn't

have the power in the act to do just that. That's one of the things I

look to in the future. If we are going to progress in this province

with regard to the production of food, then I want to be number one in

this country in research and development and demonstration projects,

not number two or number ten. This act gives us the ability to do just

that. It says "acquisition of land," no different than many other acts.

It doesn't say "expropriation of land," and the members opposite know

it. I guess a little humour has been expressed by the opposition today.

With those comments, I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I must caution all hon. members that this is the Legislative Assembly

of the province of